Loading...
10-22-13 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 22, 2013 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, October 22, 2013 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Maxwell 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 —August 27, 2013 Regular Meeting MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Fonnest and motion carried unanimously to approve the August 27, 2013 minutes as submitted. II. The Petition(s) are: 4615 Roanoke Road Kent Ashlev & Gina Berthiaume, Applicants (13-09-19) Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements • 5 ft. off of the required 20 ft. to a distance of 15 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a second story addition on a portion of the existing house. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(B) Height Limitations • 1.5 ft. taller than the allowed 25 ft. for a total height of 26.5 ft. along the front (street side) of the property. Hogeboom explained the applicant's request to build a second story addition on the north side of the existing home. He explained that the side yard setback requirement for this property is 15 feet. However, the side yard setback increases once the height of the house is greater than 15 feet, so in this case, the side yard setback requirement for the second story addition is 20 feet. He also explained that the applicant is asking for a variance for the height of the house to be 1.5 feet taller than the allowed 25 feet (for a flat roof� along the front (street side) of the property. Nelson asked about the height regulations for a house with a pitched roof. Hogeboom said a pitched-roof house can be 28 feet in height as measured to the midway point of the highest gable. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 22, 2013 Page 2 Dave Johnson, representing the applicant, explained that the architect drew the plans the way they are shown in order to match the rest of the home. He said he realized the proposal would need a variance while going through the building permit process and they considered several other design options but they will not work. Maxwell asked if the second floor addition would be flush with the wall of the first floor. Dave Johnson said yes. He explained that they considered a design that met the setback requirements for the proposed second story, however, it took away the ability to install a staircase to access the second floor. McCarty asked if the variance request regarding the height would still be needed if the side yard setback requirement was met. Dave Johnson said yes and stated that only a small section of the proposed second story addition is too tall. Nelson asked if the current home is a two-bedroom home. Kent Ashley, Applicant, stated that it is a three-bedroom home. Two of the bedrooms are on the main level and one is downstairs. Dave Johnson added that the applicant has a growing family and needs more space. Maxwell explained the criteria the Board considers when reviewing variance requests. He said he understands that the applicant can't change where the existing house sits or when it was built. Ashley explained that due to the slope of the lot only about two feet of the house is taller than 25 feet. Dave Johnson added that the backyard is fairly flat and the neighbors are a considerable distance away and have no windows facing this house. Nelson referred the criteria the Board must consider and stated that she feels the variance is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinances, the variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the request is reasonable, the slope of the lot is a unique circumstance and the variance won't alter the essential character of the locality. She added that any other type of design would have the same impact. Andy Johnson asked the applicant why he couldn't add on to the back of house instead of adding a second level. Ashley stated that they have an existing patio they'd like to keep. Also, the neighboring backyards are open and building into the backyard would be more impactful to the neighbors. He added that there would also be added costs and existing windows would be covered. He reiterated that they have extensively explored other options. Maxwell asked if there are trees in the backyard that would need to be removed. Ashley said yes, there is at least one large oak tree and a lot of landscaping that would have to be removed if they added on to the back of their house. Maxwell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Maxwell closed the public hearing. Fonnest said thinks the proposal is completely understandable and acceptable. McCarty agreed and said that since the second floor addition is staying on the same plane as the existing house he doesn't think there will be a big impact on the neighboring properties. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 22, 2013 Page 3 MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Fonnest and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variance requests: • 5 ft. off of the required 20 ft. to a distance of 15 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line to allow for the construction of a second story addition on a portion of the existing house. • 1.5 ft. taller than the allowed 25 ft, for a total height of 26.5 ft. along the front (street side) of the property. 1315 Angelo Drive Mohammad & Mariam Vedadi, Applicants (13-09-20) Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3(b) Side Yard Setback Requirements • 9.5 ft. off of the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 3 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage/bedroom addition to the existing house. Hogeboom stated that the applicant currently has a one-stall garage and is seeking a side yard variance in order to expand the garage with living space above. He explained that the applicants received a variance for the same proposal in 2009, however, it was not acted upon so it expired after one year. Maxwell asked about the size of the proposed garage addition. McCarty noted that the application states that the new garage will be 12 feet wide. Nelson noted that the variance granted in 2009 allowed the garage to be 4.5 feet from the north side yard property line. Hogeboom agreed and added that the north wall of the existing garage is not parallel with the property line so the proposed new garage would be further away from the property line at the back corner. Fonnest asked abaut the width of the lot at the front of the garage. Hogeboom stated that the lot is approximately 75 feet wide at the front. Maxwell explained to the applicants that since their previous variance approval in 2009 the laws regarding variances have changed. The Board no longer considers hardships they have to consider practical difficulties. He asked the applicants what they consider to be unique about their property. Lynne Shears, White Crane Construction, representing the applicant, explained that any addition to the garage would encroach into the setback area. She noted that the property backs up to a wetland area so building further back on the lot is not desirable. She added Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 22, 2013 Page 4 that the existing garage is also a one-stall tuck under with a slope on the north side which makes it more complicated. Mohammad Vedadi, Applicant, explained that the initial survey from 2009 showed that they had 12 feet of side yard area along the north side of the property. At that time they were granted a variance to build a garage addition 4.5 feet from the north side property line. After the variance was approved they realized that the variance they received would only allow them to construct a 19-foot wide garage which would not work and would not be functional. Shears explained that there are multiple issues regarding the construction of the garage. The ceiling height is only 7'2" and when the retaining wall is taken out they will need beams and posts where the cars would be parked. Vedadi stated that in 2009 they did not hire an architect before they requested a variance and now they realize that the request they made in the past was not plausible. He added that the survey has been corrected since then and that they have 15 feet of side yard area along the north side of the property where they thought they had 12 feet. Maxwell asked the applicant if the existing exterior structural block wall will be removed. Shears said no and explained that that wall has to bear weight so it can't be removed but there will be a partial opening of the wall between the two garage stalls. McCarty stated that removing the entire wall between the garage stalls and adding columns would make the space more open. Shears agreed that they could add columns but it would be difficult to park cars in the space. McCarty said he is trying to understand what is different with this proposal than the one approved in 2009. Vedadi stated that the key difference is that in 2009 they didn't realize that the size of the garage they were granted approval to build would be too small to be functional and that they wouldn't be able to open their car doors. Shears added that the garage still needs to be a retaining wall which is restrictive. Fonnest referred to the photos submitted with the application and asked if the tree shown to the side of the existing garage would be impacted by the proposed new addition. Vedadi stated that the design won't hinder the tree but that they might remove it because it is unhealthy. Fonnest asked if the neighbor's tree will be impacted. Vedadi said that tree is no longer there because it was lost during the last storm. Vedadi said the question is whether to expand their garage or move. He stated that the house with one garage stall will be very difficult to sell or will devalue it significantly. He said they want to stay in their house and it will be more valuable with a two-stall garage. Shears agreed that a two-stall garage is more appropriate for this neighborhood. Maxwell opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to comment, Maxwell closed the public hearing. McCarty said this is a difficult request in his opinion and he's not sure he understands the dimensions that have been discussed. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 22, 2013 Page 5 Johnson stated that the proposed garage won't alter the character of locality but he didn't see any other homes in the area that were this close to the side yard property line and were as tall as the proposed addition would be. McCarty agreed that the proposed addition is close to the property line but that he would like the applicants to be able to have a second garage stall. Nelson agreed that a second garage stall is important and will be an improvement to the property. She stated that the proposed new garage addition would only be 3 feet away from the property line at its closest point and will get further away from the property line as the garage goes back. She added that this property should have a two-stall garage and where they are proposing to build it is really the only the place they can. Vedadi stated that their existing garage is 12 feet wide inside and their car doors can only be opened about 50 to 60% of the way. He stated that if they build the proposed second garage stall any smaller they literally won't be able to open their car doors. Johnson stated that a 2-story, 20-foot long wall that is 3 feet away from the property and has never been there before is going to have an impact on the neighboring property. Shears stated that the house on the neighboring property is 17 feet away from the property line and that there will still be 20 feet between the two homes. Vedadi stated that only 9 feet of the garage is above ground so the new addition won't be 20 feet tall. Also, it won't be just a garage sitting there if will be a full house addition which will be visually more pleasing. McCarty said a deck on top of a flat roof garage might not be as impactful. Nelson noted that the Board has given similar variances for garage additions in the past. McCarty said he is still struggling to figure out the math and what exactly changed between this proposal and the one approved in 2009. Vedadi explained that in 2009 they thought there was only 12 feet of side yard space available. The survey has since been updated and they really have 15 feet of side yard space available. McCarty questioned how the plans are different. Vedadi said the plans are essentially the same but the variance granted in 2009 didn't work because the variance they were granted would not allow them to build a wide enough garage. He stated that this proposal is not bigger and still has the same amount of interior space. Shears reiterated that everyone thought the plans approved in 2009 would work, but it turned out the garage addition as approved then was not buildable. Maxwell said he thinks homeowners should have a two-stall garage if possible. He stated that the applicants tried to make the original variance they were granted work but it was not possible. He said he thinks the applicant's plan is reasonable and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He added that where the house sits on the lot is unique, this applicant didn't build the house originally and that tuck under garages create certain issues. He said he thinks a two-stall garage is more essential to the character of locality than a one- stall garage. Nelson agreed. She said she wishes the proposed second garage stall wasn't so close to the property line but that the Board has approved similar variances for garage space in the past. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 22, 2013 Page 6 Johnson stated that this proposed addition is potentially impacting what the neighboring property can do to their house in the future and reiterated that there will be an imposing wall along the north property line that doesn't exist now. McCarty said it seems like the applicant would only need a 4.5-foot variance because they gained 3 feet of side yard space with the amended survey. He said he knows that having only one garage stall is difficult but he is not sure what the cost of a allowing a finro-stall garage will be to the neighbor. Nelson said if the proposal was for anything other than garage space she would agree. Fonnest asked the applicant if his variance request is all or nothing. Vedadi said yes because if they build it any further away from the side yard property line they would end up with a very small, non-functioning space. Fonnest said he agrees that this is not a perFect situation but that most properties in this neighborhood have a two-stall garage so he is supportive of the applicant's request. MOVED by Fonnest, seconded by Nelson to approve the variance request for 9.5 ft. off of the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 3 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line to allow for the construction of a garage/bedroom addition to the existing house. McCarty stated that this proposal is really more than a garage it is a second story as well. He reiterated that he thinks a flat roof deck over the garage would be less impactful and would still get the applicant a second garage stall. Maxwell stated that it is a tuck under garage so it is like adding basement space, not a tall second story. Nelson said she thinks that building a garage with no living space above it would be a negative. Maxwell agreed with Nelson. The motion carried 3 to 2. Maxwell, Fonnest and Nelson voted yes. Johnson and McCarty voted no. 3900 Glenwood Avenue David Strand, Applicant (13-09-21) 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 for the construction of a pool. Request: Waiver from 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. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 22, 2013 Page 7 Hogeboom reminded the Board that this applicant received variances at the August Board of Zoning Appeals meeting in order to build a new house on the property and to locate a pool and a pool house in front of the home instead of behind the home as required. He stated that as the applicant got further along in the design process he realized that the location of the pool and pool house needed to change slightly. Since variances are based on the plans submitted, the applicant is now requesting new variances based on the changes he is proposing. David Strand, representing the applicant, stated that the existing house has been removed. He explained that he is proposing to move the pool and pool house further west on the property. He referred to a site plan and pointed out the location of the pool and pool house on the previous plans and on the proposed new plans. Maxwell asked why the location of the pool and pool house need to change. Strand stated one reason is that there is an electrical pole that would cost befinreen $5,000 and $15,000 to move. He said another reason is that an auto pool cover only works on a rectangular pool and the pool they proposed in the past was L-shaped. Kelly Phillips, Applicant, added that moving the pool to the west helps them get out of the tree canopy as well. Nelson asked if the location of the pool is the only thing changing. Strand explained that they are proposing to move the pool to where the pool house was and to move the pool house closer to the driveway. McCarty asked if the pool house will be the same size. Strand said yes. He explained that once the house was removed and the grade was discovered they realized they were cramming the pool too close to the park. He noted that the pool will still be located 56 feet away from the front property line. Johnson referred to the application where it states that there is a big grade difference on the property and asked what that means. Strand explained that a person looking at the house from the street won't be able to see the pool or the pool house. Phillips added that the goal is the meld the look of their property into the park. Fonnest asked how far to the west the pool and pool house are shifting. Strand stated that the pool house would shift approximately 22 feet to the west and that the pool would shift approximately 17 feet to the west. He added that the pool house would still be located approximately 30 feet from the side yard property line. Nelson asked about the pool house dimensions. Strand said the dimensions of the pool house are 12' x 26'. Hogeboom noted that if the pool house was behind the main house it could be located 5 feet from the side and rear yard property lines and the only reason the applicant is asking for variances is because the location of the pool and pool house have changed since the previously approved proposal. Stand added that the neighboring property owners are supportive of the proposed new location of the pool and pool house. Minutes of the Goiden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 22, 2013 Page 8 Strand stated that he doesn't want his client penalized for his exploring and uncovering more facts that they didn't know the last time they were before the Board. He said that the plan they are currently proposing functions better and should have been the plan they brought to the Board originally. McCarty said he likes the architecture but he is still concerned about placing the pool in the front. He said he doesn't understand why the house can't be moved forward on the lot and be less impactful to the neighbors instead of the park. Strand said they did consider that and other options but the plan currently being proposed is the least impactful and intrusive to the neighbors. Nelson said she has the same concerns that she had last time they considered variances for this property. She said that this proposal is nice but she is concerned about the next person who asks for an accessory structure in the front yard and that their proposal might not be as attractive. Johnson stated he understands Nelsons concerns but this property is unique and the design seems practical and there really isn't anyone impacted by this proposal. Maxwell agreed and noted that there are many properties on Glenwood Avenue that have accessory structures (garages) in front of the house. Nelson said she thinks a garage in front of a house is different than a pool house. She also noted that in this new proposal the pool and pool house will be closer to the neighbors to the west. Phillips reiterated that the pool house will be 30 feet away from the west property line and added that they could build a two story house 15 feet away from the side yard property lines. Johnson asked about the fence height requirements. Hogeboom stated that in this case, the fence can be 6 feet tall around the entire property. Johnson asked about the height of the proposed pool house. Strand said the pool house is 10 feet tall. Johnson said there will be a total of 4 feet of the pool house that is not screened by fence and the property is unique because no one will be able to see it. Maxwell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Maxwell closed the public hearing. Johnson said he thinks this is a creative, good use of space and the impact on the neighborhood is less than it was with the previous house. Nelson said she thinks the design is beautiful but she is concerned about setting precedent for future requests regarding accessory structures in front yards. MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Fonnest and motion carried 3 to 2 to approve the following variance requests. Members McCarty and Nelson voted no. • The proposed pool is not required to be located completely to the rear of the principal structure. • The proposed pool house is not required to be located completely to the rear of the principal structure. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 22, 2013 Page 9 III. Other Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 pm. .� � eorge a e , Chair L� a Wittman, Recording Secretary