Loading...
08-27-13 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 27, 2013 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, August 27, 2Q13 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Ftoad, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Maxwell called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Members, Fonnest, Maxwell, Nelson, Alternate Member Boudreau- Landis and Planning Commission Representative McCarty. Also present were City Planner Joe Hogeboam, Planning Intern Brett Angell and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Member Johnson was absent. I. Approval of Minutes — July 23, 2013 Regular Meeting McCarty referred to the ninth paragraph on page seven and stated that he would like to add language stating that the footings on the proposed new deck would not interfere with the existing steps. MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Fonnest and motion carried unanimously to approve the July 23, 2013 minutes with the above noted correction. II. The Petition(s) are: 2390 Wisconsin Ave N (Continued Item) Jon Stadtherr & Karen Murphv, Applicants 113-07-16) Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1), Subd. 11(A)(1) Frant Yard Setback Requirements • 5 ft. off of the required 35 ft, to a distance of 30 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (west) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a closed front porch addition. Hogeboom reminded the Board that they tabled this request at their meeting last month. He explained that he has met with the applicants since that meeting and they have changed their proposal slightly. They are now asking for a variance for the enclosed front porch addition to be located 30 feet (rather than 28 feet) away from the front yard property line. The proposed open front porch will be located 30 feet away from the front property line as required so the applicants no longer require a variance for that portion of their proposal. Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and noted that this house is somewhat unique because the houses in the area are set askew from each other so the applicants proposed front porch won't negatively affect any neighboring front yard views. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 27, 2013 Page 2 Maxwell asked if the proposed front entry addition would be one or twa stories. Hogeboom referred to a rendering of the enclosed front porch and stated that it will be two stories and will have the same look as was proposed last month, but it will be located 30 feet, rather than 28 feet away from the front yard property line. McCarty said what is being proposed is basically a building addition and not a porch. Fonnest asked if the inside of the addition will be open to the ceiling or if there will be a second floor. Hogeboom said it would be open to the ceiling. Fonnest asked if there will be a window placed in the front part of the addition. Hogeboom said he believes there will be a window. He explained that renderings or illustrations aren't required from applicants when they apply for a variance, only a survey showing the footprint of the proposed project is required. Fonnest asked if the existing sidewalk would be removed. Hogeboom said yes, the existing sidewalk will be replaced. Karen Murphy, Applicant, explained that there will be a window in the addition and some cosmetic details to make it more appealing. Maxwell noted that this house is on a "T" and the houses next to it aren't right in line with this house. He asked the applicants if there are any other unique circumstances or features regarding their property. Murphy stated that the neighbors' sight lines won't be impacted at all by their proposed addition, currently there is no cavered front walkway, there are safety issues with the door opening into the existing entryway and is difficult for her mother-in-law to access the house. Hogeboom added that the proposed addition would also add some articulation to the structure. McCarty asked the applicants if they have considered other design options. He said he is concerned about the bulkiness of the proposed addition and that this is the same design the Board saw last month, just smaller. Jon Stadtherr, Applicant, explained that the size of the proposed entryway gives them enough space to open the front door safely and to construct a small closet. McGarty said he understands why the applicants want to construct the addition it just seems like it is the same request as last month's and that the bulkiness of the addition hasn't changed. Murphy said she didn't recall any Board Members saying last month that the design was too bulky. Nelson said she is supportive of the covered walkway proposal and a one-story enclosed entry addition. However, the comments she's heard about articulation are good because she feels that the house could use some articulation in the front. Maxwell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Maxwell closed the public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 27, 2013 Page 3 Fonnest said he feels the applicants have made a good faith effort to bring their proposal further into compliance with the Zoning Code regulations and he is inclined to support the requested variance. Nelson said she thinks the request is reasonable, the circumstances are unique because of how the houses in the area were placed on the lats, the proposal is in harmony with the City Code's intent and it won't negatively impact the neighboring property owners. McCarty said he doesn't feel that a design change was made. He referred to the minutes from last month's meeting and noted that the Board stated at that time that the proposal was a bit much and would have a big impact on the front of the home. He said he doesn't think the proposed addition would devastate the neighborhood, but he doesn't think this property is unique and he is not convinced there is a hardship in this case. Nelson said she understands the confines of a split-level hause, but they all have the same issues. She said she thinks the covered walkway and entry is a good idea, but allowing just a one-story, covered entryway won't address the applicant's issues. Boudreau-Landis said he is in favor of the articulation because it will improve the aesthetics of the house. He noted that if the proposal didn't include the enclosed portion of the project the applicants wouldn't need a variance. He said he is inclined to support he request because there is no definite visual line down the street. Maxwell agreed and added that the applicants have tried to do their best to meet the requirements. He said he is generally not in favor of front yard variances but there are unique features in this case. Site lines won't be impacted, the applicant didn't construct the home, the proposed articulation would add character to the house and it is a reasonable request that won't change the character of the neighborhood. MOVED by Fonnest, seconded by Maxwell and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve the variance request for 5 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 30 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (west) property line to allow for the construction af a elosed frant porch addition. McCarty voted no. 8636 Plymouth Ave N Clint & Jennifer Schumann, Applicants (13-08-17) Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements • 30 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 5 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (northwest) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction a garage/kitchen. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 27, 2013 Page 4 Angell explained the applicant's request to construct a garage and kitchen addition. He stated that the property currently has no garage space and is unique in that it has three front yard setback areas. Nelson asked what the setback requirement would be if northwest property line were considered a rear yard, Hogeboom said rear yard setbacks are 20% of the lot depth. He explained that when the application was originally submitted, the northwest property line was being considered a rear yard untif staff realized that the northwest property line is right-of- way on Boone Avenue, at which point the request changed from side and rear yard variance requests to a front yard variance request. Maxwell added that the applicant also has limited ability to add-on their house anyplace else. Fonnest asked if vegetation will need to be removed in order to put in a wider driveway. Hogeboom stated that he doesn't know if any vegetation will need to be removed and explained that driveways are required to be 3 feet away from a property line. Boudreau-Landis asked if the Boone Avenue right-of-way extends to Plymouth Avenue. Hogeboom stated that the Boone Avenue right-of-way does not extend through to Plymouth Avenue and that there are no plans to extend it. Jennifer Schumann, Applicant stated that the primary goal is to build an attached garage since they have no garage at all. She stated that she would also like to expand the existing, small kitchen and she feels it's a reasonable plan to have the garage be near the kitchen. Clint Schumann, Applicant, added that they are proposing the location they have because they don't want to deal with erosion issues with the steep grade of their property. McCarty asked the applicants if they had considered building off of the front of the house. Jennifer Schumann stated that if they built a garage on the front of the house it would be attached to the formal dining room and living room and they would not be able to gain any additional kitchen space. Clint Schumann added that if a garage were in the front of the house it would have to be a short garage because of the steep slope. Maxwell apened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Maxwell ctosed the public hearing. Hogeboom noted that the original plan for Plymouth Avenue was to connect ta Boone but the plans were diverted because of the steep slope. Nelson noted that the Board has been supportive of two-stall garages in the past. She stated that this lot is unique because it has steep slopes, three front yards and no garage space. She added that the proposal is in harmony with the City Code's intent, it won't impact the neighbors and makes sense to build the garage where the applicants are proposing to build it. Fonnest agreed and stated that the property line in question really acts like a rear yard and the proposed plan should work nicely. McCarty agreed that this property is unique and asked if the back wall of the garage will have to articulate. Hogeboom said no and explained that only walls along side yard property lines are required to be articulated. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 27, 2013 Page 5 Boudreau-Landis agreed that this is a unique lot. He said there are probably different options that would require a lesser variance but he is in favor of granting the variance as requested. Maxwell agreed. MOVED by Nelson, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request for 30 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 5 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (northwest) property line to allow for the constructian a garage/kitchen. 1 Meadow Lane John & Kellv Baker, Applicants (13-08-18) Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 19(D) Paved Area Requirements • A variance would allow the construction of a second street curb cut on Glenwood Avenue Hogeboom referred to a survey of this property and explained the applicants' request to install a second curb cut on Glenwood Avenue. The current driveway/curb cut is on Meadow Lane. He explained that this is a relatively new home that was part of a recently approved subdivision located at the corner of Meadow Lane and Glenwood Avenue. He added that if the Board approves this variance request the applicants would still need to obtain a right-of- way permit from Hennepin County because Glenwood Avenue is a County road. Nelson stated that she has never seen a variance request regarding a second curb cut and asked if this is a new requirement. Hogeboom said it is a fairly recent requirement due to the increase in maintenance and costs to the City involved in allowing second curb cuts. Fonnest asked about the width of the proposed curb cut. Hogeboom said he isn't sure about the width of the curb cut but it won't be wider than the garage. Boudreau-Landis asked if there would also be a second driveway or if there will only be a curb cut and apron. Hogeboom said yes there will also be a driveway. He explained that a second driveway would be allowed without a variance but that the second curb cut is not. He added that the applicants could also remove their driveway on Meadow Lane and just have one driveway and one curb cut on Glenwood without a variance as well. Nelson stated that the Meadow Lane address is preferable and that traffic on Glenwood would make it difficult to get in and out of a driveway. McCarty said he remembers that there was discussion when the subdivision proposal was reviewed by the Planning Commission about not allowing curb cuts on Glenwood because of traffic concerns. Hogeboom reiterated that the applicants will still need to obtain a right-of- way permit from the County in order to have a curb cut on Glenwood Avenue. McCarty questioned if a concrete walkway to the curb with no curb cut would be allowed. Hogeboom explained that if it were located in the County's right-of-way the applicants would still be required to obtain a permit. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 27, 2013 Page 6 John Baker, Applicant, stated that the existing driveway was in existence before they bought the house. He said it is a very long driveway and that there are several other properties in the area with curb cuts on Glenwood Avenue. Ne(son asked the applicants if their builder told them they could have a second driveway on Glenwood Avenue. Kelly Baker, Applicant said yes, either the builder or developer said they thought they would have the option to have a driveway on Glenwood Avenue. Maxwell asked the applicants if they have considered removing the driveway on Meadow Lane. John Baker stated that Meadow Lane is a desirable address and explained that another reason they would like the proposed second curb cut is that the long driveway on Meadow Lane could be dangerous in the wintertime. He added that living there has made it clear how difficult the long driveway is. Hogeboom added that the subdivision process does not approve the location of the houses and driveways and that the decision about the location of the existing driveway was made before the applicants owned the property. McCarty asked the applicants if they have considered building a concrete pad without a curb curt. John Baker said they have considered that, but they would like access on Glenwood Avenue. He reiterated that they didn't think about how difficult the long driveway would be when they purchased the property. Maxwell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Maxwell closed the public hearing. Nelson said she feels the request is reasonable, having this long of a driveway is unique and the applicants were told that they could have a curb cut on Glenwood Avenue. She added that she has no strong concerns since the proposal also has to go through Hennepin Gounty for approval. Boudreau-Landis asked if the applicants need a variance from the City before the Caunty will consider the request. Hogeboom said yes. McCarty asked if there were conditions regarding the granting of variances in the original subdivision approval. Hogeboom stated that the Subdivision Agreement states that the City Council's intent was not to grant variances for one year and it has been longer than one year. Fonnest agreed that the request seems reasonable. Boudreau-Landis agreed that the request is reasonable, but he also thinks the applicants could build a walkway and a concrete pad without a curb cut, however, he is inclined to support variance request. Maxwell stated that the County will decide the safety issues on Glenwood Avenue. He said the request is reasonable and the original placement of the driveway isn't the applicant's fault. MOVED by Fonnest and seconded by Nelson to approve the variance request to allow the construction of a second street curb cut/access on Glenwood Avenue. Minutes of the Golden Valfey Board of Zoning Appeals August 27, 2013 Page 7 McCarty said he doesn't see a hardship in this case. He said he agrees the request is reasonable but the applicants bought the property knowing it had a long driveway on Meadow Lane. Maxwell said that if the applicants had constructed the driveway he would agree. Nelson noted that the new variance regulations, as compared to previous regulations, don't require the Board to find a hardship. She reiterated that the applicants were told they could have a second access. Maxwell added that the reason the City doesn't allow second curb cuts is the cost and in this case the City isn't paying for it. Maxwell noted that a motion had been made. The motion was approved unanimously to allow the construction of a second street curb cut on Glenwood Avenue 3900 Glenwood Avenue David Strand, Applicant (13-08-191 Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(2) FrontYard Setback Requirements • 21.33 ft. off of the required 41.33 ft. to a distance of 20 ft. at its closest point ta the rear yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new house. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 12(A)(1) Accessory Structure Location Requirements • The proposed pool would not be located completely to the rear of the principal structure as required. Purpose: To allow fior the construction of a pool. Request: Waiver fram Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 12(A)(1) Accessory Structure Location Requirements • The proposed pool house would not be located completely to the rear of the principal structure as required. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a pool house. Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and noted that it is adjacent to Theodore Wirth Park. He explained the applicant's request to remove the existing house and build a new house with a pool and pool house in front of the principal structure rather than to the rear of the principal structure as required. He added that the Minneapolis Park Board has stated that they have no concerns about the proposal and that he has received several signatures from the neighbors supporting the proposal. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 27, 2013 Page 8 Boudreau-Landis asked how long the Zoning Code has required that accessory structures be located to the rear of the principal structure. Hogeboom said he didn't know how long that requirement has been in place. Nelson asked if the existing house is in conformance with Zoning Code requirements. Hogeboom said no. Maxwell asked why the pool is proposed to be located in front of the house. Hogeboom said that the front yard is more private. Fonnest asked if the house and/or pool house would even be able to be seen considering the elevation of the property. Hogeboom stated that the applicant intends to keep many of the trees as well, which wil! screen the house from view. Nelson said she has no concerns about the first variance request regarding the location of the house when considering the topography, but she is concerned about locating the pool and pool house in front of the house. She stated that she likes to be consistent when considering variance requests and that while this proposal is attractive another proposal with an accessory structure in the front yard may not be. Maxwell agreed and expressed concern about setting precedent. He questioned why setback requirements can't be met if the existing house is being torn down. David Strand, Project Designer and Construction Manager, representing the owners, stated that this is a unique property and that because of the topography the house can't be seen from the street. He stated that he could install a 6-foot tall fence along Glenwood but they would rather screen the house naturally. He stated that the pool house is similar to a garden structure and those are allowed in front yards. Also, by pushing the house further back on the lot they can preserve trees, get the pool in the sun and allow space for a turnaround. He stated that the neighboring property owners are supportive of the proposal and placing the pool in the back yard would put the activity closer to the neighbors. He said the proposal is site sensitive and that they did consider many other designs. Maxwell asked about the designs they considered. Strand stated that it is a one-story home and that anything extra was pushed to the basement so they are not building a giant "mcmansion" house looming over the neighbors. He reiterated that no one driving by the house will be able to see it or the pool house. Fonnest asked how the pool house is similar to a garden structure. Hogeboom stated that the pool house is connected ta the house by a wall so it will look like it is part of the principal structure. Strand added that fihe proposed pool and pool house are well within the front yard setback area. Maxwell asked Strand about their plan to conserve trees. Strand stated that there is a lot of buckthorn and shrubs that will be removed, but there is an oak tree he is concerned about and if the house is moved forward on the lot they could lose that oak tree. Nelson said she understands placing the house further back on the lot to allow enough room for a turnaround. She asked if the pool were not part of the proposal if the house Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 27, 2013 Page 9 would be pushed as far back on the lot as is currently proposed. Strand said no, and added that the owners wan#the pool and hope that this proposal is reasonable and acceptable. Maxwell opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to camment, Maxwell closed the public hearing. Fonnest said he would like to better understand precedent and what it might mean for future proposals, but he also knows that the Board takes into consideration the uniqueness of a property and the viability of a plan. Boudreau-Landis stated that there are many examples along Gfenwood where a garage is located in front of a house in order to get the house further away from the busy street so he feels precedent has already been set. Maxwell stated that the Board is not bound by precedent, but he does like to strive for consistency. McCarty said he thinks it is a nice plan but the pool hause could fit differently on the property and no matter what is built it would be screened from Glenwood. Nelson agreed that the plans are well done and she is not concerned about the rear yard setback for the location of the house but, the Board wouldn't be consistent if they allowed an accessory structure in front of the house. Maxwell agreed with Boudreau-Landis that this proposal wouldn't necessarily be out of character with the neighborhood. He expressed concern about losing some trees if the house is moved closer to the front of the lot. Nelson stated that a garage is more of a necessity than a pool house. Fonnest stated that he appreciates the consideration of the topography and vegetation and the desire to set the house back from Glenwood. He said the design is beautiful and would be a welcome addition to what is currently on the property. Maxwell said he doesn't think the proposed use is unreasonable. He said he is considering the preservation of trees, the topography and that allowing an accessory structure shielding them from Glenwood is not unprecedented. He added that the proposed pool and pool house will not be located in the front yard setback area, they would be located to the front of the house. MOVED by Fonnest to approve the first variance request for 21.33 ft. off of the required 41.33 ft. to a distance of 20 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard (north) property line to allow for the construction of a new house. McCarty stated that he thinks all of the variance requests are tied together because if the Board approves the first variance, the applicant could redesign his proposal and might not need variances. Minutes of the Golden Valley Baard of Zoning Appeals August 27, 2013 Page 10 Maxwell suggested that the first two variance requests go together because the pool house could possibly be scaled down and not require a variance. Hogeboom stated that the proposed pool house is over 120 square feet in size so it is considered to be a structure. Maxwell suggested that the pool house could be incorporated into the design of the house and that more of a garden structure could be placed in front of the hause. Strand stated that they will need an accessory structure for the bathroom space. McCarty stated that the bathroom space could be moved into the house and the location of the house eould shift, then a variance would only be needed to allow the pool in front of the house. Boudreau-Landis asked if the back wall of the house needs to be articulated. McCarty stated that only side walls are required to articulate. Fonnest withdrew his motion. MOVED by Fonnest and seconded by Boudreau-Landis to approve the first two variance requests as follows: 21.33 ft. off of the required 41.33 ft. to a distance of 20 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard (north) property line to allow for the construction of a new house and the proposed pool would not be required to be located completely to the rear of the principal structure. McCarty reiterated that if the pool house were not part of the proposal, then things could be shifted around and variances might not be needed. Maxwell said the applicant's proposal is to have a turnaround area as well. McCarty said he thinks that would be attainable without the need for variances as well. Nelson said she thinks a pool can't da anything to horribly affect the aesthetics, but a pool house could. McCarty said he thinks the plans could be reversed and the pool could go in the back yard. Strand said he understands the Board's hesitation. He explained that the site is unique because it is completely enclosed by trees and they are trying to be sensitive to the site, He noted that the pool would located 60 feet away from the front yard property line and if the house were shifted forward on the lot the existing oak tree would need to be removed. He stated that placing the pool in the back yard would impact the neighbars a lot more than placing it in front of the house and that the way they are proposing to build this home is much less impactful. He reiterated that there are many accessory structures located in front of the principal structures in this area. Boudreau-Landis said it makes sense to vote on the variance requests altogether. He said he agrees there are other options but the back wall of the proposed new house will be further away from the rear yard property line than the back wall of the existing house. Maxwell said he would like to try to preserve the trees and added that the house will sit high up on a hill and won't even be noticeable. Fonnest withdrew his second motion and MOVED to approve all three variance requests as follows: • 21.33 ft. off of the required 41.33 ft. to a distance of 20 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard (north) property line to allow for the construction of a new house. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 27, 2013 Page 11 • The proposed pool would not be required to be located compietely to the rear af the principal structure. • The proposed pool house would not be required to be located completely to the rear of the principal structure. Boudreau-Landis seconded the motion and the motion carried 3 to 2. Members Nelson and McCarty voted no. 43 Western Terrace Charles Rue, Applicant (13-08-20) Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(2) Rear Yard Setback Requirements • 1.6 ft. off of the required 5 ft. to a distance of 3.4 ft. at its elosest point to the rear yard (west) property line. Purpose: To bring the existing tree house into conformance with setback requirements. Angell explained that the applicant is requesting a variance to bring his existing tree house into conformance with Zoning Code requirements. He added that the tree house was originally built in 2009. McCarty asked if this is a case of have two conflicting surveys or if the applicant used a survey of the neighboring property and just measured incorrectly. Angell said he thinks it's the latter. Fonnest asked why the second survey was done. Angell said the second survey was done as part of this variance request. Maxwell asked how this issue came up. Hogeboom there was a complaint. He explained that tree houses aren't addressed in the Zoning Code and that the only method of regulating them is if they are 120 square feet or larger in size, then they are considered to be an accessory structure and are required to follow the same requirements as accessory structures. Maxwell noted that the tree house in question is only 117 square feet in size. Hogeboom stated that the entire footprint of the tree house is larger than 120 square feet. Maxwell asked if the tree house would have to be taken down if a variance isn't granted. Hogeboom said the applicant could appeal the Board's decision if that is the case. Maxwell asked if the applicant received a building permit. Hogeboom said he believes a building permit was granted after the fact. McCarty questioned why the tree house would need a building permit. Hogeboom explained that the Building Official is Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 27, 2013 Page 12 considering that issue and that the variance request only pertains to the shed's distance from the property line. Charles Rue, Applicant, explained that the survey used initially was the neighbor's survey from 2002. He stated that he has been going back and forth with the City regarding the size and location of the tree house since 2009. He clarified that the tree house is now 117 square feet in size and does not require a building permit. He explained that the second survey done, conflicted with the first survey and that it wasn't a measuring error on his part. Maxwell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Maxwell closed the public hearing. Nelson stated that the unique circumstance in this case is that the applicant built the tree house according to a legal survey and then discovered the error. MOVED by Nelson, seconded by McGarty and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request for 1.6 ft. off of the required 5 ft. to a distance of 3.4 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard (west) property line to bring the existing tree house into conformance with setback requirements. III. Other Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:34 pm. ��'��� , , !_ �,` � George Maxwell, Chair Joseph S. ogeboom, Staff Liaison