Loading...
12-19-13 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals December 19, 2013 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, December 19, 2013 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Maxwell called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm. Those present were Members, Fonnest, Johnson, Maxwell, Nelson and Planning Commission Representative McCarty. Also present were City Planner Jason Zimmerman and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes — October 22, 2013 Regular Meeting MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Fonnest and motion carried unanimously to approve the October 22, 2013 as submitted. II. The Petition(s) are: 1800 Mendelssohn Ave. N. Danette & Marlin Henrikson, Applicants (13-12-22) Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3)(c) Side Yard Setback Requirements • 5 ft. off of the required 12 ft. to a distance of 7 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a deck/lift addition on the south side of the existing home. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 19 Paved Area Requirements • 3 ft. off of the required 3 ft. to a distance of 0 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new driveway along the side yard (south) property line. Zimmerman reviewed the applicant's request to build a deck with a wheelchair lift on the south side of the existing house and to construct a new driveway along the south property line. He explained that the proposed deck would be located 7 feet from the property line instead of the required 12 feet and the proposed driveway would be located 0 feet from the property instead of the required 3 feet. He reminded the Board that in 2008 they approved a variance for a similar deck proposal however, the variance expired before a deck was built. Also, in 2008, the applicant requested a variance for the same driveway expansion project which was denied. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals December 19, 2013 Page 2 He noted that future work regarding the amount of impervious surface coverage allowed could also require a variance, but the applicant is not requesting that variance at this time. McCarty asked if the deck stairs can be located in the setback area. Zimmerman said yes, stairs and landings are allowed to be in a setback area. Maxwell asked why the amount of impervious surface isn't being addressed at this time. Zimmerman stated that in discussions he's had with the applicant there has been indication of possible future improvements that would add a significant amount of pavement to the property, but that is not a part of the applicant's current proposal before the Board. Also, the need for a variance regarding impervious surface will depend on the size of any patio built. Nelson asked how the federal requirements regarding accessibility affect the City's ordinances. Zimmerman stated that the City Attorney has said that the City needs to be reasonable with requests regarding accessibility. Fonnest referred to the Board's discussion in 2008 and noted that the patio at that time could be used as a place to park. Marlin Henrikson, Applicant, stated that it won't be possible to park in the back yard. Zimmerman noted that the survey shows the retaining wall is located right on the property line and the applicant has stated that the retaining wall is located 2 feet away from the property line. McCarty asked if there is a more current survey available so the Board can tell exactly where the retaining wall and fence are located. Henrikson stated that the retaining wall has been moved 2 feet away from the property line since his last variance request in 2008. Jane Hampton, Accessibility Design, representing the applicant, explained that Mr. Henrikson is up for a grant from the VA whose expectations and standards are very strict. She explained that the living quarters in this house are on the second level so the only affordable and appropriate way to have access is through a lift system. She added that the bedroom also needs to have an egress to the backyard but they will be able to reduce the amount of impervious surface coverage that has been discussed. Nelson referred to the variance request regarding the driveway and noted that in 2008 the neighboring property owner had concerns. She asked if the variance being requested now is the only way to accomplish what the applicant is proposing to do. Scott Andrews, Accessibility Design, showed the Board a plan of the proposed stairs, deck and lift and how they are proposing access from the rear yard to the front yard. McCarty asked if the proposed access is solely a walkway. Andrews said yes and reiterated that it will not be used as a driveway. Maxwell asked if there were other options considered regarding the location of the lift that conform to the setback requirements. Andrews said other options have been considered but that the main entrance access is located on the south side of the house and the applicant needs to be able to get into the house without having to go through the garage. Hampton explained that in case of a fire, egress through the garage, as it is currently, is not a safe Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals December 19, 2013 Page 3 option. Maxwell noted that the construction of the house, with the main entrance on the side, is unique to the property. McCarty asked what the difficulties would be in moving the proposed elevator around to the back corner of the house instead of placing it in the side yard area. Andrews explained that moving the elevator to back corner would create a right angle elevator instead of having the straight through access they need. Hampton explained that the applicant will eventually be in a wheel chair that will be inclined so they will need to have straight through access. She added that they only have a certain amount of money and a right angled elevator would be larger and more expensive. She stated that they could possibly pull the stairs and elevator closer to the house and they could add some landscaping to reduce the impact. McCarty said it seems that the patio door area could be used and the proposed elevator could still be moved to the back corner of the house. Hampton explained the layout of the interior of the house and stated that they don't want to ruin the layout. Nelson said she wants to find a way to make the proposal work, but the Board has to consider the impact as well. Hampton stated that the design will be nice and added that the plans submitted with the application were done before her design firm was brought on board. Henrikson stated that moving the elevator to the back corner could add $20,000 to $30,000 to the project, the whole back side of the house would have to be "underpinned," the back door would be blocked off, and aesthetically it would look ridiculous. McCarty suggested the item be tabled so the applicant can come back with an updated design. Nelson agreed and added that it is hard to determine exactly what the Board would be approving with the plans that were submitted. Maxwell said that there seems to be other options worth considering that would not require as large a variance. Hampton said she is concerned about the timeline in regard to the applicant's health. Maxwell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Maxwell closed the public hearing. McCarty said he would have a hard time approving this design plan. He said he thinks it can be done in a way that is less intrusive to the neighboring property. He questioned if the priority is getting rid of the patio door or getting a ramp. Nelson stated that the grade of the property is an issue. She said that the proposal as submitted would certainly affect the neighboring property. She added that she wants to grant some kind of variance but with minimal impact. Fonnest said he is concerned about the cost to this family and asked if they are working within a tight budget. Andrews stated that the ground work without the interior modifications will cost approximately $20,000. Henrikson stated that $67,000 is all he has and that he is going to have to spend an addition $15,000 to $20,000 to do everything that needs to be done. McCarty stated that moving the elevator to the back corner might end up being less expensive. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals December 19, 2013 Page 4 Maxwell said the Board doesn't typically consider financial issue and questioned what other options have been considered. He added that it doesn't seem like the due diligence has been done and that all other options have been exhausted. Johnson stated that he would also like to see the best options that don't require variances or he would like more explanation of why this proposal is the best option and why other options won't work. Hampton stated that she realizes that what has been submitted to the Board has some holes in it. She said she would like to table their request and come back to the Board next month with a better design. Maxwell stated that he thinks the Board wants to provide a variance of some sort they just would like to see a proposal with minimal intrusion into the required setback area. MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to table the applicant's request to the January 28, 2014 regular Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. III. Other Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:20. , V" f;� � i, �:= �� l� : U .�n��i C�orge Maxwell, Chair Li � Wittman, Administrative Assistant