Loading...
08-28-12 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 28, 2012 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, August 28, 2012 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Nelson called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Members, Boudreau-Landis, Maxwell, Nelson, and Planning Commission Representatives McCarty and Kluchka. Also present were City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes — July 24, 2012 Reguiar Meeting MOVED by Boudreau-Landis, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to approve the July 24, 2012 minutes as submitted. Kluchka abstained from voting. IL The Petitions are: 1030 Tyrol Trail Pat and Douq SpauldinuL Applicants (12-08-11) Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1), Subd. 11(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements • 3.1 ft. off the required 18 ft. to a distance of 14.9 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (west) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction af a second story additian. Hogeboom reviewed the applicant's request to construct a second story master suite addition. He stated that the proposed addition would be located 14.9 feet away from the side yard (west) property line. He explained that based on the width of the lot and the proposed height of the home, the side yard setback in this case is 18 feet. McCarty and Nelson questioned why the side yard setback is 18 feet rather than 15 feet. Hogeboom explained that as the height of a structure increases the side yard setback also increases. Ed Near, Lake Country Builders, representing the applicants, stated that the existing home is currently in a conforming location and is located 16.4 feet away from the west side property line. He stated that they designed the second story addition off to the side of the house in order to minimize the impact and to not change the look of the front of the home. He added that most of the homes in the neighborhood are two-story homes and noted that the applicants grew up in this neighborhood and have been in this home since 1970 so they would like to improve their home and stay in the neighborhood. Nelson asked Mr. Near if they tried to design an addition that would meet the setback requirements. Brian Falk, Brick House Architects, representing the applicant, explained Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 28, 2012 Page 2 that they couldn't get the appropriate size rooms if they met the requirements. He added that the plans they are proposing alfows the master suite to be larger than the other bedrooms. Boudreau-Landis referred to the survey and noted that the house isn't parallel with the side yard property line so the back corner of the house is further away from that property line. Mr. Falk agreed and said the back corner of the house is approximately 17 feet from the west property line. Mr. Near added that the neighboring house to the west is heavily screened with trees so the addition would be almost invisible to that neighbor. Nelson opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing ta comment, Nelson closed the public hearing. Nelson referred to the standards that the Board uses when reviewing variance requests. She stated that she believes the proposal is in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, it is a reasonable request, and it is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. However, she is not sure how the variance is due to the unique circumstances of the property. Pat Spaulding, Applicant, stated that the house was built in 1939 and the only way to make this home comparable to other homes in the area is to build "up" because they can't add on to the house anyplace else. Doug Spaulding, Applicant added that the houses around their home are taller than what they are proposing. Maxwell questioned if the proposed lot is not as wide as others in the area, or if the house is positioned oddly on the lot. Mr. Spaulding stated that they added a two-car garage on the opposite side of the house in the 1980s so they are limited on the east side of the property. Kluchka stated that the intent of increasing the side yard setback as the height of the structure increases was to reduce vertical massing. He said this proposal does the opposite of that and questioned if there may be more creative ways ta improve the home without needing a variance. McCarty agreed. He asked if the addition were to follow the same plane of the existing house if the applicants would still need a variance. Hogeboom said yes, they would still need a variance because of the height of the proposed addition. McCarty said he understands the need for a master bedroom suite, but he doesn't know if it is really a hardship. He said he would be more comfortable with the proposal if the addition followed the same plane as the existing house. Kluchka said he would like to better understand other configurations that were considered such as building the proposed master suite over the existing garage. Mr. Spaulding explained that there are bedrooms on the east side of the house and if they built the master suite on that side, they would have to walk through two bedrooms to get Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 28, 2012 Page 3 to the master suite. He stated that if they took two feet away from the proposed master bedroom, which would keep it on the same plane of the existing home, in his mind it would not be a master bedroom and a king-size bed would not fit in the space. Hogeboom said that he has talked with the applicant's representatives several times regarding various options. He referred to the plans and noted that if the applicants were proposing a hip roof, the measurement would be taken from the bottom of the eave, not to the average height of the highest gable as is done for a pitched roof. He explained that if the applicants were proposing a hip roof they wouldn't need a variance, but in this case a hip roof doesn't work. Nelson asked about the size of the proposed new master suite. Mr. Near said the proposed new master suite measures 16 x 14 feet and added that there are no other hip roofs on the house. Maxwell noted that if the applicants built an addition that meets the requirements if would look out of place. Mr. Falk agreed and stated that there would be more usable space with a gable roof. Boudreau-Landis asked Nelson to comment of the size of the proposed master suite. Nelson said a 16 x 14 master suite is generous, but not excessive. She added that she feels better about granting the proposed variance since they discussed the various roof types. Boudreau-Landis asked the applicants if they could build an addition onto the rear of the home instead. Mr. Spaulding reiterated that there is a line of trees that would screen the addition from the property to the west. He added that there is also an 80 year old sycamore tree that they are trying to avoid. Kluchka said he thinks that tree is a unique characteristic of the property. McCarty said trees are not a factor in the Board's decision. Mrs. Spaulding said she assumes the intent of the ordinance is to protect neighbors from having to look at a big wall. She noted that the neighboring property's house will still be 8 feet taller than theirs after the proposed addition is built. Kluchka stated given that the neighboring house is taller and that the applicants are trying to avoid an existing tree, he feels comfortable with the proposed variance. Nelson agreed and reiterated that the applicants could have done the proposed addition without a variance but there would have been a much more imposing roof. McCarty said he doesn't see a hardship with this variance request and he feels with creative designing something different could be done. He reiterated that he could support this request if the addition followed the same plane as the existing house. Maxwell agreed that what the Zoning Code would allow the applicant's to build would be less attractive. He added that he feels there are unique factors with this property such as the size and the 1939 configuration of the home. Kluchka stated that the "pros" to him are that the tree preservation and design works with the neighborhood, the slope between the applicant's property and the property to Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 28, 2012 Page 4 west mitigates the massing issue and they are not proposing to tear the existing home down and rebuild which could be worse. He said the "cons" are that he doesn't see a clear hardship and he feels there may be more creative ways to get the addition they want. Boudreau-Landis agreed that he doesn't see a clear hardship and noted that it is really just a small portion of the roof that is requiring the variance. Nelson reminded the Board that they need to find "unique circumstances" and not "hardships." McCarty stated that much of the discussion has been focused on the fact that the house next door won't be able to see the proposed addition because of the trees that would screen it from view, however, if those trees were ever removed this proposed addition would seem massive to the neighboring property. Nelson stated that she is considering the impact of this proposed addition on the surrounding homes and she doesn't feel the proposed addition would impact the neighboring properties or change the character of the neighborhood. She added that if the applicants were proposing a larger addition she may feel differently. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Boudreau-Landis and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve the variance request for 3.1 ft. off the required 18 ft. to a distance of 14.9 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (west) property line to allow for the construction of a second story addition. McCarty voted no. 331 Burntside Drive Tim Clarkson, Applicant (12-08-12) Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1), Subd. 12(A)(1) Accessory Structure Location Requirements • The proposed shed would not be located completely to the rear of the principal structure as required. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a shed. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1), Subd. 12(A)(4) Separation Between Structures Requirements • 10 ft. off the required 10 ft. to a distance of 0 ft. between the proposed shed and the existing garage. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a shed. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 28, 2012 Page 5 Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and explained the applicant's request to construct a detached shed right next to the garage. He stated that the Zoning Code requires detached accessory structures to be located completely to the rear of the principal structure and that there be 10 feet of separation between the two structures. He noted that if the proposal were for a garage addition the applicant would still require a variance of approximately 4 feet. Maxwell asked if other options were considered. Hogeboom said he doesn't know what other options were considered. Maxwell referred to the photos submitted with the application and said it looks like the proposed shed is a "bump out" addition on the existing garage. Hogeboom said that the Building Official is considering the structures to be two separate structures because they are not attached. Tim Clarkson, Applicant, stated that he has two cars and that the garage doesn't have enough room to store his kid's bikes. He explained that the back yard slopes too much and it wouldn't be practical for the kids to bring their bikes to the back yard to store them. He added that the proposed shed will be unobtrusive and difficult to see, but will add functionality to the garage. Michael Rice, representing the applicant, stated that the proposed shed is a utility shed with no access to the inside of the garage. Nelson asked if the proposed shed would be attached to the existing garage. Rice said he wasn't planning on attaching the shed to the garage but that he could. Nelson asked about the size of the proposed shed. Rice said it would be approximately 5 by 15 feet in size. He added that the siding would match the garage and they would prefer that the shed be a free standing structure. McCarty asked if there would be footings built underneath the shed. Rice said no, it would be slab-on-grade construction. He added that the shed would also be screened by an existing fence. Kluchka asked Rice to explain why the shed couldn't be built in the backyard. Rice stated that the topography of the lot would make it difficult to get a snow blower out of the shed and it would be a lot further away from the driveway. He added that there are also topography issues on the other side of the house as well and noted that the proposed location of the shed is currently unusable space. Clarkson added that there are also massive trees in the backyard. Kluchka asked if there is usable space underneath the existing deck. Clarkson said the deck is too low. Rice stated that the yard is steep in that area also and is not suitable for building anything. Nelson asked if the existing garage is smaller than an average two-car garage. Clarkson said he believes it is smaller than an average two-car garage. Boudreau-Landis asked if the house had the same garage when the applicant bought it. Clarkson said yes, it is the same garage as when he purchased the house. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 28, 2012 Page 6 Nelson opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Nelson closed the public hearing. Boudreau-Landis said he is familiar with this situation because he has a one-stall garage and also has to store bicycles in a shed. However, it seems like there are other alternatives in this case. Kluchka said he also has a similar situatian and agreed that the applicant has other options. McCarty said he is struggling with this proposal and he would feel more comfortable considering a variance if they were proposing a garage addition. Maxwell agreed that he is not comfortable allowing a shed to be located right next to a garage. Nelson also agreed. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Maxwell and motion carried unanimously to deny the applicant's variance request. 4520 Glenwood Avenue Tvler Wenkus, Applicant (12-08-13) Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1), Subd. 11(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements • 0.5 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 14.5 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (east) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a house and garage addition. Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and explained the applicants request to build a house and garage addition. He noted that the existing house is located 14.5 feet (instead of the required 15 feet) away from the east side yard property line. Nelson asked if the additions would follow the same plane as the existing house. Hogeboom said yes. Tyler Wenkus, Applicant, stated that the home was built in 1950. He explained that he is proposing to build a garage addition on the front of the house and a kitchen, mudroom and garage addition on the back of the house. Nelson opened the public hearing. John Kuhl, 1 Westwood Drive North, said he is 100% supportive of the applicant's request. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Nelson closed the public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 28, 2012 Page 7 Nelson said she is supportive of this request and feels the proposal is harmony and consistent with the City's ordinances, the essential character of the neighborhood is not being impacted and the unique circumstance is the location of the existing house. Boudreau-Landis agreed and said he doesn't see another way to expand the garage. Maxwel! also agreed. McCarty said it would typically be hard for him to justify a variance for someone who already has a two-car garage but he is ok with the request in this case because the additions will be along the same plane as the existing house. MOVED by Boudreau-Landis, seconded by Maxwell and motion carried unanimously to approve the request for 0.5 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 14.5 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (east) property line to allow for the construction of a house and garage addition. 1319 Tyrol Trail Michael and Sandv Saiatovic, Applicants (12-08-14� Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1), Subd. 11(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements • 8.1 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 6.9 feet at its closest point to the east side yard property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage addition with living space above. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1), Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements • 15,5 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 19.5 feet at its closest point to the west front yard property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a house addition. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1), Subd. 11(A)(1) FrontYard Setback Requirements • 12 feet off the required 30 feet to a distance of 18 feet at its closest point to the west front yard property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a deck addition. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 28, 2012 Page 8 Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1), Subd. 11(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements • 1.3 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 13.7 feet at its closest point to the south side yard property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a house addition. Hageboom explained the applicants' proposal to construct a house, garage and deck additian. He referred to a survey of the property and stated that the proposed additions will require variances from side yard and front yard setback requirements. Maxwell asked if the entire property along the curve af Tyrol Trail is considered to be front yard. Hogeboom said yes. Nelson noted that in this particular neighborhood there are a lot houses ciose to the street. Nelson opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to comment, Nelson closed the public hearing. Michael Sajatovic, Applicant, stated that the garage has structural cracking. He showed the Board photos of his property and explained that they have to come forward with the garage because of the way the house was constructed. Kluchka asked Mr. Sajatovic if he is doing a whole-house remodel. Mr. Sajatovic said no, just the garage and bedroom addition with a deck. Nelson asked the applicants how long they have lived in this house. Mr. Sajatovic said 11 years. He noted that the entire front yard is a steep slope. He explained his proposed additions and said he thinks they are consistent with the neighborhood and the hardship is the shape of the lot and the location of the existing house on the property. He added that they can't fit two cars in their current garage and that they they've spoken with the neighbor's and they are all supportive. Kluchka suggested discussing and voting on the variance requests separately. Maxwell said he is in favor of granting a variance for the proposed garage addition because having a one-stall garage is difficult, the situation is not a result of the current homeowner and the proposal won't alter the essential character af the neighborhood. Kluchka asked the Board what they would think about having living space above the garage. Nelson said she would rather there be living space above the garage than a flat garage that sticks out in front of the house. McCarty said he truly sees a benefit for approving this variance request because it will make the garage architecturally and functionally better. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 28, 2012 Page 9 MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request for 8.1 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 6.9 feet at its closest point to the east side yard property line to allow for the construction of a garage addition with living space above. Maxwell said he is also supportive of the variance requests regarding the house addition because the house sits oddly on the lot and there is no side yard because of the shape of the lot. Nelson agreed that there is no side yard and a lot of front yard. Boudreau-Landis added that "building up" isn't really an option in this case. Kluchka referred to the survey and questioned if the proposed new addition could be located 14 feet from the south property line along the same plane as the existing house rather than 13.7 feet as proposed. McCarty agreed and said he would be more comfortable have the proposed bedroom addition a little further away from the south property line. He added that if the proposed deck is less than 8 inches off the ground the applicants wouldn't need a variance for that part of their propasal. Mr. Sajatovic said he would have no problem with building the deck less than 8 inches off the ground. Boudreau-Landis noted that a previous item on this same agenda dealt with a 16' x 13' master bedroom addition and that this proposed bedroom addition is larger at 17' x 13'. McCarty said he thinks the proposed bedroom addition could be scaled back. The Board discussed various options for the size of the proposed addition. Maxwell stated that without the deck, he his supportive of the variance request because this property has a huge front yard and no side yard. Nelson agreed and stated that it meets all the required criteria: it is in harmony with the City's ordinances, it is a reasonable request and the property is very unique. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variance requests: • 15.5 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 19.5 feet at its closest point to the west front yard property line to allow for the construction of a house addition. • 1.3 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 13.7 feet at its closest point to the south side yard property line to allow for the construction of a house addition. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Boudreau-Landis and motion carried unanimously to deny the variance request for 12 feet of the required 30 feet to a distance of 18 feet at its closest point to the west front yard property line for the construction of a deck addition. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 28, 2012 Page 10 III. Other Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:03 pm. � �------�' -�.. . � `"► �„� . �.... Nancy J. Nelson, Chair Jo ep � : Hogeboom, Staff Liaison