Loading...
10-27-15 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 27, 2015 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, October 27, 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 Johnson. Also present were Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes— September 29, 2015 Regular Meeting MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Orenstein and motion carried unanimously to approve the September 29, 2015, minutes as submitted. II. The Petition(s) are: 5605 Woodstock Avenue Nate & Dana Isder, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 12(E) Accessory Structure Requirements • 339 sq. ft. more than the allowed 1,000 square feet of accessory structure space for a total of 1,339 square feet of accessory structure space. Purpose: To allow for the construction of new garage (975 sq. ft.) and an existing shed (364 sq. ft.). Goellner referred to a site plan of the property and explained that the applicants received approval to construct a new 975 square foot garage. During an inspection of the foundation it was discovered that the applicants also had an existing 364 square foot shed/granary on their property that was not shown on their survey. Therefore, the applicants are now asking for a variance in order to keep the granary and allow them to have more than the allowed 1,000 square feet of accessory structure space. Goellner stated that the applicants have said that their unique circumstances are that the existing granary was placed on the property by previous property owners and that the existing granary has been there so long that it will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. She stated that staff is recommending denial of the requested variance. Perich asked if the property used to be a farm. Goellner said yes. Perich asked how old the house is. Goellner said she didn't know. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 27, 2015 Page 2 Johnson asked who provided the survey. Goellner said she thinks the City probably had a copy of the survey on file that the applicant used. She added that the granary should have been drawn on it when the survey was originally done, but it was not. Maxwell asked if the new garage is already built. Goeltner said the new garage is mostly built. Maxwell asked Goellner if she suspects that the granary just wasn't counted in the total square footage at the beginning of the project. Goellner said yes, and reiterated that the overage in the amount of square footage would have been caught at the time of building permit review if staff had an accurate survey. Nate Isder, Applicant, said the survey the City had on file is what he used to build the new garage and he wasn't trying to hide anything. He stated that the granary was moved onto the site many years ago. He explained that he met with City staff in August to discuss his plans and he started demolition and pouring a new foundation in mid- September before a City inspector asked if the square footage of the granary was included in the total square footage allowed. He said that was the first time he heard about having to include the granary and he never had an opportunity to decide whether to save the granary or to buitd the new garage. He said he would have chosen to save the granary because he believes it is historic to Golden Valley. He added that he has obviously violated the Zoning Code, but it wasn't his intention, he was unaware that the granary was supposed to be included in the total square footage. Nelson asked the applicant how long he has owned the house. Isder said four years. Perich asked how old the house is. Isder said the house was moved to the site in 1952 and he thinks it was built in 1944. Maxwell asked the applicant if he had to make a choice if he would choose to remove the granary. Isder said he woutd rather not see the granary go, but it would not be economical for him to remove the new garage. Nelson asked the applicant if he had known that the granary was supposed to be included in the total square footage amount if he would have built a smaller garage. Isder said he wouldn't have even built a new garage because the size it is now is just big enough to store his work trucks in. Perich opened the public hearing. Joan Peters, 407 Turners Crossroad, said this property used to be a farm before it was divided into single family lots in the 1950s. She gave a history of the area and the houses and said this granary is one of the last pieces of a farm left in Golden Valley. She stated that the granary was probably built in the 1920s and she considers this farm building an important piece of history and she would hate to see something happen to it if it isn't bothering anybody. Tim Parsons, 5550 Woodstock Avenue, said the granary is a cool building and the City would be really losing something to tear it down. He said he doesn't know what would be gained by tearing it down and when the size and scale of the lot and structures are considered iYs not any different than other properties with a smaller shed. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 27, 2015 Page 3 Jim Murphy, 5610 Woodstock Avenue, said he is friends with a person who grew up in this house and he was a kid when the granary was moved in. He stated that the granary is built like a grain elevator and he is in favor of letting the applicant keep it. Evan Reminick, 5536 Loring Lane, said he supports the applicant's proposal. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Perich closed the public hearing. Nelson explained that the Board tries to be consistent when granting variances. She said she thinks the unique circumstance in this case is that the granary is kind of a historic building and it was not built by the landowner. Perich said the use is reasonable and he agrees the granary is unique but he struggles with the criteria that it was not caused by the landowner. Maxwell said he thinks there was an innocent mistake and the applicant did adjust the size of the new garage to meet what he thought were the requirements and the granary is historical. Johnson said he agrees that a mistake was made on a 50 year old survey and there was a miss on the City's part and on the builder's part. He said the granary could be moved, but there are a lot of sheds in the back yards of the properties around this one so he doesn't think the granary is causing an impact to the area. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Orenstein and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request to allow 339 sq. ft. more than the allowed 1,000 square feet of accessory structure space for a total of 1,339 square feet of accessory structure space. 4301 Woodstock Avenue Gonyea Homes, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements • 4.9 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 30.1 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new home. Goellner referred to a survey of the property and explained that the applicant is proposing to tear down the existing home and construct a new home on the lot. She noted that the proposed new home would be located 30.1 feet at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line rather than the required 35 feet. The existing home is 30.5 feet at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 27, 2015 Page 4 She stated that the applicant has said the unique circumstances in this case are that this is a corner lot requiring two front yard setbacks and that there is a large front yard and a small back yard. She said staff is recommending approval of the requested variance. Perich asked if the proposed new home meets the setback requirements on the west side of the property. Goellner said yes. Maxwell asked about the distance from the property line to the street along the east side of the property. Goellner said there is approximately 20 feet between the property line and the street. Johnson questioned why the house couldn't be built within the buildable area. Bill Coffman, Gonyea Companies, representing the applicant, explained that the main reason in moving the house forward (north) on the lot is to save the trees in the back yard and to not have such a small back yard. He stated that the proposed new house could have been flipped the other direction on the lot but that would have been more impactful to the neighboring property. Johnson asked why the width of the house couldn't be reduced. Coffman said it is not a large house and they are proposing an end loading garage to help with the width issue. Perich asked about the size of the proposed house. Coffman said it will be a two story home with a finished basement and will be approximately 4,200 square feet in size. Perich opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Perich closed the public hearing. Nelson said she is sympathetic to corner lots. She stated that the proposed house is not impacting the Ardmore side of the property and that turning it would have more impact on the neighboring property. She said it is in harmony with the intent and purposes of the ordinances, it's consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, it's a reasonable use of the property, and it will improve the character of the neighborhood, so she is supportive of the requested variance. Perich agreed. Johnson stated that the applicants are starting with a blank slate and that the Board hasn't been presented any other options or good reasons why a house can't be built within the confines of the rules. Maxwell said they are trying to preserve trees and the back yard space. Nelson reiterated that putting the house in a different direction would have more of an impact on the neighboring property. Johnson said he thinks the new house could be narrower. Coffman stated that the standard size of three-stall garage is 33 ft. x 24 ft. in size so they can't make the house narrower. Goellner added that the proposed garage will be 23.5 ft. deep. Johnson agreed that if the Board didn't grant the requested variance the garage would be substandard. MOVED by Nelson, seconded Maxwell and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request for 4.9 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 30.1 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line to allow for the construction of a new home. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 27, 2015 Page 5 2601 Noble Avenue North Independent School District#281, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.46, Institutional Zoning District, Subd. 7 Yard Requirements • 20 ft. off of the required 50 ft. to a distance of 30 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of an addition on the south end of the existing building. Goellner referred to a site plan of the property and explained the applicant's proposal to construct an addition on the south end of the existing building. The proposed addition would be located 30 ft. from the south property line rather than the required 50 ft. She stated that the applicant has said that the unique circumstances in this case are that they would like to retain the rectangular shape of the building, and constructing to the west would impede on the existing play area. Goellner stated that staff is recommending denial of the variance request and would like the applicant to further explore options on the west side of the building in order to reduce the impact on the single family homes to the south. Maxwell asked about the possibilities of an addition on the north side of the building. Goellner said there is a driveway and parking on the north side and that staff would rather see an addition on the west side of the building. Perich asked if the south side of the existing building is located right at the 50 ft. setback line. Goellner said there is approximately 5 to 7 feet between the building and the setback line along the south. Maxwell asked if the applicant would have to pay another application fee to apply for a different variance. Goellner stated that if the Board denies this variance request, rather than tabling it, the applicant would have to re-apply and pay the application fee again. Paul Aplikowski, Wold Architects, representing the appticant, stated that there have been many options discussed and considered. He stated that they have considered building an addition out to the front, but they would have to demolish two big bathrooms at significant expense. Building an addition on the back of the building would impede on the existing playground and it would be impractical to construct on the north side because they would need to construct a retaining wall. Perich asked the applicant if they had considered building a second story. Aplikowski said they would then need to add elevators. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 27, 2015 Page 6 Nelson asked the applicant if they had considered building an addition on the west side of the property. Aplikowski said the new addition would have to be entered through the cafeteria if they built on the west side of the building. Orenstein said he would like to see plans for an addition that meets the setback requirements. Maxwell and Perich agreed. Aplikowski said he believes he could create a plan that meets the setback requirements, however the plans submitted are the School DistricYs first choice and what they feel is the highest and best use of the property. Johnson said he would like to know the existing configuration of the inside of the building as well. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Orenstein and motion carried unanimously to table this variance request to the November 24, 2015, Board of Zoning Appeals meeting in order to review other options for this property. 1319 Tyrol Trail Dan & Sheila Brouqhton, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements • 12.1 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 22.9 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (west) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a porch addition. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3) Side Yard Setback Requirements • 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. 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 construct a 10 ft. x 12 ft. porch addition on the southwest side of their home. She explained that this property received variances in 2012 to allow for a bedroom and porch addition on the west side of the property which was never built. In 2015, variances were granted to allow for a garage addition on the east side of the property and a porch addition on the south. Neither one of these additions have been built yet, but the variances don't expire until May 2016. She stated that the applicant has said the unique circumstances with this property are that it is a triangular shaped, corner lot, the topography of the lot reduces the buildable area, and a variance would be required for nearly any addition built on this property. She stated that staff agrees with the applicants stated unique circumstances and is recommending approval of the requested variances. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 27, 2015 Page 7 Jennifer Christiaansen, U+B Architects, representing the applicant, stated that this site is very challenging and the owner wants a small outdoor space. She said they feel that 120 square feet is a reasonably sized porch. She stated that the pie shaped lot and buildable area are unique circumstances. She said they are trying to maintain the character of the area and that the circumstances in this case are not caused by the landowner. She added that the variance they are asking for at this time will be smaller than the variance granted in 2012. Perich opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Perich closed the public hearing. Nelson said she thinks this a uniquely shaped lot with a lot of unique circumstances. Perich agreed and said he thinks they have fully vetted all of their options. MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Perich and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variances to allow for the construction of a porch addition • 12.1 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 22.9 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (west) property line. • 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. 3107 Lee Avenue North Joshua A. Counihan, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(2) Front Yard Setback Requirements • 1.33 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 33.67 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new garage. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements • 7.74 ft. off of the required 15 ft. to a distance of 7.26 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new garage. 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. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 27, 2015 Page 8 The applicant is asking that the proposed new south wall of the garage be 36 feet in length without articulation. Goellner referred to a survey of the property and explained the applicant's request to construct a new 26 ft. x 36 ft. garage on the south side of the existing home. She stated that the applicant has said the unique circumstance in this case is the limited buildable area to the south. She stated that staff acknowledges that the buildable area for a second stall is limited, however staff is recommending denial of the requested variances and would like to recommend that the garage be 24 ft. x 24 ft. in size rather than the proposed 26 ft. x 36 ft. Maxwell noted that the proposed garage could be moved further back on the lot so a front yard variance wouldn't be needed. Goellner stated that the applicants are proposing the location of the front of garage where they have because they would like it to line up with a future front porch addition. Johnson stated that the proposed garage could be built closer to the front yard property line without requiring a variance. Nelson asked the applicants if a 24 ft. x 32 ft. garage would work for them. Joshua Counihan, Applicant, stated that they are trying to avoid building a shed which would cause them to have to remove trees. Nelson noted that a 32 ft. deep garage is still larger than a standard two-stall garage. Perich agreed that the proposed garage size is very large. Maxwell said he would like to applicant to be able to build a two-stall garage without such large variances. Johnson added that the applicant could still build a 36 ft. deep garage, he would just have to articulate the wall after 32 ft. in length. Goellner stated that if a 24 ft. x 24 ft. garage is allowed the variance for the side yard would be amended to 5.74 ft. off of the required 15 ft. to a distance of 9.26 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Perich opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Perich closed the public hearing. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to approve a variance for 5.74 ft. off of the required 15 ft. to a distance of 9.26 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line to allow for the construction of a new garage. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Perich and motion carried unanimously to deny the following variance requests: • 1.33 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 33.67 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line. • The proposed new south wall of the garage would be 36 ft. in length, (rather than the allowed 32 ft.) without articulation. III. Other Business Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 27, 2015 Page 9 No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:36 pm. � _ . �U"�—' David erich, Chair Li Wittman, Administrative Assistant