Loading...
07-28-15 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 28, 2015 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, July 28, 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 Maxwell, Nelson, Orenstein, Perich and Planning Commission Representative Waldhauser. Also present were Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes — June 23, 2015 Regular Meeting MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Orenstein and motion carried unanimously to approve the June 23, 2015, minutes as submitted. Waldhauser abstained from voting. II. The Petition(s) are: 1440 Winnetka Avenue North Kvle Anderson, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 12(A)(2) Front Yard Setback Requirements • 4 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 31 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a 2-stall garage. Goellner explained the applicant's request to build a 672 square foot, detached garage in the southeast corner of his property. Currently, this property has no garage located on it. Goellner stated that the proposed garage would be located 31 feet from the front yard (north) property line. She stated that the applicant has said his unique circumstances are that the lot is a narrow, corner lot with two front yard setback areas which creates a smaller buildable area. Orenstein asked if the Board's approval would be subject to the existing shed on the property being located 10 feet away from the proposed new garage. Goellner said yes, she would like the applicant to verify that there will be 10 feet of separation befinreen the existing shed and the proposed new garage. Waldhauser asked if the existing shed is located 10 feet away from the house. Goellner said she thinks it is. Kyle Anderson, Applicant, stated that the only place to put a garage on this lot is where he is proposing because the lot is only 60 feet wide and there would not be enough room Minutes of the Goiden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 27, 2015 Page 2 anyplace else. He said he needs the size garage he is proposing (24 feet x 28 feet) because of the type of vehicle he drives. He said the proposed garage won't affect his neighbors and the house will look better with a garage and a finished driveway. He referred to the questions regarding the existing shed and stated that there is currently 10' 10" between the house and shed, and that there will be 10 to 14 feet between the existing shed and the proposed new garage. Maxwell asked if there is any garage space on the property. Anderson said no and added that there was a tuck-under garage, but that has been converted to living space. Waldhauser noted that there are curb cuts along Winnetka Avenue and along Winsdale Street and questioned which one would be used for the proposed new garage. Anderson said the new driveway would be on Winsdale Street. Perich opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to comment, Perich closed the public hearing. Nelson stated that the Board tries to allow finro-stall garages when possible and that she is sympathetic to corner lots because they have two front yards. She said she thinks the proposal is reasonable and meets all of the criteria used when granting variances. Waldhauser said she is concerned about the new garage being so wide that it will enclose the neighboring property to the south, but the proposed garage is meeting the side and rear yard setback requirements so she is ok with the variance as requested. Orenstein said he thinks the criteria used for granting variances have been met. Perich agreed that this is a reasonable request. MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Orenstein and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request for 4 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 31 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (north) property line to allow for the construction of a 2-stall garage. 705 Hanley Road James & Linda Farnham, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(D) Side Wall Articulation Requirements • City Code requires any wall longer than 32 feet in length to be articulated. The applicant is asking that the proposed new south wall be 47 feet in length without articulation. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a bedroom/sunroom addition. Goellner explained the applicant's request to construct a bedroom/sunroom addition. She stated that the applicants are proposing to meet the side yard setback requirement, Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 27, 2015 Page 3 however they would like a variance from the articulation requirement. She explained that the applicant has explored other options including an addition with outward articulation of 1 ft. and an addition with inward articulation of .5 ft. both of which would require a variance because the Zoning Code requires that articulation be either inward or outward for a distance of 2 ft. for any wall long that 32 feet in length. She stated that the applicant has said their unique circumstances are that it is more expensive and difficult to articulate an addition versus new construction, an inward articulation would create small rooms, and an outward articulation of 2 ft. would encroach into the side yard setback area so they would still need a variance. She stated that staff is recommending denial of the request for a waiver of the side wall articulation requirement, however staff would recommend approval of a variance request for 1 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 14 ft. to the side yard (south) property line instead. Maxwell questioned if it really is more expensive to articulate the side wall 2 ft. versus 1 ft. Waldhauser asked if the applicant explored moving the entire addition in 2 feet to the north. Goellner said they are limited by a bay window. Jim Farnham, Applicant, stated that they purchased the house in March of this year with the idea of extending the sunroom and didn't know about the articulation requirements. He said they would consider articulating the proposed addition outward 2 ft. but going inward 2 ft. is not an option because the rooms would become too small. Waldhauser said if the living space were taken away from a bedroom she can understand why it would be too small, but if the space were taken away from a sunroom she doesn't see the problem. Farnham said the sunroom would only be 8.5 ft. wide if they articulated the wall inward, and if they built the addition longer, rather than wider they would have odd shaped rooms. He said he would like to change his variance request to ask for a side yard variance instead of a variance from the articulation requirements. Goellner clarified that the variance request in that case would be 1 ft. off of the required 15 ft. to a distance of 14 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Waldhauser asked the applicant if he is certain about the distance from the house to the property line. Farnham said no, he thinks the fence is a couple of feet off the property line so he is not sure if a variance for 1 foot will be enough. Maxwell said he wants to promote articulation and that a variance from the side yard setback requirements instead would not be out of character in this neighborhood, so he thinks a variance for 2 ft. off of the required 15 ft. to a distance of 13 ft. for the proposed addition would be appropriate. Nelson and Orenstein agreed. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to approve a variance for 2 ft. off of the required 15 ft. to a distance of 13 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line to allow for the construction of a bedroom/sunroom addition. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 27, 2015 Page 4 43 Western Terrace Charles Rue and Tracv Rue, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(2) Rear Yard Setback Requirements • 17 ft. off of the required 25 ft. to a distance of 8 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard (west) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a home/garage addition. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 12(E) Accessory Structure Requirements • 9 sq. ft. more than the allowed 1,000 square feet of accessory structure space. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a home/garage addition Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(D) Side Wall Articulation Requirements • City Code requires any wall longer than 32 feet in length to be articulated. The applicant is asking that the proposed new west wall be 32.5 feet in length without articulation. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(D) Side Wall Articulation Requirements • City Code requires any wall longer than 32 feet in length to be articulated. The applicant is asking that the proposed new east wall be 36.4 feet in length without articulation. Goellner explained the applicant's request to construct a two story addition with an attached garage and an addition on the back of the house. She stated that the garage addition is on the side of the home, however the property line along the west is considered to be a rear yard property line. She noted that the lot originally faced Ridgeway Road and that the applicants received a variance in 2013 regarding the location of the existing tree house. Maxwell asked if the existing detached garage will remain. Goellner said yes, and stated that the applicant has said that they can't expand that garage because there are power lines above it and they can't get Xcel to bury them or move them temporarily in order to demolish and reconstruct a larger garage. Minutes of the Goiden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 27, 2015 Page 5 Goellner discussed the requested variances regarding articulation and explained that the Zoning Code requires articulation for side walls longer than 32 feet. She stated that the new west wall of the home would be 32.5 feet in length without articulation and the proposed new east wall of the home would be 36.4 in length without articulation. She referred to the amount of accessory structure space and noted that the Zoning Code allows 1,000 square feet of accessory structure space; and in this case the applicants would have 1,009 square feet of accessory structure space when considering the treehouse, the existing and proposed new attached garage space and the existing detached garage. Goellner stated that the applicant has said their unique circumstances are that the house is not oriented toward the driveway, the rear yard is on the side of the house, the existing detached garage is only one stall, and they haven't been successful in working with Xcel regarding the power lines above it. Maxwell asked if there is a reason the driveway doesn't enter from Ridgeway Road. Goellner stated that the property used to have access from Ridgeway Road and that staff realizes the landowner did not cause the unique orientation of the house or the configuration of the streets. Maxwell referred to the proposed addition on the back on the house and noted that it could be moved over 2 ft. and the variances regarding articulation would no longer be needed. Goellner noted that the existing detached garage really is the size of a two-stall garage and suggested that maybe it could be reconfigured to function as a finro-stall garage. Waldhauser said she understands that with unique lots staff has to determine the front and rear lot lines and that the intent behind the articulation requirement is to break up the view for the neighboring property, but the property to the north is really the one that would benefit from articulation in this case. Charles Rue, Applicant, stated that none of their plans have been finalized yet, so he is willir�g to make changes if needed. He asked about the criteria the Board uses when considering variances. Perich explained that the Board considers the reasonableness of the requ�st, if the need for a variance is being caused by the landowner, and whether the proposal will alter the character of the locality. Nelson added that the Board also tries to be consistent in their decision making. Maxwell asked the applicant if there are ways to minimize the number of variances being requested. Rue stated that he could drop the requests regarding articulation. He stated that adding another garage stall on to the existing garage is important and will have a huge impact on the house. Nelson asked Rue how long he has lived in this house. Rue said they have lived there since 1998, but the house was brought to the lot in 1948. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 27, 2015 Page 6 Maxwell asked if there is a way to reduce the amount of accessory structure space. Rue said the proposed new attached garage would be 22 ft. wide which will be tight. He stated that he has thought about expanding the existing detached garage and has tried to contact the power company about moving the power lines, but it has been impossible. Maxwell asked Rue if he has considered removing the detached garage. Rue said yes, but they would rather put that money into the new addition. Orenstein noted that there are also power lines on the west side of the property and asked how close to the proposed new addition they would be. Rue said those power lines are further away than the treehouse. Rue said he would be willing to make the proposed new garage 6 inches narrower in order to be within the allowed amount of accessory structure space. Perich stated that if the attached garage is smaller the variance request would be smaller as well. Maxwell stated that the side yard variance request would be amended to 16.5 ft. off of the required 25 ft. to a distance of 8.5 ft. to the rear yard (west) property line. Waldhauser noted that the main reason for the attached garage addition is to build the second story addition. She asked if the proposed addition on the back of the house could be moved over and the second garage stall not built. Rue said he doesn't want to have a two-story house with a one-stall garage. He said he is trying to update the "1948 dump on the block" and add value to the neighborhood. Maxwell noted that if the applicant is willing to articulate the side walls and to reduce the amount accessory structure space, he would be requesting one variance instead of four. Perich opened the public hearing. Daniel Goodwin, 135 Hanley Road, said he is the property owner to the west and he has no issues with the applicant's addition coming closer to his yard. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Perich closed the public hearing. Orenstein referred to an email received by neighbor and asked the applicant if he has any reaction to their concerns. Rue said he would still snow-blow their driveway and won't make them move the fence that is located on his property. Orenstein asked about the treehouse being used for storage. Rue said there are two chairs and a pitching net underneath the treehouse so he feels that complaint is a little misguidecl. He said he thinks the main concern is that the proposed project won't get finished and stated that he is hiring professional contractors to do the work and will not be doing it himself. Nelson said the email they received sounds like the treehouse is more of an issue than the proposed addition. She clarified that the Board of Zoning Appeals granted the variance for Minutes of the Goiden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 27, 2015 Page 7 the treehouse because it was originally built using information from an old survey, a variance was not granted to allow for the construction of the treehouse. Maxwell stated that this lot does have a unique configuration and the neighbor immediately impacted is far away from the proposed addition. He said he is inclined to grant the side yard variance request to 8.5 ft. because the unique character of the property was not caused by the landowner. Perich asked Goellner what staff would think about just granting a variance from the side yard setback requirements. Goellner said that seems to be a better idea because the west side of this property does act more like a side yard than a rear yard. Perich said he thinks granting one variance from the rear yard setback requirement is ok, but he wasn't in favor of granting the variances from the articulation requirement or for additionai accessory structure space. Waldhauser said she can support the rear yard variance request if it really provides two attached garage stalls. She said she thinks the applicant could be persistent with the utility company and reconfigure the detached garage as another option. Nelson said in this neighborl-�ood having a finro-stall, attached garage is typical and appropriate. Orenstein agreed and said the proposed addition will be a vast improvement to this property. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Nelson and motion carried unanimously to approve a variance for 16.5 ft. off of the required 25 ft. to a distance of 8.5 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard (west) property line to allow for the construction of a garage/home addition. The applicant agreed to withdraw the other three variance requests listed on the agenda. III. C7ther Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:08 pm. � . • � �� ��2'�/Vr � �►'` David Perich, Chair Li Wittman, Administrative Assistant