Loading...
01-27-15 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Goiden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 27, 2015 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, January 27, 2015, at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Maxwell called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Members Maxwell, Nelson, Orenstein, Perich and Planning Commission Representative Baker. Also present were Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes — November 25, 2014 Regular Meeting MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Orenstein and motion carried unanimously to approve the November 25, 2014, minutes as submitted. II. The Petition(s) are: 221 Westwood Drive North Curt Olson, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(1) FrontYard Setback Requirements • 4.67 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 30.33 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of additional living space. Goellner referred to a site plan of the property and explained the Applicant's proposal to build a 2-story addition on the north end of the existing house. Maxwell asked about the plans for the existing garage. Goellner stated that the Applicant is proposing to convert the existing garage into living space and build a new two-stall garage in front of that. Maxwell asked if it is just the northwest corner of the proposed new garage that would be in the setback area. Goellner said yes. Curt 41son, Applicant, showed the Board plans of his proposed addition. He stated that the lower level of the addition will be garage space and that the existing garage will be used for a new stairway, mechanical room, and laundry/mudroom. Maxwell asked about the depth of the proposed new garage. Bill Brugerman, representing the Applicant, said the dimensions of the garage will be 24 ft. deep x 36 ft. wide. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 27, 2015 Page 2 Olson handed out renderings of the proposed new additions and said his trying to preserve the neighborhood character. He said he doesn't want someone to tear the house down and build something else. Orenstein asked Olson if he intends to sell the house. Olson said yes. He said this is the second house in the area that he's renovated and that the neighbors call him a preservationist, not a flipper. Nelson said she has sympathy for corner lots and asked Olson if he has thought of ways to build the proposed addition without variances. Olson said he could build on the back of the house, but the backyard is already shallow and the neighbors to the west wouldn't be happy if he did that. He added that building on the back of the house would change the look of the block because the houses are linear so making an "L" shaped house wouldn't fit in, and would look bigger than the other houses. Nelson asked if the proposed addition could be smaller so the setback requirements could be met. Olson said he would still need a variance even if he made the addition smaller. Brugerman, stated that all the other properties along Loring Lane are closer to the street and that this this house would still be the furthest away from the street. Olson added that the block doesn't have a consistent line. Maxwell stated that the Board tries to give the minimum amount needed in order to build a normal sized garage. He questioned if the extra four feet is necessary or if something smaller could be built. Brugerman stated that the length of a Suburban is 21 ft. so if the garage is only 23 ft, deep, people won't be able to walk behind the cars without opening the garage door. He added that 24 ft. in depth is not excessive because space is needed for garbage cans, storage, etc. Nelsan stated the Board is sensitive to front yard setback areas. She discussed the criteria that must be met when considering variances. She said she thinks the proposal is in harmony with the intent of the ordinances, it's consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and it's reasonable, she just wonders if the addition could be built without variances. Maxwell asked Olson to address any other unique circumstances. Olson said the shape of the property and the location of the house on the property are unique. He added that the front of the house faces the large part of the yard which he thinks is backwards. He would like to have the living spaces at the front of the house and the bedrooms at the back of the house. Nelson asked how many bedrooms and bathrooms are in the house. Olson said there are 3 bedrooms and 1 bathroom and he wants to put another bedroom in the basement. He said his intent is to bring the house into the modern era. Maxwell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Maxwell closed the public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 27, 2015 Page 3 Nelson said she is sympathetic with corner lots. She noted that if this weren't a corner lot the setback would be 15 ft. and that other houses along Loring Lane are closer to the front property line than this one would be. Baker said he is sympathetic to avoiding teardowns and preserving and re-building instead. Nelson agreed and added that construction of the proposed addition on the back of the house would have a bigger impact on the neighborhood. Perich said he agrees that the corner in this case is unique, however he struggles with this request not being caused by the landowner since there are other options. Maxwell stated that the landowner didn't position the existing house where it is. Nelson said that shortening one corner of the proposed new garage by 4 ft. in order to meet setback requirements won't make much of a difference. Perich agreed that a 20 foot deep garage isn't a good idea. MOVED by Nelson seconded by Baker and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve the variance request for 4.67 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 30.33 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (north) property line to allow for the construction of additional living space. Perich voted no. 6461 Westchester Circle Daniel Rvbeck and Kathleen Searls, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(1) FrontYard Setback Requirements • 4,8 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 30.2 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of additional living space. Goellner referred to a site plan and explained the Applicants' proposal to construct a screened porch addition and a deck. The proposed deck meets the setback requirements, however the screened porch would require a variance from the front yard setback requirements. Maxwell asked about the size of the proposed porch addition without the deck. Nelson noted that the plans submitted say the porch is 15 ft. x 29 ft. Goellner showed the Board a plan submitted by the Applicant showing a porch addition built within the setback area. Baker noted that those plans are really a different design, and didn't just propose a smaller porch. Maxwell asked if the existing trees would remain. Kate Searls, Applicant, said the trees would remain. Nelson asked about the setback requirements regarding stairs. Goellner stated that stairs can be located in a setback area. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zaning Appeals January 27, 2015 Page 4 Maxwell asked if the porch were re-oriented to meet the setback requirements, how close it would be to the tree shown in the photos. Goellner said the tree wasn't shown on the survey, so she is not sure. John Drucker, Architect for the proposal, stated that the screened porch would be approximately 6 ft. from the tree. Maxwell asked how close to the tree the proposed porch would be if a variance were granted for the porch addition. Drucker said approximately 12 ft. Maxwell asked what kind of tree it is. Searls said it is an oak tree. Drucker stated that rotating the proposed screened porch to meet the setback requirements would place the porch closer to the tree, however that is not the main reason for the way they are propasing the porch. He stated that the main reason they would like to build the screened porch the way they've proposed is to create a garden area, and to create a balanced gable with the other gables on the house. Nelson asked if the screened porch could be made smaller. Drucker stated that the Applicant's want an eating area with a table and a sitting area in the porch so making it smaller would compromise that. Searls added that they are a family of seven so they want a space to gather. Drucker stated that the house will look better with the porch built the way they are proposing it. He added that if they build the porch within the setback area it will be more impactful and visible to the neighboring property. Maxwell stated that the size and shape of the lot are unique, there are two front yard setback areas, and the potential alternative might endanger an existing oak tree. Drucker reiterated that a conforming structure won't fit in as well with the neighborhood and that he doesn't think the oak tree will be in danger with either configuration. He added that the property was platted in an odd shape and the buildable area is restricted because of that. Maxwell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Maxwell clased the public hearing. Orenstein stated that the orientation of the screened porch and the symmetry of the design make sense and he has no objection to the proposed screened porch. Baker said he understands the applicant's vision of a sitting area and an eating area in the porch, but questioned if that vision is what is driving the need for a variance. He said the Board is supposed to help solve a problem, not accommodate a vision. Perich agreed and referred to the previous agenda item. He said in that case, the Applicant had other options, in this case he doesn't think there are other options. Maxwell said the Board is allowed to take into account the endangering of significant trees. He said he is sympathetic because the Applicants have two front yards, but the area in question is really more of a side yard than a front yard. Baker asked if the tendency of the Board is to be more careful with front yards than with side yards. Maxwell said yes. Orenstein noted that the proposed screened porch will be consistent with the front plane of the existing garage and that it wan't be intrusive. Maxwell added that there is 49 ft. from the house to the street and that this property has 14 ft. of right-of-way. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 27, 2015 Page 5 MOVED by Orenstein, seconded by Perich and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request for 4.8 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 30.2 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (north) property line to allow for the construction of screened porch. III. Other Business Nelson asked the Board if they would like Staff to make a recommendation for approval or denial in their staff reports. The Board discussed whether or not they would like recommendations made and the consensus was that they would like recommendations. MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Orenstein and motion carried 4 to 1 to have staff provide a recommendation when writing a staff report for variance requests. Perich voted na. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:13 pm. ,� � Uv��ki'� rge Maxwell, Chair Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant