Loading...
04-23-13 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals April 23, 2013 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, April 23, 2013 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Ghair Nelson called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Members, Fonnest, Johnson, Maxwell, Nelson and Planning Commission Representative McCarty. Also present were City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes — February 26, 2012 Regular Meeting MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to approve the February 26, 2012 minutes as submitted. II. The Petition(s) are: 1325 Zealand Avenue North Aleksandr Yershov, Applicant (13-04-04) Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1), Subd. 11(A)(3)(c) Side Yard Setback Requirements • 2.3 ft. off of the required 6 ft. to a distance of 3.7 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a second story addition. 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 articulate. The applicant is asking for the north wall of the proposed addition to be 46.16 ft. in length without articulation. Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and noted that variances were granted in 1993 to bring the existing house into conformance. He explained the applicant's proposal to construct a second story addition and stated that the side yard setback requirements for this property are 5 feet on the north and 10 feet on the south. However, since the height of the proposed second addition is 18.2 feet the north side yard setback requirement increases to 6 feet. The second variance request is to allow the proposed walls to be longer than 32 feet without articulating. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals April 23, 2013 Page 2 McCarty asked if the requested variance matches the same variance granted in 1993 and if it would be in the same location, 3.7 feet from the north property line. Hogeboom said the proposed second story addition would be on the same wall as the existing house. Aleksandr Yershov, Applicant, stated that in order to have a family they need more than a two bedroom house. He stated that the house is already built where it is on the lot and he can't move it and there are other two-story homes in the area. He stated that in regard to the articulation request, he could possibly articulate the walls but he would lose approximately 64 square feet of space. Maxwell noted that the entire wall wouldn't have to move, just a portion of it. He suggested that the loft area shown on the plans could articulate by two feet in order meet the articulation requirements. Nelson asked about the proposed ceiling heights. Yershov stated that the walls are 18.2 feet in height measured to the top plate. Nelson asked about the square footage of the proposed addition. Yershov said the proposed addition would be approximately 936 square feet in size. Hogeboom explained how the height of a house is measured and noted that in this case the height would be measured to the bottom of the eave and not to the mid-way point of the highest gable. Maxwell noted that the uniqueness of this lot is the way the existing house is situated and that it is a long, narrow lot. He asked the applicant if there is anything else he feels is unique about the property. Yershov agreed with Maxwell that the uniqueness of the lot is the way the house is situated on the lot and reiterated that he is trying to grow his family in this neighborhood. Nelson asked the applicant if he has considered any other options. Yershov said they considered constructing the second story addition on the south side of the existing house but the plumbing already exists on the north side which would allow the proposed master bathroom to be located directly above it. Nelson asked if any consideration had been given to constructing back toward the rear yard instead of up with a second story. Yershov stated that there is only a crawl space under the existing house, there is no basement. Also, an addition on the back on the home would take most of the back yard space which he doesn't want to do, so extending the house any other way doesn't make sense. McCarty questioned if the side yard setback should really be greater than 6 feet. Hogeboom clarified that for lots less than 65 feet in width the side yard setback increases one-half of a foot per two feet of height for structures over 15 feet in height. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals April 23, 2013 Page 3 Johnson referred to the comment regarding other two-story homes in the area and said he did not notice any when he looked at the property. Yershov said there are homes to the rear of his that have finro stories. Nelson stated that the proposed height of the wall on the north side will have a huge impact on the neighbor to the north. She asked the applicant if he has considered constructing a story and a half addition instead of a full two-story addition. Yershov said he doesn't think that would look good or make sense financially. He added that the proposed second story addition is not on top of the entire existing house, just a portion. McCarty asked the applicant if he has considered demolishing the garage and tying a new garage into an addition. Yershov said that the garage has been moved back on the lot twice in the past. He said that the existing driveway currently takes 2 to 3 hours to shovel so he doesn't want to move the garage any further back. He also said that he doesn't want to have an attached garage because of carbon monoxide danger. He stated that he has spent the winter planning this addition and he is trying to improve the character of the property and add value to Golden Valley. He reiterated that it doesn't make sense to pay the same amount of money for a story and a half addition and get 50% less space. Nelson opened the public hearing. David Thompson, 1319 Zealand Avenue North, said he has lived in his house since 1969 and has raised five children in it. He stated that there are seven houses on this block that have the same roof line and these are small lots with small houses "shoe horned" in on them. He said if these variance requests are approved this house will stick out like a light house and won't fit in with the neighborhood. The lot is just too small for that big of a house. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Nelson closed the public hearing. Nelson said she feels that the unique circumstance in this case is that the house was originally built too close to the north side yard property line. She said she thinks the proposed plan is nice but she is concerned because it will strongly impact the neighbor to the north and she is not sure how the house would fit in with the rest of the neighborhood. Fonnest stated it appears that a lot of sunlight will be cut off from the neighbor to the north. Johnson said he also has some of the same concerns about the size of the house. He said he is also concerned about the property being located approximately in the middle of the block because it will seem even more imposing. He added that the lack of articulation will magnify the size of the house and that the property isn't designed for something this big. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals April 23, 2013 Page 4 Maxwell noted that the applicant can build a second story addition. The question really is what plane he can build it on, the existing plane of the house or inside that plane. He said the issue is if the Board is willing to grant a variance to allow a second story addition on the existing wall of the house. Johnson agreed and added that the Board also has to consider the impact on the neighborhood. Maxwell stated that the requested variance is not regarding the height, it is a side yard setback variance. McCarty agreed and noted that when the height of the house goes above 15 feet the side yard setback increases which in this case necessitates a variance. He said he thinks the proposed addition will impact the locality and even though the applicant is allowed to build a second story addition the Board doesn't need to enable him to build it too close to the property line. Maxwell agreed but said that the Board should not deny the variance based on how tall the house is. McCarty said it is difficult justifying this variance request when all the other houses in the area are one story. Nelson agreed and added that the applicant bought this size of house on this size of lot. Yershov questioned what "locality" the Board is considering, if it's one street, one block or several blocks. He asked the Board if they are considering the development of the City. He stated that the house was built in 1955 when people had different needs and added that the City is discouraging young families from moving in by not allowing improvements to their homes. He stated that he has no control over where the house was originally built and for him to build a longer house because his lot is long makes no sense. He reiterated that there are other two-story homes in this area and he doesn't understand why he can't build a second story when other neighbors can. McCarty said that the Board is not saying that a second story can't be built. He added that there are many nice homes in Golden Valley that are on 40 foot wide lots. Nelson agreed and said she thinks there is a way the applicant can build a second story addition without the need for variances. Yershov questioned how he could build a second story without needing variances. He said the Board's discussion has been based on feelings and emotions and he is trying to understand how residents can develop their properties within the existing regulations. Maxwell explained that the Board has four criteria that they need to consider when reviewing variances. In this case the issue is with the criteria regarding altering the essential character of the locality and the houses along this street are all one-story houses. Yershov said that is not true and that the Board is only looking at a few of the houses on Zealand Avenue. Johnson explained that it is not unprecedented for the Board to grant variances but there is something to be said for the impact to the existing houses already on the street and what this proposed addition would do to their property values. McCarty suggested removing the variance regarding articulation since the applicant has said he's willing to articulate the walls of the proposed addition. Nelson read from the League of Minnesota Cities guidelines regarding variance requests and practical difficulties where it states that variances, if grated, will not alter Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals April 23, 2013 Page 5 the essential character of the locality. Under this factor the Board should consider whether the resulting structure will be out of scale, out of place, or otherwise inconsistent with the surrounding area. Yershov again questioned the definition of locality. Hogeboom stated that the City does not define "locality." The language regarding locality is from state statute and is up to the Board of Zoning Appeals to interpret. He noted that the Applicant has the right to appeal the Board's decision to the City Council. McCarty agreed that the word "locality" is ambiguous. Johnson stated that the scale of the proposed addition is the factor driving his opinion in this case. Nelson agreed and stated that houses that are too big on lots that are too small negatively impact the properties around them. She said she can't support this variance request because she feels the Board has a responsibility to uphold the City's zoning laws and this proposal is impacting the essential character of the locality. Maxwell stated that the Board has granted variances for second story additions located on the same plane as the existing house in the past. He added that to him locality means the street the house is on. Johnson said he thinks it is possible to find a solution but the Board can only consider the proposal current in front of them. MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Nelson and motion carried 4 to 1 to deny the request for 2.3 ft. off of the required 6 ft. to a distance of 3.7 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line in order to build a second story addition. Maxwell voted no. MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Nelson and motion carried unanimously to deny the request ta allow the proposed addition to be 46.16 ft. in length without articulation. III. Other Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:17 pm. fr���'►.� d�r J . Nancy J. Nelson, Chair Jo eph S. ogeboom, Staff Liaison