Loading...
01-22-13 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 22, 2013 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, January 22, 2013 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, Johnson, Maxwell, Nelson and Planning Commission Representative McCarty. Also present were City Planner Joe Hogeboom, Director of Public Works Jeannine Clancy, WSB Consultant Jupe Hale and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes — December 19, 2012 Regular Meeting Boudreau-Landis referred to the first paragraph on page five and stated that the word "if" should be changed to the word "it" in the first sentence. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Boudreau-Landis and motion carried unanimousiy to approve the December 19, 2012 minutes with the above noted correction. II. The Petition(s) are: 309 Turnpike Road Dmitri Rebrov, Applicant �13-01-01) Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning Qistrict (R-1), Subd. 11(A)(3)(b) Side Yard Setback Requirements • City Code requires an increase in side yard setback area for houses over 15 feet in height. The applicant is asking for a variance from this requirement. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1), Subd. 11(A)(3)(d) Articulation Requirements • City Code requires any wall longer than 32 feet in length to be articulated. The applicant is asking for a variance from this requirement. Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and noted the location of the existing house and the proposed location of the new house. He stated that architectural drawings are not required as part of the variance application process but his understanding is that the applicant has drawings available to show to the Board. Nelson asked about the dimensions of the proposed new house. McCarty noted that the dimensions of the existing house are 38.9 feet by 50 feet. Nelson noted that the existing home meets the side yard setback requirements. Hogeboom explained that houses over 15 feet in height require an increased side yard setback. He added that the front of the house can be 28 feet in height. a Minutes of the Golden Valiey Board of Zoning Appeals January 22, 2013 Page 2 Dmitri Rebrov, applicant, stated that the height of the side walls will be 21 feet. He noted that the proposed house would meet the side yard setback requirements on the north side however he would like the south side of the home to be located 12.5 feet away from the property line instead of the required 15.5 feet. He also noted that the front and the back walls of the proposed house would meet the articulation requirements but the side walls would not. He showed the board illustrations of the proposed house and said he could break up the look of the walls visually, but he feels the lot is too narrow to articulate the side walls. Nelson asked about the length of the walls. Rebrov stated that the side walls are 54 feet in length and the front and back walls are 48 feet in length. He stated that he had a design that included articulated walls however the articulated portions were too close to the side yard property lines so he would have then needed to request variances from the side yard setback requirements. He added that the south wall of the proposed new house would be in the same location as the existing house. Boudreau-Landis referred to the proposed balcony and asked if that would be considered articulation. Hogeboom said no, the entire wall needs to articulate. Maxwell said he is not sure what is unique about the property that would require the requested variances. Rebrov said the size of the property is unique and he feels he needs this size of home for his family. McCarty said the property seems to be a fairly standard size. He asked Rebrov if he had any floor plans he could show to the Board. Johnson asked why the application states that they are also requesting a variance for the size of the garage but the staff report and agenda do not. Hogeboom stated that the original plans for the house indicated a larger garage that would have needed a variance. The applicant has since revised his plans sa a variance regarding the size of the garage is no longer needed. McCarty said he is concerned about the Board not having plans to review and said it is difficult to approve a variance request without plans or elevations, all they have to make their decision in this case is a box drawn on a survey. Nelson asked the applicant about the timeline for his project. Rebrov said he would like to start construction in May. , Johnson asked for clarification regarding the section of the application where it states that the location of the proposed new house would not have a negative impact on the property to the south in regard to sunshine and privacy. Rebrov stated that the proposed new house would not block any more sun than the existing house currently does. Johnson said he's concerned about impinging on the neighbor's privacy. McCarty said he is not sure if the Board can address privacy concerns. Hogeboom stated that the impact to the surrounding area is something the Board can consider. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 22, 2013 Page 3 Johnson asked the applicant if he had any alternative plans that the Board could look at. McCarty asked the applicant to explain why other options didn't work on this property. Rebrov stated that the house in alternate plans was too big and just didn't fit the lot nicely. Nelson opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Nelson closed the public hearing. Nelson said she doesn't feel like she has enough information and would like to see more plans. Maxwell agreed and said he would be inclined to table the proposal in order to see more detailed plans. Boudreau-Landis added that he thinks it would be best to see and discuss one plan rather than multiple plans. Johnson said the application seems incomplete. He also questioned the impact of the proposed garage having two doors. Hogeboom stated that the City Attorney has cautioned against adding conditions to variance approvals. He explained that an applicant's plans can change as long as they stay within the parameters of any variances given. He suggested the Board consider a variance for 3 feet off the side yard setback requirement (15.5 ft. side yard setback) which would ensure that house could only be built to 21 feet in height. McCarty said he does not see a hardship with this property. He added that it is a nice, flat, standard sized lot and that a house could be designed to fit on it without any variances. Boudreau-Landis added that there is also plenty of room to build toward the rear yard property line. He added that he doesn't think the proposal meets the criteria the Board uses when considering variances. Nelson noted that the applicant would be building the new house basically in the same footprint as the existing house however she agreed that there really aren't any unique circumstances on this property. Johnson agreed that there is nothing about this property that wouldn't allow a house to be built following the requirements of the Zoning Code. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to deny the variances as requested. 1410 Tyrol Trait Timbercraft Remodelinq, Applicant (13-01-02) Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1), Subd. 11(B) Height Limitations • 2.5 ft. taller than the allowed 25 ft. for a total height of 27.5 ft. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 22, 2013 Page 4 Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and noted that it received a variance in September to construct a second story addition closer to the side yard property line than allowed. He explained that during the building permit plan review process it was discovered that a portion of the second story addition would be 2.5 feet taller than allowed. He stated that this neighborhood is difficult when it comes to measuring building height because of the topography and the way the front yards slope toward the street. McCarty questioned where the height of the roof exceeds 25 feet. Hogeboom referred to elevation drawings and showed where the portion of the roof exceeds 25 feet. Peter Murlowski, TimberCraft Remodeling, stated that this property and this neighborhood have unique topography and unique homes. He said he is attempting tca make a bland, under-developed property fit in with the rest of the homes in the neighborhood. He explained that he was aware that the house was not supposed to exceed 25 feet in height it was just calculated incorrectly because it is difficult to determine which fa�ade is the front. He stated that he thinks having more than one flat roof line will be more pleasing. He clarified that he is not proposing to build any closer to the side yard (west) property line. Nelson asked Hogeboom if variances would be required if this weren't a flat roof. Hogeboom said no because pitched roofs can be 28 feet in height. Murlowski showed a map noting the differences in grade around the perimeter of the house. He added that the portion of added roof height will not negatively affect anyone. Nelson opened the public hearing. Douglas Kline, 1509 Alpine Pass, said he came to meeting to support his new neighbor. He stated that they have a tight-knit neighborhood and he along with other neighbors are supportive of this variance request. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Nelson closed the public hearing. Johnson stated that this is a unique property. Maxwell agreed and added that he would have liked to have seen all of the variance requests at the previous meeting. Nelson agreed that it is a very unique property and that the proposal meets the criteria that the Board considers when reviewing variance requests. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance as requested. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 22, 2013 Page 5 ' 1950 Douglas Drive North Golden Vallev Conqreqation of Jehovah's Witnesses (Michael Cave), Applicant (12-12-17) (Continued Item) Request: Waiver from Section 11.46, Subd. 7 Side and Rear Yard Requirements. • 2 ft. off the required 50 ft. to a distance of 48 ft. at the building's closest point to the side yard (north) property line. • 19 ft. off the required 50 ft. to a distance of 31 ft. at the building's closet point to the rear yard (east) property line. • 9 ft. off the required 25 ft. to a distance of 16 ft. at the parking lot's closest point to the side yard (north) property line. Request: Waiver from Section 11.46, Subd. 8 Front Yard Setback Requirements. • 15 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 20 ft. at the parking lot's closest point to the front yard (west) property line. Request: Waiver from Section 11.46, Subd. 9 (2) Accessory Structure Requirements. • 25 ft. off the required 50 ft. to a distance of 25 ft. at the storage shed's closest point to the side yard (north) property line. Request: Section 11.46, Subd. 9 (B)(1) Accessory Structure Requirements. • The proposed storage shed will not be located completely to the rear of the principal structure as required by City Code. Request: Waiver from Section 11.73, Subd. 3 Minimum Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces. • 11 spaces off the required 68 spaces for a total of 57 required parking spaces. Hogeboom reminded the Board that this applicanYs request was tabled at last month's meeting in order to have the applicant consider alternate options that would be less impactful on the neighboring properties to the north and east. He showed the Board the applicant's proposed new site plan that places the building further south on the lot. He explained that this proposal, versus the previous proposal, includes a variance request from the required amount of parking spaces because the building size has increased therefore the number of parking spaces required increases as well. He stated that Douglas Drive is proposed to be reconstructed in the future and noted that Director of ,. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 22, 2013 Page 6 Public Works Jeannine Clancy and WSB Consultant Jupe Hale are in attendance to answer questions from the Board. Clancy explained that a couple of years ago there was a planning study of Douglas Drive done to envision what it should be because it has not been reconstructed in over 50 years. There was identification by the community to improve pedestrian access, improve the signalization, to accommodate the traffic that was there, but to also recognize that Douglas Drive accommodates a lot of varying land uses. She explained that since the planning study was completed the City has been working with Hennepin County to advance the project. She stated that a grant was received from Transit for �ivable Communities to complete a 30% design. She referred to the Jehovah's Witnesses property and explained that on the Duluth Street side of their property the right-of-way acquisition is approximately 29 to 30 feet, which is significant. She stated that she appreciates the opportunity to work with the Church on finding a solution so the City doesn't end up acquiring properties in total and can allow land use to remain as is. McCarty referred to the proposed storage shed and asked where it could be located without variances. Hogeboom stated that the shed would need to be located completely to the rear of the building unless it was built with frost footings. Tom Fournier, representing the applicant, stated that the shed would be built on a floating slab, not with frost footings. McCarty asked how much larger the proposed building will be than what was shown on last month's proposal. He also asked why it is larger. Fournier stated that the size of the building is driven by the needs of the congregation. Hogeboom stated that the size of the proposed building has increased by 200 square feet. Johnson asked if the proposed portico will remain. Fournier said yes. Johnson asked if the height of the building increased. Fournier said no. Johnson nated that the applicant doubled the amount of setback area along the north property line in the proposed new plan and added a fence so the building will be less intrusive on the neighborhood. McCarty asked if the fence would be 8 feet in height. Fournier said he didn't know at this point. Hogeboom said they can build an 8-foot tall fence but any fence over 6 feet in height will require a building permit. Nelson opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to speak Nelson closed the public hearing. Nelson said she thinks this newly proposed plan did a good job of addressing the Board's concerns. Maxwell said he doesn't like to see sheds located in front yards but there really is nowhere else for it to go without requiring a variance. He said given the unique features of the property and considering what is being taken for the road construction, he Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 22, 2013 Page 7 supports the variance requests. He added that the proposal is in harmony with the intent of the Zoning Code, it is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, it is a reasonable request, there are significant unique circumstances that are not created by the landowner and it won't alter the essential character of locality. Johnson questioned if there will be enough parking on the site and if the City has to have a plan if there isn't enough. Hogeboom stated that there will not be any on-street parking available. Maxwell said he assumes there will only be a few times a year when parking could be an issue. Fournier stated that there is adequate parking for the majority of ineetings they have and the parking lot is rarely full. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to approve the variances as requested. : III. Other Business Hogeboom said he would arrange for the City Attorney to come to a Board meeting and talk about placing conditions on variance approvais. IV. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:35 pm. . ... l �_ ��� Nancy J. Nelson, Chair Joseph . Hogeboom, Staff Liaison