Loading...
04-28-15 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals April 28, 2015 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, April 28, 2015, at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Vice Chair Perich called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Members, Nelson, Orenstein, Perich, and Planning Commission Representative Johnson. Also present were Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Member Maxwell was absent. I. Approval of Minutes — February 24, 2015 Regular Meeting II. The Petition(s) are: 6400 Hampshire Place Donald Weld Jr, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements • 8 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 27 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a two-stall garage. Goellner referred to a site plan of the property and explained the applicant's request to construct a two-stall garage attached to the house with a porch and breezeway. She noted that variances are not needed for the proposed porch and breezeway additions. She stated that staff is recommending denial of the requested variance because a two- stall garage can be built within the setback area without the need for variances, and the angle of the garage would compromise the character of the locality. She added that this applicant received a variance for a garage addition in 2008. However, work on the garage was not started within one year so that variance expired. Perich asked if the variance granted in 2008 was the same as this current request. Goellner said yes. Nelson said the applicant's request in 2008 was the same, however the Board amended the request and approved a variance for 5 ft. (instead of 8 ft.) off the required 35 ft. Orenstein asked if the garage was positioned the same in the 2008 request and this current request. Goellner said yes. Johnson stated that the proposed garage in 2008 was 30 ft. x 24 ft. in size. He asked if it is proposed to be the same size in this request. Goellner said yes, and explained that if the variance request is reduced to 5 ft. off the required 35 ft. then the proposed Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals April 28, 2015 Page 2 garage would be reduced by approximately 3 ft. and would be 27 ft. x 24 ft. in size instead. Donald Weld Jr., Applicant, stated that when he purchased the house it was a triplex and a drug house. He said he has done major renovations to the house and at some point he would like to sell it to a family member. He stated that he would be happy with a 5-foot variance, and that with Douglas Drive being reconstructed it will be a good time to do this garage addition. He said he has been working with the City regarding the Douglas Drive construction project and he assumes he will be able to get the same variance that was granted in 2008. Goellner clarified that the City is acquiring roadway easements for the Douglas Drive project, but that the property lines won't be affected. Weld stated that he is concerned about the curb appeal and wants to build the garage at an angle so the house doesn't look like a long bowling alley. He added that if the garage isn't built at an angle he won't be able to use the existing driveway and will have to add more impervious surface to the property. Perich stated that the applicant mentioned there was a large tree in the front yard and asked what other unique circumstances there are with this property. Weld asked if his variance request was good in 2008 why it wouldn't be now. He said this property is in the middle of an area with duplexes and the Douglas Drive apartments and he is just trying to make this work. Nelson said she agrees that the house would be really long if the garage were built in line with the house, and not at an angle. Orenstein asked if the application has to be resubmitted in order to change the request to 5 ft. off of the required 35 ft. front yard setback. Nelson said the Board is allowed to amend an applicant's request without requiring the submission of a new application. Perich opened the public hearing. Carolyn Bell, 125 Meadow Lane North, referred to the comment about the proposed new garage not being consistent with the neighborhood and said she would like an explanation. Goellner stated that there are no other angled garages in the area at all. Bell asked if everything has to be the same. Goellner explained that when someone asks for a variance all of the surrounding properties are taken into account. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment. Perich closed the public hearing. Nelson said she would like to amend the variance request to 5 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 30 ft. She said she thinks the proposal meets the criteria the Board considers when granting variances. It is in harmony with the intent of the Code, it is a reasonable request, there are topographical issues with the property, and she thinks placing the proposed garage at an angle will be attractive. Orenstein and Perich agreed. Johnson also agreed and added that the same proposal was approved in the past so he supports the applicant's request. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals April 28, 2015 Page 3 MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request for 5 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 30 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (north) property line to allow for the construction of a two-stall garage. 125 Meadow Lane North LeeAnn Bell & Paul Romslo, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3) Side Yard Setback Requirements • 14.2 ft. off of the required 21.5 ft. to a distance of 7.3 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage addition. Goellner explained the applicants' request to construct a third-stall garage addition 7.3 feet away from the side yard property line. She referred to a survey and photos of the property and stated that there is an existing paved area where the proposed garage addition would be built. She explained that the existing garage is approximately 22 ft. x 28 ft. in size and the applicants are proposing to add 11 feet of garage space on the south side and 4 feet of garage space on the front. The applicants have stated that the unique circumstances on their property are that the existing home, built with a two-stall garage was placed near the minimum setback line, their current garage is narrow, there is no place to build a detached garage, and there are poor soil conditions on their lot. Goellner stated that staff is recommending denial of this variance request because a third garage stall is reasonable in general, but not this far into a side yard setback area, the garage addition would compromise the character of the locality, and the applicants can continue to use their extended driveway in place of a third garage stall. Perich asked if the house was originally built within the correct setback areas. Goellner said yes. She explained how the side yard setback requirements are different now from when the house was originally built. She added that due to the height of the house the side yard setback requirement is 21.5 ft. Johnson referred to the site plan of the property and asked if the tennis court shown is part of this property and if so, had it been considered as a location for a new garage. Goellner said the tennis court is a part of the applicant's property and that they had considered building a new garage next to it, but not in place of it. Johnson questioned if a variance would be required for a carport next to the existing garage instead of a third stall. Goellner said yes. LeeAnn Bell, Applicant, said the house was built in 1964. She said they want a three- stall garage because their existing garage is incredibly tight and they need more room for storage. She said she met with staff and found out that the house was built on pilings and that the Building Official expressed concern about building a detached garage considering the soil conditions. She said she has spoken with the neighbors and Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals April 28, 2015 Page 4 they've expressed support for their proposal, otherwise they would not do it. She said their proposal is reasonable and consistent with the neighborhood and there is no place else on the property to build additional garage space. She said approximately 50% of the homes in their area have three-stall garages and given the size of their home, a three-stall garage won't be disproportionate. She said her mother lives with them and the chance is good that future owners of the house will likely have children and will need a third garage stall. She said she has considered other options and that she would like to revitalize the tennis court. She said she understands the City's concerns, but when she thinks about setbacks it is not a number, it is the character and diversity of the architecture and promoting the feeling of openness. Goellner stated that she verified that the nearby homes with three-stall garages listed in the application did not require variances. Perich asked the applicant if she had considered expanding the existing garage, just not as wide as a third garage stall. Bell said they really need a third stall garage. She said that they had a break-in in one of their cars, and that just expanding the existing garage slightly won't address their needs. Nelson stated that the applicants just bought this house knowing it had a two-stall garage. She asked the applicant if a third garage stall played into their decision to purchase the home. Bell said she was hoping a third garage stall would work. She said she didn't know how the setback requirements worked, and she didn't know about the soil conditions when they purchased the property. Johnson questioned if they considered building a storage shed instead of a garage addition. Bell said they have a shed, but they still want to build a third garage stall because they have trouble opening their car doors inside the garage. She explained that there is a stairway inside the house that takes up a portion of the inside of the garage. She said they've really tried to make this work and address the criteria that the Board uses when considering variances. She said she understands they are asking for a large variance but she feels it is reasonable and there will still be openness between their house and neighbors. Perich opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Perich closed the public hearing. Johnson said he thinks there are a couple of unique circumstances with this property. He said it is a massive house that was placed close to one side of the lot which contributes to the predicament. Nelson said she is sensitive to granting va�iances to allow for a second garage stall, but not as sensitive to granting variances for third stalls. She stated that the Board has to follow the criteria required when granting variances, but they also try to remain consistent. She said it is too bad the lot has bad soils but she is not sure they should grant a variance based on that. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals April 28, 2015 Page 5 Perich said it is hard to say the existing garage is a true two-stall garage because some of the space is taken away by the staircase. He said it seems that the applicants have exhausted their options and there are other three-stall garages in the neighborhood. Johnson agreed that the existing garage has a weird configuration. He said the soil condition isn't an issue to him, but there are other unique issues with the property. Nelson said she is a real estate agent and she has her clients measure their cars and the garage space if it is important to them to help them make a decision. She said in this case the existing garage is a part of what the applicants bought. She questioned if a third stall was built if they could add an addition above it in the future. Goellner said no, not without applying for another variance. Orenstein said since this house was purchased so recently, he is curious why the garage wasn't a factor in the applicant's decision to buy it. He said the applicants may have assumed they could get a variance, but his approach would have been to think it through before he bought it and not hope he'd get a variance later. Nelson agreed and added that granting this variance request would not be consistent with what the Board has done in the past, and might set a precedent. Johnson stated that if the variance isn't granted the house might not get the TLC it needs. Perich explained to the applicants that they could ask that their request be tabled to the next meeting in order to have a full Board present. Bell agreed that it is their fault that they bought the house. She said she looked at the City's website and only found the setback requirements regarding detached accessory structures. Nelson asked Bell what they paid for the house. Bell said they paid $485,000 minus $10,000 in closing costs. She said she would like to table her request to the next Board meeting. She referred to the comments regarding the consistency of the neighborhood and said that she feels her request is reasonable and that the new homes in her neighborhood are being built with three-stall garages. MOVED by Orenstein, seconded by Nelson and motion carried unanimously to table the applicanYs request to the May Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. 1341 Orkla Drive Jav Johnson and Britt Bakke, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3) Side Yard Setback Requirements • 8.5 ft. off of the required 15 ft. to a distance of 6.5 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals April 28, 2015 Page 6 Purpose: To allow for the construction of a deck. Goellner referred to a survey of the property and explained the applicants' request to build a 16 ft. x 22 ft. deck on the back on their home. She stated that the deck is proposed in the location it is, due to the fact that there is a window well area next to the proposed deck that they are trying to avoid. She added that a deck cannot be built along the side yard (south) property line without a variance because the house itself was granted variances to allow it to be built taller than 15 feet in height without an increase in the side setback as required by the Zoning Code. Therefore, while the home was built to a 12.5 ft. setback, the deck must still be built to the 15 ft. setback as stated in the City Code. She stated that staff is recommending denial of the variance because a reasonably sized deck can be built on this property without variances. Nelson asked about the dimensions for the buildable area for a deck. She stated that the new house next to this house just sold based partly on what is there now, not knowing that this applicant has applied for a variance for a new deck. Board Member Johnson asked Goellner if the applicants presented any other options for building their deck. Goellner said no. Board Member Johnson asked if a variance would still be required if the applicants built the deck closer to the north property line. Goellner said no, and stated that the setback requirement along the north property line would be 35 feet. Jay Johnson, Applicant, said his goal is to make sure the proposed deck doesn't alter the locality and fits in with the existing neighborhood. He said the unique circumstance is the location of an existing window well. He stated that they could extend the deck further to the west but it would look odd and would not fit as well. He said they would like a nice big deck for a sitting area, toy area, and grilling area. He added that he met with staff and was told he could build a deck 12.5 feet from the south property line, in line with the plane of the house, but they don't want to build a 16-foot wide deck, and they don't want to cover the window well. Nelson said the proposed deck seems to be infringing on the back yard of the neighbor to the south. Mr. Johnson said their proposed deck would be located near the middle of the neighbor's backyard at that point. He said if the Board is uncomfortable with the 6-foot wide portion of the deck wrapping around the side of the house, he would be willing to accept a smaller variance. Perich opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to comment, Perich closed the public hearing. Orenstein said he would be inclined to the support the variance request subject to the new property owner to the south being ok with it. Nelson said a pretty large deck can be built on this property without a variance. She stated that even if the new property owner to the south is ok with the applicant's proposal, future property owners may not be. She said she would be supportive of the proposed deck being built to match the plane of the existing house. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals April 28, 2015 Page 7 Perich said he would also be supportive of allowing the proposed deck to be built to match the plane of the existing house. He added that this is new construction and the buyers knew what they were buying. Orenstein asked if the window well area was for an egress window. Mr. Johnson said yes. Board Member Johnson said he didn't see anything in the application stating why a deck couldn't be built within the setback requirements and he doesn't see what is driving the need for a variance. He said he does like the articulation of the proposed deck and thinks bumping it out toward the south property line a foot or two will look better than a "long tunnel" if it matches the plane of the existing house. Nelson said she thinks 16 ft. x 13 ft. is a nice sized deck and that it won't make the house look too long. She added that she thinks the request is reasonabte, but that it would affect the character of its locality. Perich said he thinks the location of the window well is unique and suggested granting a variance to allow the proposed deck to be in line with the plane of the house. He told the applicant that he could table his request in order to be heard in front of a full Board. Mr. Johnson said the proposed deck would not be 16 ft. x 16 ft. in size when considering the staircase. He said he would consider building the deck further to the west, but being allowed to build a foot or two to the south would make a big difference. He said he does not wish to table his request. MOVED by Perich, seconded by Nelson and motion carried unanimously to approve a variance for 2.5 ft. off of the required 15 ft. to a distance of 12.5 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line to allow for the construction of a deck. III. Other Business Election of Officers MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to elect Perich as Chair. Perich accepted the nomination. MOVED by Orenstein, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to elect Nelson as Vice Chair. Nelson accepted the nomination. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 pm. David Perich, Vice Chair Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant