Loading...
03-25-14 BZA Agenda Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 25, 2014 7 pm 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers I. Approval of Minutes — January 28, 2014 and February 25, 2014 Regular Meetings II. The Petition(s) are: 130 Edgewood Avenue South Warren Kapsner, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements • 6.4 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 28.6 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new addition. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3)(A) Side Yard Setback Requirements • 3 ft. off of the required 15 ft. to a distance of 12 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line. III. Other Business IV. Adjournment This document is a�ailable in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call 763-543-80Q6(TTY:7b3-543-3968)to make a request. Examples of alternate formats ` may include large print,electrpnic,Braille,audipcassette,etc: , Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 28, 2014 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Maxwell called the meeting to order at 7:04 pm. Those present were Members Johnson, Maxwell, Nelson and Planning Cornm��sion Representatives Boudreau-Landis and McCarty. Also present were City Planner Jason Zimmerman and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes — December 19, 2013, Regular Meeti�g MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanir'nously ta �pprove the December 19, 2013, minutes as submitted. I1. The Petition(s) are: f ' ' 1800 Mendelssohn Ave. N. Danette & Marlin Henrikson, Appl�Cants (Cantinued,ltem) Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3)(c) Side Yard Setba�ck Requi�rements • 3 ft. off of the requi,red.12:ft. tQ a distance of 9 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) proper�y lir�e, Purpose: To allow for.the construction of a deck/lift addition on the south side of the existing hame. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 19 Paved Ar+�a Requirements ��� �, . • 1 ft.off o�the�required 3 ft. to a distance of 2 ft. at its closest point to the side y�r� (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new driveway along the side yard (south} property line. Zimmerman reminded the Board that this request was tabled at their December meeting. Since then, the applicant has submitted revised plans and is now requesting a variance for 3 ft. off the required 12 ft. to a distance of 9 ft. at its closest point to the south property line rather than 5 ft. off the required 12 ft. to a distance of 7 ft. for the proposed deck/wheelchair lift. Also, the variance request for the construction of a new driveway is now 1 ft. off the required 3 ft. to a distance of 2 ft. at its closest point to south property line rather than 3 ft. off the required 3 ft. to 0 ft. as proposed last month. Minutes of the Golden Valiey Board of Zoning Appeals January 28, 2014 Page 2 Zimmerman referred to the site plans and noted that the applicant is proposing to move an existing shed 3 ft. away from the north side yard property line. He explained that if the shed is moved to this location it would need to be 5 ft. away from the property line. Marlin Henrikson, Applicant, stated that the shed will either be removed from the property or it will stay in its current location. It will not be moved to the location shown on the plans. Maxwell noted that the Board's suggested changes from last month have:b�en made. Zimmerman agreed and added that the proposed new plans allow more� distance fr.om the proposed new deck/lift to the neighboring property to the south. �Ie alsQ noted that the proposed amount of impervious surface has been reduced sinee the Board last" ' reviewed this proposal. Maxwell stated that the reason the proposed construction has tct be an the south side of the house is because the main entrance is on that side of the house. He added that the applicant didn't build the house originally and did not,choose th�,lo�ation of the main entrance. Maxwell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no on�e wishing to comment, Maxwell closed the public hearing. ; , ' Boudreau-Landis questioned the need for the 7-foo# wide paved area shown on the plans. Henrikson stated that he needs that width for access. He added that he also wants the edge of the driveway to go all the way to the retaining wall so there isn't an area of gravel between the edge of the driveway and the retaining wall. Maxwell added that the Veterans Administration also has certain requirements that have to be met. Johnson stated that it,looks like this proposal addresses what was discussed last month and looks to be the best:option. Nelson agreed and added that the proposal fits with the criteria that the Board uses: it �s in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance, it is cansistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the request is reasonable, the property is.unique'b�cau�e of the grade and the proposal will not alter the essential character of the Ia�ality: Boudreau-Landis added that the Veteran Administration requirements are unique to this case as well. McCarty asked the applicant if they had given any more consideration to moving the elevatar to the east side of the house. He said the new design is nice, but it is very close the n�i�hboring property and he still thinks there is a way the design can work on the east side of the house. Johnson noted that the stairs and a landing area can be built within the setback area without a variance so really there is only 1 ft. of the proposed structure that will be located in the setback area. McCarty stated #hat what is being proposed is much more substantial than just stairs and a landing. Nelson agreed it is more substantial, but it is not as close to the neighbor as it was is the previous proposal they reviewed. McCarty said he understands that the variance amount has been lessened but he still thinks the Minutes of the Golden Valiey Board of Zoning Appeals January 28, 2014 Page 3 elevator could be moved to the east side of the house. Henrikson added that moving the structure to the east would add another $24,000 to the project. MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variance requests: • 3 ft. off of the required 12 ft. to a distance of 9 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line to allow for the construction of a deck/lift addition on,,.the south side of the existing house. � �;��� • 1 ft. off of the required 3 ft. to a distance of 2 ft. at its closest poir�t #o the side yard (south) property line to allow for the construction of a new drivevVay along��he s�uth property line. 245 Kentucky Avenue North Scott Newland, Newland Architecture, Inc., AppliCant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(1) FrontYard Setback Requiremenfs • 1.19 ft. off of the required 35 ft, to a distanceaof 33.81 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (north) property li�e, � �r � Purpose: To allow for the construction c�f an addition to the front of the house. Zimmerman explained the applic�nt's proposal to expand a second floor bedroom and add an interior elevator. He ref�rred to the applicant's plans and noted that the proposed expansion would not protrud�,,out firom the"fiouse any further than the existing eaves of the house. ��, Maxwell asked ifi the foundation of f'he house is changing. Zimmerman said no and explained that if the proposed addition was a bay window it would be allowed without the need for a variance. It is when the flaor area expands that an addition is required to meet setback requiremenfs. Maxwell asked why the proposed "bump out" area is necessary. Scott Newland, Architect for the project, discussed the required clearances in order to make the interior space wheelchair accessible and functional. He added that they also need to provide space for physical therapy. He reiterated that the proposed addition would go no further than the extent of the existing roof. Maxwell asked what other options were considered. Newland stated that they considered remodeling the entire house but it is not functional or feasible with the cost and the existing layout of the upstairs space. Minutes of the Golden Vailey Board of Zoning Appeals January 28, 2014 Page 4 Maxwell asked if there are any unique features to the property. Newland stated that the uniqueness in this case is not so much the site, it is more of how the inside of the house is configured, the location of the stairs, corridors, bathrooms, etc. Nelson noted that the house was built right at the front setback line, which the applicant did not do. Maxwell opened the public hearing, seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Maxwell closed the public hearing. � �'� McCarty said this proposal seems reasonable to him and that the ad�iition:will be no more intrusive than the proposed bay window will be. Nelson agreed anti added fhat it meets the criteria the Board considers. Johnson also agreed and added that;the proposed addition will make the home more in tune with the homes in the neighborhood. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Johnson and motion �arried u'nanim�Us�y to approve a variance request for 1.19 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a dist�nce of 33.81 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (north) property line to allow for the'ec�t�struction of an addition to the front of the house. 641 Westwood Drive South Curtis and Javne Olson, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21,Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 12(A)(3) Side Yard Setback Requirements • 5 ft. off of the required 5°ft. to a distance of 0 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) propetty lin�'. Purpose: To ai�ow for the r�construction of an existing deck in the same location. Zimmerman stated that this property has a deteriorating retaining wall located under the existing deck. The applicant wants to remove the deck, replace the retaining wall and reconstruct the deck. He stated that the north corner of the deck is located too close to the side yard property line and explained that plans from 1985 were located in the City's files that show the deck in its current configuration. Also, in 1991 the property received a variance for a new garage and breezeway addition. The deck was shown on the survey at that time but there was no mention of the deck in the meeting minutes. He stated that he is not sure why a variance for the deck was never obtained, but guessed that staff might have considered the setbacks for the deck the same way the concrete pool surround was considered. Nelson asked if the concrete pool surround was allowed to go right up to the property line at the time it was constructed. Zimmerman said yes. He showed the Board an illustration and explained that if the proposed new deck were angled in order to meet the setback Minutes of the Goiden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 28, 2014 Page 5 requirements it would still be approximately 10 ft. wide. Nelson noted that this home has been sold a couple of times since 1991. Maxwell asked if the deck in its current location would have always required a variance. Zimmerman said yes and added that it also should have received a permit. Nelson asked if the setback issue regarding the deck was discovered when the applicant decided to replace the retaining wall. Zimmerman said yes. ( 4 � Ma�vell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing ,ip comm�'r��, Maxwell closed the public hearing. � � � Zimmerman noted that the applicant was not in attendance. ' Maxwell asked the Board if they would like to consider tabling this itern since #he applicant was not present. The consensus of the Board was that th� request did not need to be tabled. McCarty said he didn't think it would be a hardship;to the appl,icant to build the deck in a conforming location because they would be lasing such a sma:ll fraction of the deck space. ��, Nelson stated that it is an unfortunate si�uation because the applicant is making the effort to replace the retaining wall properly and ffien discovered they need a variance for the deck. Johnson said he thinks this situation i� unique because there is a pool. The applicants are not just asking for a variance because they want a bigger deck. He added that the deck won't have an impact on any neighboring property owners. Nelson stated that the situation wasn't caused by the current homeowners; they were just trying to fix something that Ma� been there for a long time. McCarty st��ed that if the deck was built in a conforming location the new deck would still be 10 ft. wid�which is an a�erage deck width. Boudreau-�andis said he is supportive of the applicant's request. He said he would feel differently if tli�,deck had not been there for such a long time and if the neighboring house to the north we��e closer. Maxwell added that no one has ever questioned the location of the existing deck, the need for a variance came as a surprise to the homeowner and the homeowner wants a uniform- sized deck around their pool. McCarty said he doesn't think the fact that the deck has been there a long time should be considered a hardship, especially when the applicant is proposing to replace the nonconforming section of the deck. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 28, 2014 Page 6 Nelson noted that the application states that if the deck were built in conformance with setback requirements it would only be 2 ft. wide. Zimmerman stated that is incorrect, the deck would be approximately 10 to 12 ft. wide on the north corner if it were angled to meet the requirements. MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Johnson and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve the variance request for 5 ft. off of the required 5 ft. to a distance of 0 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line to allow for the reconstruction of an existing deck in the same location. 6005 Golden Valley Road Vladimir Sivriver dba EDS, Inc., Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.35, Light Industrial�Zoning Distr�c#, Subd. 6(C)(4) Yard Requirements ��. � � • 10 ft. off of the required 10 ft. to a distance af 0 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard (south) property line. Purpose: To bring the recently constru�ted driveway into conformance with Zoning Code requirements. .� .: Zimmerman stated that the Light Industr.ial zon'r'ng district requires one half (10 feet) of the side and rear yard setback areas to be used aS;a landscaped buffer. He stated that the applicant recently constructed a n�w parl�ing lot which ended up being 0 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard (south�;property line. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the newly constructed parking lot to remain as built. Zimmerman explained that in August 2013 the City issued a Stop Work Order for parking lot construction without a Storm Water Management Permit. In October 2013, the City issued a Storm Water Management Permit based on plans submitted by the applicant which showed a 10-foot setback for the parking'lot. In November 2013, a violation letter was issued upon inspection of the parking lo#. McCarty asked where the edge of the previous parking lot ended. Zimmerman said he didn't know the exact dis�ance but he doesn't think there was a well-defined edge on the former parl�ing lot. Ho�ever, there was some distance between the edge of the parking lot and the property line. Boudreau-Landis asked about the setback area for the building to the south. Zimmerman said it appears that the building to the south is approximately 20 ft. away from the property line. Maxwell asked if the applicant received a Storm Water Management Permit. Zimmerman said yes, the applicant did receive a Storm Water Management Permit based on plans that showed a 10 ft. setback. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 28, 2014 Page 7 Boudreau-Landis asked if the applicant submitted plans for the new parking lot. Zimmerman said he didn't think plans were required because at the time the applicant was proposing to do a mill and overlay of the parking lot, not a reconstruction. Vladimir Sivriver, EDS Inc., Applicant, referred to topography he completed in 2006 which showed that the original intent was to accommodate flow to a culvert. He stated that in 2012 he completed plans for a proposed building addition and that the plans complied with the requirements. However, last year the property owner decided not to move forward with the building addition, only the repairs to the parking lot. He stated that when canstruction started on the parking lot they realized there was a high water table so they hacf to excavate more material. At that time they also realized that the existing culvert was,,filled with silt an� dirt, so the flow would come back into this parking lot and the outlet was.finro feet higher than the existing culvert. He said construction of a culvert was stopped by the n�ighborir�g property owner so they proposed a new culvert and at that time they obtainet� permits and continued working on the property. He said there was a lot of misunderstanding�nd canfusion. He stated that they were just repairing the parking lot and that the majority of the parking lot had a 0 ft. setback from the property line and they had ta:r�move existing curb and install new curb and gutter so there was confusion about that as well: He discussed an existing concrete swale along the edge of the parking lot and stated that a grassy area would create more flow and worsen the conditions. Boudreau-Landis asked for clarification ort whether the edge of the previous parking lot went all the way to the property line. Sivriver said yes: Johrts�n said the photos show that it did not. Sivriver said that only a small pc�rtion,along.the edge of the parking lot was grass. ,� McCarty asked Sivriver if he removed��the'bituminous. Sivriver said they didn't have access to the existing culvert so repairing the parking lot would have been for nothing. Nelson asked how long the current owner has owned the property. Barry Rothman, Vice President of Operations for Bellboy, stated that the current owner has owned the property since 2005. Maxwell referred to the ap�lication and asked for further clarification about the maneuvering of tr�cks. Sivriver �tated tfi�t their new trucks are 75 feet long and that it would be impossible for the trucks ta back up without destroying a 10 foot grassy area. Sivriver referred to a photo and noted that tfie edge of the concrete swale was right on the property line. Johnson said he is not familiar wi�h 75 foot long trucks. Rothman stated that they need more room to pull in and'back up, Maxwell asked when the concrete swale was installed. Sivriver said it was installed in 2007 or 2008. Maxwell asked if it was installed because of water run-off issues. Sivriver said it was installed for the trucks to be able to back up and for the water issues. Maxwell asked if the concrete swale was there when the property was purchased. Rothman said he didn't recall. Maxwell asked if the property to the south would not let the applicant use the existing culvert. Sivriver said that was his recollection. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 28, 2014 Page 8 Johnson asked how the water table issue was discovered. Sivriver said that water came up during their excavation. McCarty asked if it was the high water table or the run-off that required them to build the concrete swale. Sivriver said he didn't know the history. He referred to the culvert situation and stated that they had to redesign the grade. Boudreau-Landis said he hasn't heard how the situation got to this point. Sivriver reiterated that the majority of the parking lot was always right on the property line. Boudreau-Landis asked Sivriver if the parking lot was removed. Sivriver said yes, because the,water table had to be fixed. He said the project was treated as a repair and if it were a new p�rking lot it would have required new curb and gutter. Boudreau-Landis stated that�tlie plan far a 10 foot setback along the south property line wasn't followed. McCarty said he is hearing that the applicant was going to repair the parking lof and then found out there was a high water table. He asked the applicant when he found out a permit was needed, when a new design was done, when he received a per�mit and when construction started. Sivriver said his plans show a zera setback: McCarty:Stated that the plans Sivriver used should be the plans that were ap,p�oved by#he City, there should be just one set of plans. Sivriver said they did some modif�cations. McCarty asked if they were just going to do an overlay of the parking lot, then discovered the water table and started tearing out the parking lot instead. Sivriver said he obtaine�l,permits from the City and from the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission.; McCarty asked if the plans were redone to show the required 10 foot setback. Sivriver said the 10 foot setback was shown on the 2012 plans when they were proposing an addition to the building, but there was a misunderstanding because the plans he has from when he obtained his building permit clearly shows a 0 foot setback. He reiterated tha#the edge of the parking lot was at a 0 foot setback along a majority of the property Iine. Johnson stated that the Bo�rd is not going to be able to solve the timeline issue and suggested that they instead loo,k at the criteria they use to make their decisions. McCarty said he thinks the Bo�rd's�decision does depend on the timeline because he doesn't know what drawing was used,to issue the permit. Nelson said the drawings show a 10 foot setback area and the applicant is here after the fact. McCarty asked what prompted the permit. Boudreau-l�andis said his understanding is that the initial plan was to overlay the parking lot, but then th� applicant r�n into problems which led to work stoppage, then they had to get a Storm Wat�r permit based on plans that showed a 10 foot setback. Sivriver said he did the designs terr times.e He noted that the silt fence goes along the property line to the existing concrete curb that h!as a 0 setback. Boudreau-Landis asked if the Watershed gave approval based.�n the 1 Q foot setback. Sivriver stated that the Watershed doesn't look at setback requiremer�ts they look at the existing parking lot and the new parking lot. Maxwell asked if there are unique features with the property other than the length of the trucks and the high water table. Sivriver said there is a large amount of roof drainage and there was no outlet created which leads to a large amount of water in the parking lot. Maxwell asked if that is a reoccurring issue. Rothman said yes. Sivriver reiterated that his understanding is that the permit allowed a 0 foot setback because the majority of the edge of the driveway was located on the property line. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 28, 2014 Page 9 Maxwell opened the public hearing. Mike Abrams, 1109 Zane Avenue North, said there was never an overlay planned and that this has been a planned assault from the beginning including the applicant digging on his property without permission. He said when he saw them digging he went to the City to look at the plans and was asked "what plans?" Then the City issued a stop work order. He said there was a 10 foot buffer between the edge of the applicant's parking lot and the property line and that it did not go right up to the property line. Nelson asked Abrams if the grassy area shown in the photos was on his property.'Abrams said yes. He added that as far as trucks and trailers maneuvering, there is room for them to turn around without having to build the parking lot all the way to the property line. N�Ison asked if the concrete swale was built right to the property line. Abrams s�id he couldn't tell by the photo. He stated that the applicant has done lots of things irtcluding using his property as a holding pond for their water. He said he's heard enough of"it's complicated" and "it's a misunderstanding." Maxwell asked if this issue is in litigation now. Abr�ms said it is not�in, litigation yet, but it will be. McCarty asked Abrams if the applicant literally dwg a holding pond on his property and how long it was before he noticed. Abrams said yes, �nd added`'that it took a couple of weeks before he noticed because his building has been empty for a while. Nelson asked Abrams how long he:,has oi'+vned �iis3property. Abrams said he's owned it since 1991. �� � �_�,� , � ���'� '� Bill Skolnick, Skolnick & Shiff, P.A:, repres�nting Mr. Abrams, stated that Abrams didn't know about the parking lot reconstrucfion until he saw them digging the hole. He said there is no question that work began without a permit. There are letters from the City showing that the applicant needed to have a '10 foot'setback and the City has plans from the applicant that show a 10 foot setback for a new'parking lot. He introduced R. Eric Zimmerman, R.E. Zimmerman Consulting, LLC. Dr. Zimmerman said the question is where the original parking lot was locat�d before any work was done. He stated that based on aerial photos there was 40 feet betwe�n the north edge of Mr. Abrams building and the south edge of the paved parking lot or 20 feet of property on each side of the common property line. He referred to the��qncrete�siNale�a�nd said that was put in as a stop gap. Skolnick �t�ted that the applicant's parking lot was expanded. The applicant has been asking for forgiveness rather than permission and has disregarded the City's letters. He referred to a letter from City staff saying that there needs to be a signed agreement with Mr. Abrams. The applicant has never asked for a letter from Mr. Abrams and has never given Mr. Abrams any consideration or tried negotiating. Maxwell asked Sivriver when they knew they needed a variance. He said he knew when he received a letter from the City. Rothman added that the culvert has never been cleaned or maintained and that an extraordinary amount of water comes out of the drains on the back of Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 28, 2014 Page 10 the neighbor's building and erodes their parking lot. Sivriver said the purpose of this meeting is the 0 foot setback issue and it is his opinion that the majority of the parking lot was setback 0 feet from the property line. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Maxwell closed the public hearing. Maxwell said the Board needs to focus on the criteria used when considering variance requests. Nelson agreed that the Board has been asked to consider a variance to allow a parking lot to be located 0 ft. from a property line and she doesn't think the crite�ia have been met in order to grant a variance in this case. McCarty said that the need for the variance was caused by the landowner. We;,added'that he doesn't know which plan was issued with the City permit. Nelson noted that th� applicant received a letter from the City stating that there needed to be � 10 f�ot setback from the edge of the parking lot to the property line. Maxwell asked about the water table issue. McCarty said the water table should have been discovered earlier in the process. He said it appears that fhe applic��t did the work, got caught doing the work then asked for a variance. H,e noted however, that the Board of Zoning Appeals has granted variances in the past when errors have been made. Nelson said she doesn't think the variance request meets enough of the criteria used when granting variances. Johnson referred tp the �riteria and stated that he thinks the proposal meets two of the criteria, it is a reasonable u5�,and it doesn't alter the essential character of the locality however, there are no,unique circums�ances not caused by the landowner, and the variance is not in harmony with°t�e,purpose and intent of the ordinances. MOVED by Johnson, secanded by''Nelsan and motion carried unanimously to deny the variance request for 10 ft. off af tlie required 10 ft. to a distance of 0 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard (south) property line to bring the recently constructed driveway into conformance with Zoning Code requirements. III. Other Business No other busin�ss was ctiscussed. IV. Adjour�nmen`t The meeti�g was adjourned at 8:59 pm. George Maxwell, Chair Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals February 25, 2014 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, February 25, 2014 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. City Planner Jason Zimmerman called the meeting to order at 7:08 pm. Those present were Planning Commission Representatives Boudreau-L,�r�dis, McCarty, Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present were City Planner Jason Zimmerman, Pl�nning Intern Nick Olson and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Board Members Johnson, Maxwell and Nelson were absent. Since the Chair and Vice Chair were absent Segelbaum nominated McCarty to be Chairperson Pro Tem. McCarty accepted and chaired the meeting. I. Approval of Minutes — January 28, 2014, Reguiar Meeting , The Board decided to put the approval of the January 28, 2014, minutes on the next regular agenda since many of them did not attend the January 28 meeting. 11. The Petition(s) are: 1343 Orkla Drive Lake West Development (Cpvins�ton, LLC) Request: Waiver fr�m Section 'I 9,;,21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(1) FrontYard ��#ba�k Requirements :;,. • 7.1 ft. off of t�e req�ired'��� ft. to a distance of 27.9 ft. at its closest point to the front y�rd (north} property line. Purpose; To aflaw for the construction of a new home. Requ�sti: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1), Subd. �11(A����)(b) Side Yard Setback Requirements • City �ode 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. Olson referred to a survey of the property and stated that it consists of two lots. He explained the applicant's proposal to un-combine the lots and build two new houses. The variances requested relate to the proposed new home on lot to the north. He added that the proposed new home would line up with the existing homes along Knoll Street, several of which have received variances from the front yard setback requirements and are located closer than the required 35 feet from Knoll Street. Minutes of the Golden Valtey Board of Zoning Appeals February 25, 2014 Page 2 Waldhauser asked if the City has recommended to the applicant that he re-plat the property so that two homes could fit without the need for variances. Olson stated no, and explained that because the two lots already exist the City wouldn't require re-platting. Segelbaum asked about the un-combining process. Olson explained that the property consists of two existing platted lots of record that were combined at some point for tax purposes. Only one house with one address has been located on the property, but it is really two lots. Segelbaum asked how big of a side yard variance is being requested. Olson stated that the applicant is proposing to build up to the required 12.5 foot setback. The request is'to not have to increase that setback amount as the house gets taller. In this case, #he height of the proposed house would require there to be a 15.5 foot side yard setback. . Segelbaum referred to a map showing the locations of other houses �long Knoll Street and asked which ones received variances. Olson pointed ou�the on�s where h�3 found evidence that a front yard variance had been granted. . Boudreau-Landis referred to the survey of the property and' noted that the property line along the east seems closer to the street than the property line along the north. Zimmerman stated that the amount of right-of-way is different along each front. McCarty referred to the survey and asked:if the south side yard setback was measured from the foundation or the cantilevered wall c��,th�,propose'd �iew house. Zimmerman said it was measured to the cantilevered walla,� becau�e the floor will cantilever. If it were a bay window and not the floor, the measurement would' be taken from the foundation. Segelbaum asked if the sauth elevation would be in violation of the articulation requirements if the wall did not cantilever. Zimmerman said yes. Segelbaum asked about the distance between the house and the south property line without the cantilevered wall. Olson stated that it would be approximate,ly two feet further away from the property line, but the applicant would still need a variance of one foot. Ben Wikstrom, Lake West Development, Applicant, said he would be willing to shift the house three'fagt fa the nqrth and ask for a larger front yard variance in order to meet the side yard setback,requirements. He referred to a survey of the property and noted that Knoll Street, along't�e north of the property, isn't centered within the right-of-way so there is more open space alang the north side of the property. He stated that the houses he is proposing to build'" are reasonably sized homes. He referred to the comment made about redrawing the property line!between the two lots and explained that they considered that option, however they would like to keep the south lot larger in size. He stated that if they don't receive variances, they would still construct two new homes, but the north home just wouldn't be as functional. He added that he feels a precedent has been set with the other homes in the area that were constructed closer than 35 feet to the front yard property line. McCarty asked Wikstrom to discuss the un-combining of the lots and asked what would prevent him from making this proposal work without variances. Wikstrom reiterated that this property is legally platted as two lots which, by statute, he can build on. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals February 25, 2014 Page 3 He stated that if he shifted the existing property line between the two lots to make the houses conform, both houses would be similar in size and there would be two homes that look the same right next to each other. Waldhauser asked if the side yard setback would have to increase if a two-story home is built on the south lot. Wikstrom said yes. Segelbaum asked Wikstrom to identify the practical difficulties that would help justify the granting of variances. Wikstrom stated that the buildable area on the north fot is small and added that the setback requirements and house styles were different wh�n the pr�perty was originally platted. He stated that he is not implying that there are financial difficulties;but the lots are already platted this way and were not created by him. He added that;a home that is 25 feet wide and 100 feet long would not be in character with this neighborhood. : McCarty opened the public hearing. Cathy Zettervall, 1336 Wisconsin Avenue North, said she daesn't want variances granted for this property because she doesn't want to see hou�es that are bigger than every other house in the neighborhood. She added that she thinks it is a weak argument by the applicant to state that he doesn't want two houses that would like alike next to each other. ��; << Larry Zettervall, 1336 Wisconsin Avenue North, �sketf if the Board has to consider the height of other houses in the area as well. Waldhauser explained that the increased side yard setback area according to the height of a ,house is a recent requirement. Segelbaum added that the 35-foot front yard setback has been ir� place for long time. Zettervall asked about the reasons for the setback requirements. W�Idhauser stated that front yard setbacks were established to keep consistent lines'of uiew up and down a street and the increased side yard setbacks were established to cut down on the amount of light that is blocked and to protect existing neighbors.� � � �: ` Seeing and hearing nt�,one else wishing to comment, McCarty closed the public hearing. Waldhauser stated that the front yard setback proposed is not out of character and won't look out of place. She referred to the side yard setback request and stated that when the two-foot deep cantilevered portion of the wall is taken into account the distance is really one foot visually and she doesn't feel it would be necessary to re-draw the property lines for such a small dista�ce. Segelbaum asked Waldhauser if she would rather see the house pushed further to the n�rth so that a side yard setback variance would not be needed. Waldhauser said no`, she vy�iuld not like to see the house built closer to Knoll Street. Boudreau-Landis agreed with Waldhauser and said the proposal is reasonable and that it is really a small infraction on the south, side yard setback requirements. He also stated that he is comfortable with the front yard variance request since the right-of-way area along the north is quite a bit larger than normal. Segelbaum also agreed and stated that the side yard setback request is minimal and that the Board has historically been very conscious of front yard setback requirements. He said he would be supportive of both of the proposed variances. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals February 25, 2014 Page 4 McCarty added that the topography also breaks up the visual plane on the block. He said he thinks this is a reasonable proposal but he is not convinced that the difficulties are unique to the property and although the issues were not caused by this landowner, they were caused by a past landowner. He said he would be curious to see other ways to plat this property. Zimmerman stated that he is not sure that two lots, with enough width, could be created if the center property line was shifted. McCarty suggested the lot line between the two properties could be platted from north to south instead of east to west. , �: Waldhauser stated that the elevations for the sides of the house look boring because there are no windows proposed. Wikstrom said he would be willing to add windows on both sides of the house. Segelbaum stated that he hopes the applicant won't need to ask for variances to build a house on the south lot and questioned if that could be added as,a condition ta this proposal. McCarty said he doesn't think the Board has that authority. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Boudreau-Lartdis �nd motion carried unanimously to approve the following variance requests: • 7.1 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 27.9 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (north) property line to allow for the construction of a''new home. • The side yard setback along the:south prQperty line'is allowed to remain at 12.5 feet without increasing even thougf� the house i's over 15 feet in height. Waldhauser added a cond�ti�n tli�t w�n�ows be added on the north and south side elevations. The Board agr�:ed withi°the added condition. III. Other Business: No other busines� was discussed. ;,. ,:�, IV. Adj�urnm��t ° �l The meetirtg wa�,�djourned at 7:50 pm. George Maxwell, Chair Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant 4��L� 1J/ � a;t�; �,7 '4 ���� �� Plannin De artment �T�.�.. ��� - - � p 763 593 8095/763-593-8109(fax) Date: March 25, 2014 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Nick Olson, Planning Intern Subject: 130 Edgewood Avenue South Warren Kapsner, Applicant ��=�����° �� ��.� � ::... � ��,_�.��, ��� .$, ° � . �-: �����. . �a._.� Warren Kapsner is seeking two variances from the City Code for the construction of a new addition to his home which would be used as a master suite. The project requires a variance from the front yard setback on Edgewood Avenue South of 35 feet to a distance of 28.6 feet. It also requires a variance from the minimum side yard setback of 15 feet to a distance of 12 feet. The Applicant received a front yard variance of 8 feet in July of 1998 to construct a new front entry within 26.6 feet of the front lot line. He would now like to match the appearance on the far side of the house as part of his addition, which would require him to construct within the front yard setback. Mr. Kapsner has indicated that without the articulation this variance would allow, he would be in violation of the section of the zoning code that limits unarticulated walls to 32 feet in length as his wall would be approximately 44 feet long. The addition on the north end of the house would extend towards the rear yard (to the west). Because the north side lot line angles slightly towards the existing home, the westernmost portion of the addition, as proposed, would fall within the north side yard setback. Mr. Kapsner is asking for a variance of 3 feet off the side yard setback to allow the addition to be constructed. The proposal requires variances from the following sections of City Code: • Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements The required minimum front setback shall be 35 feet from any front property line along a street right-of-way line. In the case of a corner lot, both yards along the street right-of-way shall be deemed front yards and must meet the 35 foot minimum setback. The Applicant is requesting a variance of 6.4 feet off of the 35 feet to a distance of 28.6 feet from the east property line. • Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements The minimum side yard setback for this property is 15 feet. The Applicant is requesting a variance of 3 feet off of the required 15 feet to a distance of 12 feet at the closest point to the side yard property line to the north. ..su 4.W... ���, , . '-� .:«. .: i � �: �E�� �n y�Q V'lw+�.?"�� ��YFi� ���J� ���"�a� Y�� W�.�} ��.� . � `� �` �ly � � ��� '.� . �� 'a� :`°�".� . �� � � f �kYl�£C1�1/6 ' � y .�. ..: ('^ .: . � -�-n.. � �.yy��st�ar�7�`�e � Ulentvouci �' �� �� _�, r � t� 6�{R3 �� 667i1 663Q ��`656i1 ���0 � 1 U5� �" � i�t�ii� 6237 �t 00 814$ r � �� , �� �'-� � sr �:�? � �..� �� Fi53Q '� � � � � p 12dY i25 110 11S � � � � ..m�=� � 44Q� � ���,;� ���� � Subject Property s��s� sss� s�� � � �;' ���oo ;a� � �� a�s es� t2o�� . °�zs � �'�,�, sas4 .3 �' zas v �200 � sa�a s��o s�u �� � � `�n' �� � �� � SSAO G31£s G`f� i3£1 135 � �1+ �:'� sn , ... �22fl y 223 d ��rtlawe�G�rS �1� � u � _ C� ' 240 '� ,SB55 8615 � &383 �6"�3S +C�i 5 6495, 6175� 6A5b �843;5 � 245 �.�� ..� �`� 2 tlk5 - 3(�0 345� Q�� �;, � .. �^`"".�"�t"i"�'�'� ,�aii� °� 320 325 .. �� ., ���i��I i i r� ���e'�`^� � ':i �' � r ����� � ���. � �„,� � �- � i' � �_��. �t 3-00 3A5 � �: i,� � ���� �� �� � � ������?!� ,� i s..�.«-��.,�- � ��5 0� 365 i ii �f� a .� � t � Ih i ut� )�� a � � i i � . . '° a�VP I y�� �, � � `, � � �,�. :, ��rii�����,, `��� ; i � � d 4t10 69U� . ��"'�""��,..�-""" .?' r ��... .�R-. > mm �.„� l.��.ii�► 'l.,,g�'s. .: ` ` , ... �b�` . . -�.� y •:�'y ��� -..� j�,��� � � �; .��,,,•'AI,�Y � ,w� , �� �f'� ��.r �' � :;• � �� .: � t F s�sf"�..'.s "!s � . y . x _. �,� , �� ` C �.�►:a '.4� w.� _ _ '�� -, . , �1 & J •���. � �'"" M �,/ �•�����i��4 .. • F '�{ ; �r} ����� �� 4' t ''�� '� !'. i � � � , � t� I .� � � . ;� ��4,�� �;a� A,�" � ���.�r f ���'�f �,'v r. . �4t= �� � :�•- _ , ., '�,*,,._ � � . - . �',.e, <w,� ,- � ,,��a.- .� .� -. . ! . „ e �' r:�� _ .. ..94, . .:. ' ;. s .,� � - ... . : � .�..:a:,..,..,.-,.. �.._:�.,_.�,a �i' . 'eF�:. . < _._,.-i.,�,. ,.a m.��. . . ,. .� . . .*��v".I. ..n . , ., ' a �� - f i.� in r ^ , , :;.,>,� ^' � i ` ,. . � . ,.:. �, �. �. .. A � �:�ft�' -- � �... � =� �Y .�" � �. �� - ��� �: �� :�. � .� � �.. �.. �� - � � � A �� �� �� f � � � .����_� �,� ; �� �.�,_.� ,� � �v, � � v � � ° city of olden � va e Zoning Code Variance Application 1. Street address: /�D �� G-� G-(�(�D � f� ✓ �� 2. Applicant Information: Name: ��f� 4a Ul�J' � /� i-� r`��� � �"� Address: /�9'� pr � �r �/�U � � �� U " ����y�� Email Address: /C�'t►'V� �� ��2 /,��1� d�Gt' �`/'V` � �P,/Y`��t-�•��� .�°� � Phone Number: ����,.,4' f�P� �� �.�/ G�,� 3. Provide a detailed description of the variance(s) being requested: . � �"1tr �Q.�✓!, �ie� O--u..�,.2_ /�N-�a �'V ��S � �` �iZGe��� ��.� � v���" u� I f� j�r;/� �GQ' r�to 7z-d� � ��.�e�� �.- � ��- �� —� 4. Provide a detailed description of need for a variance from the Zoning Code, including: • Description of building(s) • Description of proposed addition(s) • Description of proposed alteration(s)to property � (��� y��/.�'�,,�'-� .���t�c�./ /�p 7"�� `'d'�- fi�,,'/ �ii�, `„'�r 6 N�V�f� (/l�c�°bI/� '�Y"�1 . � � ' 5. Minnesota State Statute 462.357 requires that a property exhibit "practical difficulties" in order for a variance to be considered. Practical Difficulties: • result in a use that is reasonable. • are based on a problem that is unique to the property. • are not caused by the landowner. • do not alter the essential character of the locality. To demonstrate how your request will comply with Minnesota State Statute 462.357, please respond to the following questions: Explain the need for your variance request and how it will result in a reasonable use of the property. � �i u�a�-u-�� Lv✓! �t,o'J� �� �C? ,�r��r� �f'�'�''+'�' � � ��� What is unique about your property and how do you feel that it necessitates a variance? . � z� �`��- � � ��,��2��� �- ��, 3 v.�� .�L-a►�.�u. � ���.�.�-�-�-r�� ���� ��U �' ��� �.rm�c �� �"�+�°' 1 �.-Jc.�,�e.� Explain how the need for a variance is based on circumstances that are not a result of a landowner�tion��/ , . `� � f' l�l� �io t ���.,� . 1 , ' Explain how, if granted, the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of your neighborhood and Golden Valley as a whole. �'� !�a�-�-f� �1���.�.� �.� �� .� �;� 7�� ��..t �-� t� �� 6. The City requests that you consider all available project options that are permitted by the Zoning Code prior to requesting a variance. The Board of Zoning Appeals will discuss alternative options to seeking variance with you at the public hearing. Please describe alternate ways to do your project that do not require variances to the Zoning Code. � Uf� ��-w`l 2� .� �G��:� l�' � �w-� �sd�t.. ��.C� °,�,� .� +�--' �'� a�r�°'�*` � 2� ��� 1�,e �/-� �� ��--�`� 7. Please submit a current survey of your property. You must indicate the proposed addition, including new proposed building and structure setbacks, on the survey. A copy of Golden Valley's survey requirements is available upon request. Please note that this application is considered incomplete without the submittal of a current property survey. 8. Please submit at least one current color photograph of the area affected by the proposed variance. You may attach a printed photograph to this application, or you may email a digital image to plannin�@�oldenvallevmn.�ov. You may submit additional photographs as needed. To the best of my knowledge the statements found in this application are true and correct. I also understand that unless construction of the action applicable to this variance request, if granted, is not taken within one year, the variance expires. I have considered all options afforded to me through the City's Zoning Code, and feel that there is no alternate way to achieve my objective except to seek a variance to zoning rules and regulations. I give permission for Golden Valley staff, as well as members of the Board of Zoning Appeals,to enter my property prior to the public hearing to inspect the area affected by this request. �,�t�v �.� Signature of Applicant " _ � ► If the applicant is not the owner of all property involved in this application, please name the owner of this property: Print Name of owner Signature of owner $200 Application Fee Attached (for Single Family Residential) $300 Application Fee Attached (for all other Zoning Districts) Please note: The City of Golden Valley will send notice of your variance request to all adjoining property owners as well as owners of properties directly across streets or alleys. Your neighbors have the right to address the eoard of Zoning Appeals at your public hearing. You are advised to personally contact your neighbors and explain your project to them prior to the public hearing. 770� tak�lami Aw. I�rookipn �a�lcj, �. O. O;wo. Min�. , . - . Pbon� HA. S-Zlal CASWELL EHGINEERIN� CC. � , Reyiste��d P�ofeuionol Enqineers ond lond Surveyors � CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY �' . � � �� � �� � � Fo�r1� c.��rt E� c tic_�_._ l_ v �T S � : . C v�.-rt..�yvrt �►�?r��-r�.vr�+� t'1 E.M N E '� 1 N � ta i.t,Ti T�� 1�I t N t.l'C S c�T/� ' . � • Scale N�� , '��NUTES ZRON Mdtit�l�Mf�.PtT • . ' � 81. ) r'"� � . + -•34.w..- 30' ' . �a'7-�'� ._. � �D�GK A9DiT�ot.t _ _.. .. . _ .___• .� � a� �"'� fl� � . • �.. � ( . � 1 ; . ' ;�i �, J . . . . . . . ,Q - .. • . � c,, � „� z � . . � .. . . . ^ . �, _ • ' � V v r � � � d ^ � v ' y� � �x �, � V J N � � ��`.' -� � .r � 24' • � � . . � w` . _ • ( v :. r _��o$--Pd�V�'r�0t�1 _ __ _ _ 01 obR 3a' ,. : . e�l q,�/► �'s . t,, N � �'•i4.7 ps�_!h • � � 5.4� T_rs� � � M . M . ' �. � S O. �C.�R.'S'l..A.�vt�l � L' 1 TL C t--� _ ---------_ _ - --- - . . � . � � � . , -�W h•nby c..��fr �har �hb ta a mr� ae+d.coRatt npr�s�Mctio� of a :urwy of th� boundcri�s of thr land d�u�ib�d obov and of th�locotion of all buildinpi th�r�on,and ali visibl��ntrovchm�nt:,lf anr,from o�on soid (and.I►s surv�ved by m• this 2 �T� doy of d GT U � '° �{ ' - 191a�� �..7 . , � . CASWELL ENGINEERING CO. � ' �'� . / • •� - , � , br . -Fii� No.1�4'� " �.g�k � 4'�pap� �� Minne�ota Reqistrotion No 3 � ��---- . l � m PROPOSED NEl^l ADDI710N 0 � � � . i n 2'-0' 15'-0„ 2-0 19'-0" 8U I LD I NG FOO�PR I N� 3/32" = 1'-0 Kevin J. Anderson A r c h i t e c t Kapsner Residence 320-632-9582 GOIdAfI V811Ay, Minnesota 70 First Avenue NE Conoept Drawing Little Falls, Minnesota 56345 FetNUary 20,2014 1 of 2 V Minutes of the �olden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 28, 1998 : Page 3 ir Sell read the requested variances. Ms. Brubaket was in attendance. Sta n eviewed the request noting that the proposed deck, to the front of: se, woui at area along the garage and to the front of the house. the deck would be a 'mateiy 1-1/2 feet aff the ground. Member L.ang said no problem with the reque at the deck would be three feet from the front of the Member Swedberg asked the app i the dimensions of the deck were amved at. Brubaker cornmented that origi e ked at a 10' x 18' deck, but the additional two feet added mQre cost e wanted. rg said that an eight-foot wide deck is not very wide and wo willing to grant a varian a 10-foot wide deck. Se8 said that he would ap of such a motion. MOVED- olachek, seconded by Swedberg and motion carrie ' ously to approve the ested variances from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) of 5.33 feet to nce of 29.67 for the proposed deck and 7(C)(2) as noted above. , 130 Edgewood Avenue South (Map 18) (98-7-22) Warren Kapsner Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback for 8 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 26.6 feet of the proposed entry anto the frant of the house. (Note a previous front yard variance was granted for.4 feet.) Purpose� To allow for the construction of an entry onto the front of the house facing Edgewood Avenue South. � � , Chair Sell read the requested variance. Warren Kapsner was in attendance. Staff Liaison Grimes reviewed the proposal for a front entrance facing Edgewood Avenue South. Kapsner reviewed the architecture of the existing house and the problem with water d�aining from the existing front steps into the basement because the water well was placed in this spot under the steps. He said because of the moisture in the basement at this area, there is heat loss which causes the steps to become very slippery in winter. Sell noted that the east side of any structure receives less sun, therefore little snow and ice melt due to lack of sun on this side of the house. Swedberg asked #he app(icant to explain why he was requesting eight feet instead of a five-foot entrance. Kapsner sa�.t�iat the proposed entrance would be approximately five feet in width and the sxtra foatage is for the proposed columns to the front of the entrance. He said he believes that the columns will give the propased entrance a more dramatic Iook. Swedberg commented that it seems that a house is govemed by the use of our cars and how much we use the front entrance. Kapsner said that he and his wife do not use the front entrance that much, but that his guests would be using this entrance. � � y Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 28, 1998 Page 4 Shaffer asked if the entryway would be a vestibule. Kapsner said the inside existing door going inta the house would be eliminated and replaced with an archway. He said he had not decided whether the new entrance would be one or two doors. Swedberg commented that the proposed drawing shows a limited amount of shrubbery around the entrance. Kapsner reviewed his survey noting where existing pines and bushes are now located and talked about what would be replaced. Kapsner said that he still has not decided on whether to constn.u:t a cascading waterfaN over rocks. Shaffer brought to the attention of staff that the proposed vverhang would be 36 inches instead of#he allowed 30 inches. Kapsner that that he could pull the roof back 6 inches and still maintain the peek as found on other parts of the house. Shaffer said that he usually does not like seeing construction in the front se#back but in this case he does not believe there would be any affect on the neighborhood and the entrance could enhance the area. He said he was concemed with the roof line and the extra 6 inches and agreed with the applicant that it should be cut back to 30 inches. Swedberg asked for some assurance that the proposed entry is the minimum amount possible, but still practical. He continusd saying lhat due to tfie topography of the land, the rec}uest can be justified. Kapsner said that he could reduce the size, but the entry would become very cramped. He believes the pillars would make the addition more attractive and be an asset to the neighborhood. Kapsner said he made every atternpt to design an entry that woutd have the least impact on the front setback and the neighborhood. Shaffer asked if the side walls of the entry would be glass. Kapsner said yes. MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Swedberg and motion carried unanimously to approve the requested variance from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A)with the understanding that the` eaves wo�d rrot be any longer than 30 inches. 4224 Golden Valley Road (Map 5) (98-7-23) enise and Rob Kin Requ Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(B) Rear Yard Setback for 5.5 f �e uired 25 feet to a distance of 19.5 feet for a proposed , s ory b at its closest point to the rear property lin � Waiver of 11.21, Subd. 7(C� ard Setback of 2.2 feet off the required 13.20 distan feet for the existing deck, at its closest point to fhe ea �� y line. Purpose: To allaw for nstruction of a� , ' balcony off the rear of the house. Sell read the re d var'rances. Ms:King was in atten'� Sell pointed out to staff that the rea setback was amended in 1964 from 42 feet to et; therefore the varianc uld be for 5.5 instead of the 22.3 feet as noted on the a Staff took note. Gri commented thaf the file did not indicate why the house was plac o far back on ot. He told the commission that the subject deck was replaced in 1994 and the Inspections Department proba6ly did not require a variance at that time because the ?