Loading...
06-23-15 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 23, 2015 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, June 23, 2015, at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Vice Chair Nelson called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Members Maxwell (arrived at 7:15) Nelson, Orenstein, and Planning Commission Representative Johnson. Also present were Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman, and Planning Intern Melissa Sonnek. Member Perich was absent. I. Approval of Minutes – May 20, 2015 Regular Meeting Nelson referred to the second sentence in the last paragraph on page seven and noted that the word “and” should be replaced with the word “said.” MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Orenstein and motion carried unanimously to approve the May 20, 2015, minutes with the above noted correction. II. The Petition(s) are: 4800 Killarney Drive Peter Moyer and Shanna Hanson, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3) Side Yard Setback Requirements  4 ft. off of the required 15 ft. to a distance of 11 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the replacement and expansion of an existing deck. Goellner referred to a site plan and explained the applicants’ request to replace and expand their existing deck. She noted that the dimensions listed in the staff report were incorrect and that the proposed new deck will be approximately 275 square feet in size. She explained that the existing southwest corner of the home is 13.7 feet from the side yard property line and that the proposed deck would be located 11 feet from the side yard property line. She stated that the applicants have said their unique circumstances are that the home was built in the 1960s on an irregular shaped lot, and was not built parallel to the side yard property line. Pete Denboer, Kuhl Design & Build, referred to the survey of the property and reiterated that the house sits crooked on the lot. He stated that they are trying to build the new deck to stay within the plane of the existing side of the house. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 23, 2015 Page 2 Johnson asked if the existing deck is out of compliance. Denboer stated that it was compliant when it was built, however it will need to have new posts installed. Nelson opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Nelson closed the public hearing. Orenstein said he has no issues with the proposal. Nelson agreed and said the proposed deck is reasonable, it is in harmony with the intent of the City Code, and it won’t have any more impact on the neighboring property than the existing home already does. MOVED by Orenstein, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request for 4 ft. off of the required 15 ft. to a distance of 11 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line to allow for the replacement and expansion of an existing deck. 145 Cutacross Road Christopher & Nicola Dixon, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(1) Side Yard Setback Requirements  10.5 ft. off of the required 18.5 ft. to a distance of 8 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new deck. Goellner referred to a site plan of the property and stated that it was subdivided in August of 2014 and the construction of the home was completed in June of 2015. She explained that the builder had originally planned to build steps from the sliding glass door to a patio, rather than building a deck, however the homeowners want to build a deck. She stated that there has been some confusion regarding the actual distance from the proposed deck to the side yard property line. The application states that the deck would be located 8 feet from the property line, however the plans submitted show that the deck would be located 11.5 feet from the property line. She stated that the applicants have said their unique circumstances are that the lot is triangular in shape which reduces the amount of side yard, a deck is preferred rather than a patio, and the proposed location of the deck avoids trees in the back yard and utilizes the existing sliding glass door. Goellner explained that due to recent Zoning Code text amendments, new side yard setback requirements will be in place on June 26 making the side yard setback requirement for this property 15 feet instead of 18.5 feet. Because of this, staff is recommending that this variance request be denied because the shape of the proposed Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 23, 2015 Page 3 deck can be changed in order to be located 15 feet from the side yard property line and still be approximately 338 square feet in size without a variance. Orenstein asked if the applicants would still need a variance after the new rules go into effect and if so, what it would be. Goellner said if the applicant wanted to build the deck as proposed, and not make it smaller, the new variance request would be 4 feet off of the required 15 feet to a distance of 11 feet from the side yard property line. Orenstein asked if the applicants would have to go through the application process again and pay additional fees if this request was denied. Maxwell stated that the Board could table the item until their next meeting so they wouldn’t have to re-apply. Christopher Dixon, Applicant, stated that he is now asking for a 1 foot variance which would mean the proposed deck would be 14 feet from the side yard property line. He stated that they want the deck they’ve proposed instead of a patio because two out of the three landscape architects they spoke with have told them not to build a patio because of the change in grade, the difficulty in keeping it clean of debris, and because of the amount of space they would lose to the stairs coming from the door. He stated that he has an issue with being tabled to the next Board of Zoning Appeals meeting because they are hosting a family reunion and need to get the deck built as soon as possible. He reiterated that they are only asking for a variance of 1 foot, not 4 feet because the City Council has already approved the new setback requirements. Nelson noted that if a variance is granted at this this meeting it has to be for the Code requirements currently in place. Maxwell suggested amending the variance request to state that the proposed deck could be built no closer than 14 feet to the side yard property line. Nelson asked the applicant if they built the house. Dixon said yes. Nelson asked if this issue came up during the building process. Dixon said the issue did not come up until they talked to landscape architects who advised against building a patio. Goellner questioned if the 14-foot dimension given by the applicant is correct because when she measured the size of the proposed deck shown on the survey it shows that the deck is 11.5 feet from the property line, not 14 feet. Dixon said if the Board allowed his deck to be 14 feet from the side yard property line, he would be fine with that. Nelson opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Nelson closed the public hearing. Johnson stated that the builder should know better than to prescribe something that they know is going to need a variance and that this seems to put the City in the middle. Dixon stated that they were also surprised that they needed a variance. He reiterated that part of the issue is the odd shape of the lot. Maxwell asked Dixon if they bought the lot before the house was built. Dixon said yes, they bought the lot and then re-designed the plans that the builder was proposing to use. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 23, 2015 Page 4 Johnson said he is in favor of approving this variance request, but he feels like as part of the process something should be said to the builder because if they had planned it correctly, the applicants would not have to ask for a variance at all. Nelson said she was not supportive of the larger variance request but she is supportive of the smaller request allowing the deck to be located 14 feet from the side yard property line, even though the circumstance was created by the landowner. Dixon said from his perspective the unique circumstance is the triangular shape of the lot. He said they want to be good neighbors and compromise but they are only asking for a 1 foot variance. He said they simply did not know they needed a variance to build a deck or they would have done something different. Goellner noted that with past variance requests the City has asked the applicant to exhaust all other options. Dixon said they have considered other options but they are limited by the location of the existing sliding glass door. Nelson asked about the size of the proposed deck. Maxwell said it is 23 feet x 16 feet minus the corner section that was removed. Goellner stated that the proposed deck is 338 square feet in size. Johnson said he is struggling with the fact that the issue has been caused by the landowner. Dixon said they just bought the house yesterday so they weren’t the landowners throughout the building process. Goellner noted that LDK Builders should have signed the application as the landowner, however the Dixons signed the application as both the applicant and as the landowner. Maxwell suggested that Mr. Dixon re-sign and date the application. Johnson questioned how they should address the issue of the builder placing the house in a position that now requires a variance in order to build a deck. Maxwell suggested the Board send a letter to the builder. Nelson suggested the Planning Commission discuss the issue. She added that she feels better about this variance request knowing that the applicants were not the landowners throughout the construction process. Johnson questioned why the applicants couldn’t build a patio that drains properly. Dixon stated that drainage was one issue. The other issues were aesthetics and maintenance. He stated that the landscape architects he has spoken with have said every times it rains a patio would be covered with dirt and debris. Orenstein added that the steps leading down to a patio would also take away some of the usable space. Dixon reiterated that the existing sliding glass doors are the only doors in the back of the house and are driving the location of the deck. Orenstein said he is satisfied that the variance request meets all of the criteria the Board is supposed to consider when granting variances. Johnson said he doesn’t think Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 23, 2015 Page 5 it has been demonstrated that a patio won’t work. Orenstein questioned if the Board should be dictating what a homeowner chooses to build. Nelson said a patio would have more impact on the neighboring property because it would be closer to the property line. Maxwell said it is a question of whether it is reasonable to give the applicant a 1-foot variance or allow them to build something without a variance that will look out of character with the neighborhood. Orenstein questioned if the Board is supposed to consider aesthetics. Maxwell said the proposal is supposed to be in harmony with the rules and surrounding locale. Orenstein said the proposed deck isn’t unusual, extraordinary or out of the norm. Nelson asked Goellner if staff would consider giving a positive recommendation if the deck was 14 feet away from the side yard property line instead of the requested 8 feet. Goellner said no because the applicant could reduce the size of the proposed deck, be located 15 feet away from the side yard property line, and still have a reasonably sized deck. She added that if the Board wants to send a message to the builder the variance request should be denied. Johnson questioned if all of the alternatives have been exhausted. He said the builder thought a patio was ok and one landscape architect thought it was ok. The fact that dirt will get on a patio is not a compelling argument. Orenstein said a patio is clearly an option but questioned if it is the Board’s job to tell an applicant what they can build. In this case the applicant wants to build a deck. Johnson said a smaller deck can be built without a variance. Dixon said he thinks a deck will fit better with the house. Orenstein asked if the applicant built a patio now and came back a year later and asked to build a deck if the Board would say no, they have to keep the patio. Dixon said they are going to build a deck, it is just a matter of how it will look. He reiterated that they are only asking for a 1-foot variance so they can have furniture on the deck. Nelson agreed that that the applicant could build a deck that meets the requirements, or he could build a deck that functions better. Johnson said he understands, but he doesn’t see a reason for a variance. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Orenstein and motion carried 3 to 1 to approve a variance for 4.5 feet off of the required 18.5 feet to a distance of 14 feet at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line to allow for the construction of a new deck. Johnson voted no. III. Other Business The Board discussed writing a letter to LDK Builders expressing concern about the process and letting them know that the Board would like them to let homeowners know Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 23, 2015 Page 6 they might need a variance in the future. The consensus of the Board was to draft a letter and send it to LDK Builders. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:21 pm. j'�r,� /�,�-:i------' 'S� �/��--- Nancy Nelson, Vice Chair Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant