Loading...
03-22-16 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals March 22, 2016 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, March 22, 2016, 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 (arrived at 7:10), Nelson, Orenstein, Perich and Planning Commission Representative Baker. Also present were Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes— October 27, 2015 Regular Meeting MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Perich and motion carried unanimously to approve the October 27, 2015, minutes as submitted. Baker abstained. II. The Petition(s) are: 1319 Tyrol Trail Dan & Sheila Brouqhton, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements • 3 ft. off of the required 15 ft. to a distance of 12 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new house. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements • 3 ft. off of the required 15 ft. to a distance of 12 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (east) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new house. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(Aj(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements • 5 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 30 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (northwest) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new house. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals March 22, 2016 Page 2 Goellner explained the applicants' request to tear down the existing house and rebuild a new one. The proposed new house would be located 30 ft. from the front yard property line, rather than the required 35 ft. and 12 ft. from both side yard property lines, rather than the required 15 ft. She reminded the Board that this property previously received variances for various proposals, however the variances being requested now are smaller than the ones previously granted. She noted that the applicants have stated that their unique circumstances include: a challenging topography that limits the buildable area, the fact that it is a corner, triangular- shaped lot which also limits the buildable area, and that similar variances have been granted in the past for proposed additions. She added that staff is recommending approval of the requested variances. Baker asked if any of the previously granted variances were acted upon. Goellner said no, none of the previously proposed additions were built. Baker asked if the recently approved ordinance changes regarding the height of a structure affected these applicants. Goellner stated that this project is limited by the new requirements. Jennifer Christiaansen, U+B Architects, representing the applicant, said she's been working with the property owners for about a year. At first they were interested in remodeling the existing home but due to the costs and location of the existing home it wasn't suitable and was too much of an investment to make the house livable. She referred to the proposed new house and said they have been careful with the design so it will not affect the essential character of the neighborhood, and will hopefully not cause any tree removal. She referred to the practical difficulties with this property and stated that they feel their proposal is reasonable, they are respecting what's there now, and will be blending in with the housing stock of the existing neighborhood. She added that the shape of this lot is difficult and that the need for variances is not caused by the landowner. Nelson stated that she is understanding of the topography and unique shape of this lot and is pleased that the current variance requests are smaller than what has been granted for this property in the past. She added the request is reasonable and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the City's ordinances. Baker asked if the current owners added a new bay window. Christiaansen stated that the previous owners installed a bay window. Baker asked if the new house will have a two-stall garage. Christiaansen said yes and showed on the site plan how they will pull the house forward and change the grade a little bit in order to make the garage work with the new house and the existing curb cut. Maxwell asked why a front yard variance is needed. Christiaansen said they are working around the trees and the shape of the lot. Baker noted that the existing ash tree on the property will be gone a couple of years because of Emerald Ash Borer. Christiaansen stated that their goal is to build the house within the buildable area and to save as many Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals March 22, 2016 Page 3 trees as possible. Maxwell stated that trying to preserve trees does constitute a unique feature with the property. Perich opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to comment, Perich closed the public hearing. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Perich and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variance requests to allow for the construction of a new house: • 3 ft. off of the required 15 ft. to a distance of 12 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. • 3 ft. off of the required 15 ft. to a distance of 12 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (east) property line. • 5 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 30 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (northwest) property line. 221 Sunnyridge Lane Sallv Jacquemin, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements • 7.7 ft. off of the required 15 ft. to a distance of 7.3 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new deck. Goellner referred to a drawing of the property and noted that this lot was created through a subdivision done in 2014. She explained that at the time of the subdivision there was a deck located in the same area as the proposed new deck, however the City required that the deck be removed in order to proceed with the subdivision of the property so that the property would be in conformance with all of the setback requirements. The applicant is now asking for a variance to build a new deck 7.3 ft. away from the side yard property line rather than the required 15 ft. Goellner noted the applicant's stated unique circumstances in this case have to do with the recently re-drawn property line, the small size of the back yard, the small size of a deck without a variance, and the existing retaining walls and stairs in the back yard. Goellner stated that given that the lot was recently split and the former deck in the same location was required to be removed, and also given the size of the variance request, staff is recommending denial of the requested variance. She added that there are other options within the buildable area in which to build a deck that would not compromise the essential character of the neighborhood. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals March 22, 2016 Page 4 Nelson asked about the dimensions of the proposed new deck. Goellner said the width of the proposed deck varies from approximately 12 ft. to 17 ft. and the length is 32 ft. making the deck approximately 450 square feet in size. Maxwell asked what steps were taken when the lot was subdivided to put future landowners on notice regarding the size and location of a deck. Goellner said there were no conditions placed on the subdivision regarding future construction, but the City does expect property owners to be aware of limitations and setback requirements. Maxwell asked if approval of the subdivision was subject to the removal of the previous deck. Goellner said yes, and added that the City can't tell all new homeowners about limitations regarding the property they are buying. Nelson agreed and added that as a real estate agent she always tells buyers to consider setback requirements when they are thinking about additions and decks. Sally Jacquemin, Applicant, said she bought this house in October and she is very excited to be a part of this community. She said she realizes staff is recommending denial of her request, but she truly feels that her proposal meets the state statute regarding practical difficulties. First, the property will be used in a reasonable manner. The proposed deck will be enclosed by trees and will not be visible from the street. Second, the shape of the lot is unique given the subdivision that occurred and the topography of the property. She stated that she is designing the deck to mimic the parallel aspect of the property line and to be the least intrusive as possible. Third, the problems with the property were not caused by her, the current landowner. She said from her perspective it doesn't matter, and should not impact the Board's decision whether she is a new homeowner or if she has owned the home for 20 years. Fourth, her proposal is not altering the essential character of the locality. She said Golden Valley is all about enjoying nature and her proposal supports the nature of the community, preserves the character of the City, and the neighboring property owner supports her proposal. She said she realizes her variance request is large, but only one corner of the deck needs a variance, the other corner meets the setback requirement. Maxwell asked the applicant if she considered other options to build a compliant deck. Jacquemin said yes. She showed the Board a drawing of a compliant deck and stated that it resulted in only 100 square feet of usable space and would be very limited for use as a deck. Maxwell noted that a conforming deck could be built further to the east. Jacquemin stated that there are concrete stairs and retaining walls that would have to be removed if she built a deck further east. Maxwell noted that a deck could be built over the stairs and retaining walls. Jacquemin stated that would block light to the downstairs windows. She showed the Board photos from the street view and stated that she wants to do more landscaping which would help screen the deck as well. Nelson asked Jacquemin if she purchased this home from the neighboring property owner. Jacquemin said yes and added that there are a lot of questions she didn't think to ask. She stated that she was raised in Michigan and they don't have rules like this there. Maxwell stated that the variance request is large and asked Jacquemin if she would consider a lesser amount than what she has requested. Jacquemin said what she is Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals March 22, 2016 Page 5 currently proposing would be ideal, but she would be willing to consider a lesser variance. She suggested a 5-foot variance with the promise to plant additional trees. Perich opened the public hearing. David Knaeble, 227 Sunnyridge Lane, said he is in support of the requested variance. He said it won't be very impactful like a house or garage addition could be. He said he won't be able to see the proposed deck from his house and that this is a very minor request that should be supported. Baker asked Knaeble, in the interest of full disclosure, if he subdivided and sold the property to the applicant. Knaeble said yes. Peter Knaeble, 6001 Glenwood Avenue, stated that the Board approved the previous proposal on the agenda and that was to tear down a house and build a new one with three variances and that this proposal is just for an at-grade deck. He said it seems disingenuous to say that this proposal is altering the essential character of the neighborhood. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Perich closed the public hearing. Nelson stated that there were many reasons to grant the previous variance requests. That property was a corner lot with a small buildable area and a lot of topography issues. Orenstein stated that there are other options in this case. One is to build the deck further to the east. He said he would be interested in seeing how a deck constructed where the stairs and retaining walls are currently located would interfere with the amount of light in the basement. Baker stated that this was a very contentious subdivision and was not an easy decision for the Planning Commission to make. He said it is interesting that the seller is the only person in attendance supporting this variance request, yet he didn't disclose the constraints to the buyer. He said he disagrees that the primary driver in this case is the essential character. He thinks it is primarily the fault of the homeowner. Orenstein questioned if there was a legal obligation for the seller to disclose the information about the former deck to the buyer. Nelson said probably not. Maxwell stated that maybe a covenant regarding the deck should have been added at the time of sale. He said the applicant bought the house and didn't know she couldn't build a bigger deck so he finds it hard to blame her and the City shouldn't hold her responsible for prior circumstances. Baker said he thinks the desire to reverse a condition of a subdivision as soon as a house is sold is a different issue. Maxwell said there is no connection between the buyer and seller. He said his bigger concern is the size of the requested variance. Baker questioned if granting this variance is fair to future landowners. Orenstein suggested tabling the request and allowing the applicant to come back with alternate design plans that might require a smaller variance. Perich noted that he is not convinced a variance would be granted even if it is smaller. Maxwell agreed that he Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals March 22, 2016 Page 6 doesn't think a 7.7 ft. variance request would be approved. Jacquemin said she would be happy to come back with alternate design plans. Nelson reiterated that there are other buildable areas on this property and stated that the Board really tries to be consistent with the variances they grant. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Orenstein and motion carried 4 to 1 to table this request to the April 26, 2016, Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. Baker voted no. III. Other Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:56 pm. . , D id Perich, Chair Li a ittman, Administrative Assistant