Loading...
05-20-15 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 20, 2015 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Wednesday, May 20, 2015, at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Perich called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Members, Nelson, Orenstein, Perich, and Planning Commission Representatives Johnson and Segelbaum. Also present were Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Member Maxwell was absent. I. Approval of Minutes – April 28, 2015 Regular Meeting MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Orenstein and motion carried unanimously to approve the April 28, 2015, minutes as submitted. II. The Petition(s) are: 125 Meadow Lane North (continued item) 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 reminded the Board that this request was tabled at their last meeting in order to have a full Board present. She referred to the survey of the property and explained the applicants’ request to expand their existing two-stall garage 11 feet toward the side yard (south) property line in order to allow for the construction of third garage stall. Goellner noted that the applicants have stated that the unique circumstances with their property are that the home was built with a two-stall garage near the minimum setback line, they feel there is no place on their property to build a detached garage, and that any garage construction will require pilings because of poor soils. Goellner stated that staff recommends denial of the requested variance because a third garage stall this far into the setback area is not reasonable and the extent of the request would compromise the character of the locality. There are other homes in the area with three garage stalls, but they did not require variances to be built. Also, the Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 20, 2015 Page 2 applicants can continue to use the extended driveway in place of a third garage stall, and staff has concerns about setting precedent and remaining consistent with variance requests. Segelbaum asked if the side yard setback requirement is larger in this case because of the height of the house. Goellner said yes, and explained that the side yard setback for this property started at 15 feet and increased to 21.5 feet because of the height. Segelbaum referred to the recently discussed “tent-shaped” method for determining setbacks and asked if that method would have helped in this case. Goellner said no, this proposal would require a variance using either method. Segelbaum asked if there would be any limitations in extending the proposed garage toward the rear of the lot. Goellner noted that there is a deck and windows on the rear of the house. Segelbaum asked if there are soil issues on the entire property. Goellner said yes. Johnson asked how far forward a garage addition could be built. Goellner stated that the front yard setback requirement is 35 feet and that the existing garage is located 47 feet from the front property line. Nelson noted that the applicants could build a tandem garage. She said she realizes that would not be ideal, but it is an option. Johnson asked if a detached garage could built on the north side of the house instead of the south side as proposed. Goellner said yes. LeeAnn Bell, Applicant, said they did consider building a garage on the north side of the property but there are six evergreens located on that side of the house and their roots are close to the surface so she doesn’t want to build there and endanger the trees. She added that a detached garage is not allowed to be located in front of the house so putting it in that location would also require a variance. She stated that a tandem garage wouldn’t work because the roof lines wouldn’t match and there is a four season porch and a gas vent behind the existing garage that would cause problems. She said she has spent a lot of time trying to figure out other options and they just don’t have another option. She stated that she reviewed the state statute and thinks her proposal meets the criteria used in granting a variance because a three-stall garage is reasonable and new houses in the area are being built with three-stall garages. She said they don’t have any place else to build additional garage space and that the only access to the property is in the front because there are no alleys. She noted that the outside of the garage appears reasonably wide, but inside there are stairs and a closet that jut into the space. She said she has tried all kinds of different configurations and that anything she comes up with would need a variance. She stated that this proposal makes sense and the proposed garage will be consistent with the neighborhood. She Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 20, 2015 Page 3 said that they didn’t cause the issues with the property and that they bought the house because they love the neighborhood and truly want to improve the house and bring their house up to the level of the other houses in the neighborhood. She stated that there is nothing about a three-stall garage that is inherently against the character of the neighborhood and that an enclosed stall is more aesthetically pleasing than items stored outside. She stated that the house isn’t perfectly centered on the lot and that the neighborhood is unique because all of the houses are different and no house is situated the same way on any lot. She said her proposed garage will have no impact on the neighbor’s privacy and there would still be 30 feet between their garage and the neighboring garage. She stated that having a 7.3 foot setback will not negatively impact the neighborhood and added that the Board of Zoning Appeals has granted variances in the past for garages to be located closer to a side yard property line than the 7.3 foot variance she is asking for, so this wouldn’t be the smallest setback variance the Board has granted. Nelson explained that most of the properties that were granted variances to be that close the property line probably had smaller setback requirements to begin with and were asking to go from a one-stall garage to a two-stall garage. Bell said is doesn’t matter if the proposal is for a one-stall or two-stall garage, the question is if a three-stall garage is a reasonable use and if the proposal negatively impacts the character of the neighborhood. She said a variance for a three-stall garage doesn’t harm the character of a neighborhood any more than a two-stall garage would. She stated that portions of their house are two-stories and portions are one story and in this case the one story portion of the house is the garage and isn’t imposing on the neighbor. She said the purpose of setbacks is to provide a feeling of openness and the feeling of space in the community and all landowners are asked to donate a portion of their property in order to make those feelings in the community. She said they have donated 75.7 feet to the community when all of the setbacks are taken into account. She said she truly believes she has met all of the criteria considered when reviewing variances and that they are not negatively impacting the neighborhood. Segelbaum asked about some of the other options explored and why a garage couldn’t be built on the other side of the house. Bell stated that a garage can’t be located in front of the house and to build it the same depth as the house would not be deep enough to park a car in. Goellner noted that the depth would be 28 feet and that the typical size of a two-stall garage is 22 fee. x 22 feet. Bell said a garage would not have enough depth with the location of the sport court and the six pine trees that are in that area. Segelbaum asked about the ability to build a tandem garage addition onto the existing garage. Bell said there is a retaining wall and four trees behind the existing garage so they can’t move the garage further back at all. She said she could build the garage 12 feet further forward, toward the front, but it still would not be deep enough to park a car in. Paul Romslo, Applicant, added that bringing the garage 12 feet forward would look Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 20, 2015 Page 4 bad. He reiterated that they can build onto the back of the garage because the roof lines won’t work. Perich asked the applicants if they had considered building a side-loading garage. Bell said there is not enough depth to be able to turn 90 degrees into a side-loading garage. Johnson asked about the standard depth of a tandem garage. Goellner reiterated that 22 feet x 22 feet is the standard size for a two stall garage. Bell said the neighbors are not enthused about the idea of a tandem garage and neither are they. Perich opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Perich closed the public hearing. Johnson said he doesn’t understand why 32 feet or 36 feet in depth is not enough depth to be able to park two cars in tandem. Nelson said she appreciates that the applicant has considered other alternatives and that it is one thing to go from one garage stall to two, but she doesn’t ever recall granting a variance for a third garage stall. Johnson agreed and said he doesn’t think all of the alternatives have been exhausted. Perich said it is a large variance request for a third garage stall and there are other options. He said he would consider a smaller variance but he would not support the current proposal. Segelbaum said he thinks three-stall garages are the norm in this neighborhood but he doesn’t see how they can take two-thirds of the side yard for this proposed garage addition. He said he wants to see homes improved, but this proposal does seem to impact the character of the neighborhood. Orenstein agreed. MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to deny the variance request for 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 to allow for the construction of a garage addition. Bell said she is disappointed and that taking down six trees on the north side of their property is not a good idea for this neighborhood. 1319 Tyrol Trail Dan & Sheila Broughton, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements  6 ft. off of the required 17 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 garage and house addition. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 20, 2015 Page 5 Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3) Yard Setback Requirements  2.3 ft. off of the required 17 ft. to a distance of 14.7 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (southeast) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a porch addition. Goellner referred to a survey of the property and explained the applicant’s request to build a new garage with living space above on the front of the home and a new porch addition on the rear of the home. She explained that the applicants have stated that the unique circumstances in this case are that the home was built with a small one-stall garage, the property is a corner lot with a small buildable area, and is triangular in shape. Nelson referred to the proposed porch addition and asked if it would be located further away from the south property than the back corner of the existing house currently is. Goellner said yes. She explained that the southeast corner of the house is located 14 feet from the south property line and the proposed new porch would be 14.7 feet from the south property line. Segelbaum asked if the front corner of the proposed garage will be in the same place as the existing garage. Goellner said the applicant could explain the proposed new garage dimensions and placement. Segelbaum asked Goellner if she has explored other options with the applicant. Goellner said the proposed porch could be built smaller in size, but the garage seems reasonable due to the shape of the lot. Segelbaum asked if the potential changes in the Code language regarding side yard setbacks would affect this proposal. Goellner said no and explained that due to the height of the existing home the side yard setback is 17 feet. Jennifer Christiaansen, U + B Architecture and Design, representing the applicant, referred to the criteria the Board uses when considering variances. She stated that the applicants are proposing to use their property in a reasonable manner and the size of the existing garage was not caused by the current landowner. She explained that the buildable footprint on this property is small and their goal is to maintain the home and keep it within the character of the existing neighborhood. She referred to photos of the existing garage and noted that the interior height is only 5.5 feet. She added that she showed the applicants four proposals and that the proposal they chose is the least intrusive and won’t negatively impact the neighborhood. Johnson asked if the existing concrete beam inside the garage will be removed. Christiaansen said it will be replaced with a steel beam. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 20, 2015 Page 6 Segelbaum asked when the house was built. Christiaansen said the house was built in 1937. Perich opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Perich closed the public hearing. Nelson said she is in favor of granting both requested variances. She said she is sympathetic to allowing a second garage stall, the proposal is reasonable, and the shape of the lot is unique. She added that the proposed addition will improve the character of the neighborhood and that she is comfortable with the proposed porch addition because it will be further away from the property line than the existing home. Segelbaum said he thinks the variance requests are minor and that work has been done to keep the addition within the existing character of the neighborhood. Perich agreed and added that with the uniqueness of the property itself, the proposal makes sense. Orenstein agreed that the proposal is reasonable. MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Perich and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variance requests:  6 ft. off of the required 17 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 garage and house addition.  2.3 ft. off of the required 17 ft. to a distance of 14.7 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (southeast) property line to allow for the construction of a porch addition. 413 Rhode Island Ave. N. Travis Kierstead, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.72, Fences, Subd. 3(A)(1) Front, Side and Rear Yard Regulations  4 ft. taller than the allowed 4 ft. for a total height of 8 ft. for a fence along the front (north) property line.  2 ft. taller than the allowed 6 ft. for a total height of 8 ft. for a fence along the rear (west) property line.  2 ft. taller than the allowed 4 ft. for a total height of 6 ft. for a fence along the front (east) property line. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 20, 2015 Page 7 Goellner referred to a site plan of the property and explained the applicant’s request to build an 8 foot tall fence along the north and west sides of the property, rather than the allowed 6 feet, and a 6 foot tall fence along the east side of the property, rather than the allowed 4 feet. She noted that the applicant has stated that the unique circumstances with this property are its proximity to Highway 55, it is a corner lot, and Highway 55 and the neighboring property to the west are at a higher elevation than their property. She showed the Board a photo of the property submitted by the applicant illustrating how much lower their property is compared to Highway 55. Nelson asked what fence height would be allowed if Highway 55 was not considered a front yard. Goellner said a fence could be 6 feet tall if it were a side yard. She said she thinks a 6 foot tall fence along the west, south and east sides of the property, and a 7 foot tall fence along the north, adjacent to Highway 55 would be appropriate, given that this property is lower than the other properties around it. Perich asked if variances have been granted for other properties along Highway 55. Goellner said no. Orenstein asked if there are any other fenced-in areas nearby. Goellner said there is a fenced area to the east with plantings to help with screening Highway 55. Segelbaum asked if the development to the south has limited ability to build fences. Goellner said no. Travis Kierstead, applicant, referred to the photo he submitted and explained that a 6 foot tall fence along Highway 55 would not work because they would still see a lot of traffic and headlights, and would hear a lot of noise. He stated that he doesn’t think an 8 foot tall fence along the west side of his property would negatively impact the neighbor because they are quite a bit higher than his property. He added that the neighbors to the west and south have given their support to the proposal. He reiterated that the uniqueness of the property is that this is the only property on Highway 55 that is below the grade of Highway 55 and his yard is directly next to the highway. He gave examples of other 8 foot tall fences in the community and said he understands that the City doesn’t want compounds, but he thinks his property is unique. Nelson asked the applicant when he bought the property. Kierstead said he bought it 3 years ago. Nelson asked about the proposed fence material. Kierstead said cedar or pressure treated wood. Segelbaum asked the applicant if he has plans for landscaping outside of the proposed fence area. Kierstead said there is a gully with quite a bit of greenery between the highway and his yard and there are three existing maple trees that help keep noise Minutes of the Goiden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 20, 2015 Page 8 Johnson said he thinks an 8 foot fence along Highway 55 is reasonable especially because of the low grade. He said he would be in favor of allowing an 8 foot tall fence along the north and a 6 foot tall fence along the other sides. Perich agreed and added that he doesn't think the proposed fencing will alter the character of the neighborhood. Orenstein agreed. Kierstead asked the Board if they would entertain allowing a 7 foot tall fence along the west property line. Nelson said she would not support that. Segelbaum said he doesn't see as much of a need for a taller fence along the west side of the property. Orenstein agreed and added that an additional foot or two won't help with noise issues, it would be more of a visual thing. MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to approve a variance requests for 4 ft. taller than the allowed 4 ft. for a total height of 8 ft. for a fence along the front (north) property line, 2 ft. taller than the allowed 4 ft. for a total height of 6 ft. for a fence along the front (east) property line, and to deny the variance request for 2 ft. taller than the allowed 6 ft. for a total height of 8 ft. for a fence along the rear (west) property line. III. Other Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment T e meeting was adjourned,at 8:43 pm. � � � "� ��,�I'/1�� � VU�� avid Peric , Chair Lisa ittman, Administrative Assistant