Loading...
07-22-14 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 22, 2014 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, July 22, 2014, at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Members Johnson, Maxwell, Nelson, Perich and Planning Commission Representative Baker. Also present were City Planner Jason Zimmerman, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes — May 27, 2014 Regular Meeting MOVED Maxwell, seconded by Nelson and motion carried unanimously to approve the May 27, 2014, minutes as submitted. II. The Petition(s) are: 1915 Xerxes Avenue North Heinen Contractinq, Applicant 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 10 ft. to a distance of 5 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new attached garage. Zimmerman referred to a site plan and explained the applicanYs proposal to remove the existing detached garage, and construct a new garage attached to the home by an enclosed walkway. He stated that if the applicant was constructing a new detached garage it could be as close as 5 feet to the side and rear property lines, however, the proposal is for an attached garage, so the setback requirement from the side yard property line is 10 feet. Baker noted that the variance application states that one of the problems with the existing garage is the shared driveway. He said that this proposal will not solve that problem. Zimmerman stated that the driveway will still be shared. Perich noted that the existing home is too close to the south property line, and asked if this property has received variances in the past. Zimmerman stated that no other variances have been granted in the past for this property. Johnson asked if there is an existing entrance to the house at the basement level. David Steadman, Property Owner, explained that there is not currently an entrance to the house at the basement level, but there will be. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 22, 2014 Page 2 He said he would like to have an attached garage because it will fit in with the overall feel of the neighborhood, and it will give him more yard space. Nelson asked if there is an existing easement for the shared driveway. Steadman said yes. Baker asked Steadman if he has talked to his neighbor to the south about this proposal. Steadman said yes, and they've said they are fine with what he is proposing. Perich asked Steadman if he considered moving the proposed garage further away from the south property line. Steadman said yes, he has considered other options, but moving the garage further north would block the living room window. Johnson asked Steadman if he considered replacing the garage in the same location. Steadman said that is what he would do if his variance request is denied. He added that he feels his proposal is reasonable, and that a detached garage would be more secure. Maxwell asked Steadman if he thinks there are any other unique features with his property other than the shared driveway, and the fact that he doesn't want to have a detached garage. Steadman stated that the main constraint is the shared driveway. He stated that he is also trying to line up the proposed new garage with an existing mud room. He added that the garage he is proposing is consistent with the location of the neighboring property owner's garage. Nelson said she thinks there are several unique features with this property that are not caused by the homeowner. Johnson questioned the elevation of the proposed garage slab and where the new entrance into the house would be located. Steadman referred to the building plans and explained that the garage would be slightly elevated, and the new entrance from the garage into the house would be in the basement. Johnson questioned how this proposal would increase the amount of yard space. Steadman agreed that he would have the same amount of yard space, but his proposed plan would allow for a wider, flatter back yard. Johnson opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Johnson closed the public hearing. Nelson said she is supportive of the applicanYs request because the proposed garage is in the same location as the neighbor's garage, and it will be in line with the house which is already located 5 feet away from the south property line. She added that the proposal also meets the criteria the Board considers when reviewing variance requests. Maxwell agreed. Perich said he agrees the existing garage needs to be replaced, but he thinks the applicant is creating part the difficulty in this case. He said he thinks the property is unique, and if the applicant were to move the proposed garage to a conforming location, there would be no back yard space left. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 22, 2014 Page 3 Johnson said he feels the opposite way, and that the only thing the applicant is doing is removing trees, and altering the locality. He said he is still not sure why replacing the garage in the same location is not a viable option. Nelson stated that having an attached garage is good for the housing stock, and good for the neighborhood. She added that she would be less inclined to support this request if the house wasn't already located 5 feet away from the same property line. MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Maxwell and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve the variance request for 5 ft. off of the required 10 ft. to a distance of 5 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line to allow for the construction of a new attached garage. Johnson voted no. 421 Turners Crossroad Neil Johnson, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements • 6.5 ft. off of the required 17.5 ft. to a distance of 11 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new garage/house addition. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 19(B) 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 driveway. Zimmerman referred to a site plan and explained the applicant's request to construct a new two-stall garage with a second story addition and porch to the rear of the house. He stated that the proposed project requires a variance from the side yard (south) property line, and a variance from the paved area requirements. He explained that the typical side yard setback for this property is 15 feet; however, the proposed new height of the garage/second story will be 19.75 feet, which increases the required side yard setback in this case to 17.5 feet. Baker asked how often variances are granted to allow pavement to be installed right up to the property line. Zimmerman said there has only been a couple since he started. Baker asked if the City reviews a drainage plan for projects like this one. Zimmerman said drainage plans are reviewed during the building permit process. Neil Johnson, Applicant, said he loves his neighbors, and the neighborhood, and wants to stay, but his existing house is too small. He said his property is unique because of how the Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 22, 2014 Page 4 house sits on the lot. He said he spoke with his neighbors to the south, and they've said they have no issues with his proposal. Nelson asked the applicant if he had considered constructing a two-stall garage straight in line with the front of the house instead of around the back of the house. Mr. Johnson said he did consider that, but it would have ended up being even closer to the side yard property line than what he is proposing. He said he was also trying to protect the trees, and keep the curb cut in the same location. Johnson opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Johnson closed the public hearing. Maxwell stated that the Board is generally favorable in allowing a second garage stall. In this case, if the applicant just added an additional stall onto the existing garage, it would end up closer to the property line than what is being proposed, so this seems to be a workable option. He added that the unique feature of this property is that there is currently only one garage stall. He said the new addition will be more fitting within the character of Golden Valley. Nelson agreed, and added that the lot is an irregular shape and the location of the existing house makes it difficult to add another garage stall. She agreed that it will improve the look of the neighborhood, and that nobody would be affected by the proposal to have the pavement go right up to the property line. Perich agreed, and said that a garage in back of the house will look cleaner from the street. Johnson agreed, and added that there are other large houses in the area, so this proposed addition won't change the character of the locale. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Baker and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request for 6.5 ft. off of the required 17.5 ft. to a distance of 11 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line to allow for the construction of a new garage/house addition. MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Maxwell and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request for 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 to allow for the construction of a driveway. 3250 Quail Avenue North Kenneth Eckel, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3)(b) Side Yard Setback Requirements • 6.5 ft. off of the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 6 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (east) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new garage/house addition. Zimmerman referred to a site plan, and explained the applicant's request to construct a third garage stall to the north of the existing tuck-under garage, and an enclosed garage entrance on the northeast corner of the home. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 22, 2014 Page 5 Nelson asked if a third garage stall could be built without a variance if the enclosed garage entrance on the northeast corner wasn't part of the proposal. Zimmerman stated that a third garage stall could be built without a variance. It is the enclosed area, wrapping around the back corner of the house that is necessitating the variance. Maxwell asked if the applicants need a variance pertaining to the size of the garage. Zimmerman said no. Ken Eckel, Applicant, said he realizes that he could just add a third garage stall without the enclosed area, but then he would have to take out some of the concrete blocks in the existing garage wall to access the new garage stall, rather than do that he would like to use the door that already exists on the northeast corner of the house. He added that the height in the existing garage in 6 feet, 8 inches so anything taller than that won't fit in the garage. Nelson asked Eckel how long he has owned his home. Eckel said 20 years. Johnson asked Eckel to further explain why the access to the new garage stall can't be located in the existing garage. Eckel said he can't envision taking out concrete block and installing a beam when there is already a door in the garage that he would like to use. Baker asked Eckel if he has spoken with the neighbor to the east. Eckel said yes, and stated that there will no windows on that side of the garage, and the neighbor doesn't use that portion of his yard. Nelson asked Eckel what is unique about the property. Eckel stated that the lot is a reverse angle corner that has two front yard setback areas. Pat Eckel, homeowner, stated that an access through the inside of the garage would be blocked when cars were parked in the garage. Nelson asked if the proposed new garage stall would be used for storage. Mr. Eckel said yes. Baked asked how big the proposed new garage stall would be. Mr. Eckel stated that the existing asphalt area is 10 feet wide. He explained that the proposed addition would be 11 feet wide, 28 feet long and 9 feet tall. Maxwell asked if the existing deck would be removed. Mr. Eckel said yes. Johnson opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Johnson closed the public hearing. Johnson stated that the proposed garage addition would only impact one neighbor. He added that it would be out of site, and would not affect the essential nature of the locality, or be an eyesore. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 22, 2014 Page 6 Baker said he doesn't think these circumstances are unique enough to warrant the extra access space when there is a way to access the proposed new garage through the interior of the existing garage. Nelson agreed. Perich said he thinks granting this variance request might set a precedent regarding future garage expansions. Maxwell said the applicant can build a third garage stall without the need for variances. He said he understands that cutting a hole in the existing block wall isn't a great alternative, but there are other alternatives, and he doesn't think the criteria are being met in this case. He added that if there were no other access options he would feel differently. Johnson agreed, and stated that one of the criteria the Board has to consider is if the need for a variance is being caused by the landowner. In this case, he thinks the practical difficulties are being caused by the landowner. MOVED by Baker, seconded by Perich and motion carried unanimously to deny the applicant's requested variance. 1808 York Avenue North Darla & Ricardo Pardo, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements • 5.2 ft. off of the required 30 ft. to a distance of 24.8 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (west) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of an expanded deck and open front porch Zimmerman referred to a survey of the property, and explained the applicant's proposal to rebuild and expand an existing open front porch along two sides of their home. The proposed new porch would be located 24.8 ft. from the front yard property line, rather than the required 30 ft. Johnson asked if the enclosed section with the mud room would be removed. Darla Pardo, Applicant, said yes. Johnson asked if the back entrance access would be removed. Pardo said there is an overhang over the back door that would remain. Perich asked how old the house is. Pardo said the house is almost 100 years old. Nelson asked if the existing deck is located in the front setback area. Zimmerman said yes, the existing deck is 5.2 feet into the front setback area. He clarified that the applicant is proposing to extend the deck laterally, along the front of the house, not further toward to the street. Johnson asked Pardo if the deck was there when they bought the house. Pardo said yes. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 22, 2014 Page 7 Baker asked Pardo how long they have lived in the house. Pardo said they've lived there 20 years. She added that since the deck needs to be replaced, it would be nice to have an enclosed area. Ricardo Pardo, Applicant, stated that they have been thinking about the proposed porch addition for a long time. He said it will improve the property, it will go with the character of the house, and adding a porch along the side of the house will make it more usable. Johnson opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Johnson closed the public hearing. Nelson stated that there are not many alternatives in this case, and she feels the criteria for granting variances are being met. Maxwell agreed, and reiterated that the existing deck is already located in the front yard setback area. He added that he is generally not in in favor of front yard variance requests, but in this case the deck won't be in anyone's sight line, and there are several unique circumstances. Baker agreed, and said the proposal makes sense architecturally. MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Maxwell and motion carried unanimously to approve a variance of 5.2 ft. off of the required 30 ft. to a distance of 24.8 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (west) property line to allow for the construction of an expanded deck and open front porch. III. Other Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:17 pm. Andrew Johnson, Chair Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant