Loading...
09-20-12 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 20, 2012 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, September 20, 2Q12 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Vice Chair Boudreau-Landis called the meeting to order at 7:10 pm. Those present were Members, Boudreau-Landis, Maxwell, Johnson, and Planning Commission Representatives McCarty and Segelbaum. Also present were City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Chair Nelson was absent. I. Approval of Minutes —August 28, 2012 Regular Meeting MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Maxwell and motion carried unanimously to approve the August 28, 2012 minutes as submitted. II. The Petition(s) are: 1410 Tyrol Trail TimberCraft Remodelinq, Applicant (12-09-15) Request: Waiver from Section 11.21 Single Family Zoning District (R-1), Subd. 11(A)(3)(b) Side Yard Setback Requirements • 5.4 ft. off of the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 7.1 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (west) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a second story addition Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and discussed the location of the house on the property and how the property slopes toward to the street. He explained the applicanYs request to build a second story addition 7.1 feet away from the side yard (west) property line. He added that he received a letter from the neighbor to the west expressing concerns about the applicant's proposed addition. McCarty asked why the west side of this property is considered to be a side yard. He also asked if the existing house is non-conforming. Hogeboom explained that in the case of corner lots, property lines along a street are considered to be front yards and the narrowest front is used to determine the side and rear yard setbacks. He explained that the existing house is considered to be conforming because it was built prior to 1982. Segelbaum asked when the house was built. Hogeboom said 1937. Boudreau-Landis asked if the side yard setback is required to increase in this case due to the height of the structure. Hogeboom said the side yard setback is not increased Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 20, 2012 Page 2 because the height of the home will not exceed 15 feet. McCarty stated that it looks like the height will exceed 15 feet. Hogeboom explained that side yard setback increases are determined by the farade of the house along the property line in question, not the height of the front of the house. Segelbaum asked what the setback requirement wauld be if the west property line was considered to be a rear yard property line. Hogeboom said the rear yard setback would be 20% of the lot depth or approximately 19 to 20 feet in this case. Segelbaum questioned if the applicant would still require a variance if they weren't proposing to extend the house closer to the west property line and just built the addition on the same footprint as the existing house. Hogeboom said yes because the existing home is located in the setback area. Johnson referred to the neighbor's concern about his property being shaded and asked if there is anything in the Zoning Code addressing shade issues. Hogeboom said there is not anything specifically related to shade issues but there are requirements regarding the height of structures. Segelbaum asked why a rear yard variance isn't required. Hogeboom explained that the existing house is considered conforming because it was built prior to 1982. The rear yard setback for structures built prior to 1982 is 10 feet and this house is located 12.8 feet away from the rear yard property line. Johnson noted that the application states that they are proposing to build a "partial" second story addition and asked if the word "partial" is defined in the Zoning Code. Hogeboom said there is not a definition of the word "partial" in the Zoning Code. Peter Murlowski, TimberCraft Remodeling, Applicant, showed the Board the floor plan of the proposed new addition. He noted that the section of proposed addition that extends further into the side yard setback area is a deck, not living space. The actual living space of the proposed second story is on top of the existing foundation. He stated that the existing house does not suit the homeowners' needs and is very outdated. He referred to the neighbor's concerns about privacy, shading and his view changing. He explained that most of the glass on the west side of the proposed addition will be glass block so the neighbor's privacy shouldn't be an issue, the issue of shading is ambiguous and he doesn't feel that the proposed addition will block any site lines that the neighbor currently has. He stated that building up is really the homeowners only option because it is a tricky site with the way the property is shaped and the way the house is situated on the lot. He added that he feels the proposed addition will improve the value and aesthetics of this home and of the neighborhood. Johnson agreed that there are a lot of trees on the neighbor's property now, so he doesn't know if the shading will change that much. Johnson said he isn't sure if the neighbor's concern about privacy means they are concerned about people looking in at them or if they are concerned that they will not be Minutes of the Golden Valiey Board of Zoning Appeals September 20, 2012 Page 3 able to look out of their windows. He asked the applicant if there is anything he can do to make the west wall of the proposed addition not seem like such a large wall of siding that the neighbors would be looking at. Murlowski said if they were to build a conforming addition and weren't requesting variances the addition would affect the neighbors in the same way. McCarty asked if the house is currently one story. Murlowski said yes. The house is a rambler with a tuck-under garage. Segelbaum asked the homeowners if they had talked with the surrounding neighbors. Aaron Spiegel, homeowner, said he tried to talk with the neighbor to the west on three occasions and there was not much of a response. Segelbaum asked if the neighbors know what the homeowners are planning. Spiegel stated that the advertising for the property said the house would be a great remodel. Murlowski showed the Board some photos and explained why he feels the neighbor's site lines won't be blocked. He also showed some photos of the existing house and the area they are proposing to expand. Segelbaum asked the applicant if he has considered expanding other areas of the house that don't encroach into the setback areas or that don't expand the existing footprint of the house. Murlowski said they could reconsider building the addition straight up on the existing foundation without constructing the balcony further into the setback area. He added that it is conceivable to design an addition that wouldn't require variances but they would have to totally re-design all of the existing rooms and aesthetically, it wouldn't look as good. Johnson asked how far back the addition would need to be built if it were to meet the setback requirements. Murlowski said the addition would have to move approximately 7 feet back in order to meet the setback requirements. McCarty noted that there is a lot of room in the front yard to build an addition without the need for variances. John Emms, Homeowner, referred to the survey of the property and noted how there would be variance issues on other areas of the house as well. Johnson asked if there are structural issues with the existing roof. Murlowski said there are several different roof lines at different heights. He noted that they are proposing to build the addition where the roof lines are the same. He reiterated that what they are proposing makes the most sense for the layout of the house and makes the most sense aesthetically and economically. He stated that he is fairly sure that any design they come up with will require a variance or will end up looking really weird. Boudreau-Landis asked if the height of the house would be 22 feet at the front or back. Murlowski said it depends on the grade and noted that the grade slopes away. Maxwell explained that the Board has to consider what is unique about the property. He stated that the applicant has said the layout is unique and asked the applicant if there is Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 20, 2012 Page 4 anything else unique about the property. Murlowski reiterated that the layout of the house is very antiquated. He stated that the value of the lot dictates the standards of the house and he feel the property is really under-developed so they want to conform to the standards of the rest of the neighborhood. McCarty said he would have difficulty making a non-conforming use worse. Murlowski said he feels the Board needs to weigh the end result. Emms asked if eliminating the proposed deck would help the Board with their decision. McCarty said he would be more inclined to support the proposed addition without the deck but he still feels that there are other opportunities for a different design that wouldn't need variances. Maxwell noted that there is a large tree in the front yard and asked if that would have to be removed if they built toward the front of the house. McCarty said he didn't think the tree would be an issue. Spiegel said they would consider removing the deck from the plans. He added that they didn't want to do an addition on the front of the house because it would be three stories , high in the front if they did that which would look very monolithic and very tall. Boudreau-Landis opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to speak, Boudreau-Landis closed the public hearing. Boudreau-Landis agreed that there are opportunities to build an addition toward the front of the lot without further impacting the west side yard setback. Segelbaum said he thinks the proposal is reasonable and a great enhancement, but the Board has to consider the impact to the neighbor and the neighborhood. He said he is not sure the proposed addition would impact the neighbor's shadows and light, but he can't justify allowing the addition to go closer to the west property line than the existing house it already does. He said he would be more supportive of the proposal if it didn't include the deck further encroaching into the setback or if the corner of the proposed addition were cut-off or built at an angle in order to meet the setback requirements. He said he thinks the neighbor to the west might have the same concerns, but at least the addition would be constructed without any variances. Murlowski said cutting the corner at an angle in order to meet the setback requirements would not look as aesthetically nice as what they are proposing and that it seems silly to make something look bad just to meet the requirements of the Zoning Code. Maxwell said he would be supportive of the proposed addition if it stays within the existing footprint of the house and does not go any closer to the west property line. He said there are other houses in the area that are similar in character to what the applicants are proposing. He said he thinks the applicant's options are limited. He agreed that they could build something in the front yard that meets the requirements of Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 20, 2012 Page 5 the Zoning Code but it could end up looking worse. He added that he feels the property is unique and that the current homeowners did nothing to cause the difficulties. Johnson agreed that making the existing encroachment worse is not ideal, but he would also be in support of allowing the proposed addition to go straight up without increasing the footprint of the existing home. He reiterated that the front yard has quite a slope which could cause difficulties with any type of addition in the front yard. McCarty reiterated that he likes the proposed design but he thinks there are plenty of other ways to make an addition work in another location. Boudreau-Landis said he is hearing some support from the Board for allowing the proposed addition as long as it stays within the same footprint as the existing house but he agrees there are lots of other options that don't require variances. MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Maxwell and motion carried 3 to 2 to approve a variance for 3 ft. off of the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 9.5 ft. at its closest point to the west side yard property line to allow for the construction of a second story addition. Members Boudreau-Landis and McCarty voted no. III. Other Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:39 pm. �r, ,�� � _._...__...:�--� ason Boudrea -Landis, Vice Chair Joseph S. geboom, Staff Liaison