Loading...
04-26-16 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals April 26, 2016 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, April 26, 2016, at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Perich called the meeting to order at 7:03 pm. Those present were Members Maxwell, Nelson, Orenstein, Perich and Planning Commission Representative Blum. Also present were Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes — March 22, 2016, Regular Meeting MOVED by Orenstein, seconded by Perich and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve the March 22, 2016, minutes as submitted. Commissioner Blum abstained. II. The Petition(s) are: 4127 Beverly Avenue Paul and Anna Lakin, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11 (A)(3)(c) Side Yard Setback Requirements • 1.9 ft. off of the required 8 ft. to a distance of 6.1 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (east) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new solarium/porch addition. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(5) Building Envelope Requirements • 1 ft. outside of the building envelope, which is restricted to 15 ft. in height, for an addition that is 16 ft. in height. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new solarium/porch addition. Goellner referred to a location map and explained the applicants' proposal to construct a 175 square foot solarium addition on top of an existing patio/retaining wall. Goellner explained that the proposed solarium would need a variance of 1.9 ft. off of the required 8 ft. to a distance of 6.1 ft. from the side yard (east) property line and a variance from the building envelope requirements to allow the proposed solarium to be 16 ft. in height which is 1 foot outside of the allowed building envelope. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals April 26, 2016 Page 2 Goellner noted that the applicants have stated that their unique circumstances include the fact that this is a 40-foot wide lot with a relatively small buildable area, the proposed solarium will be transparent and therefore less impactful than a typical building addition, and the proposed solarium would be built on top of the existing patio/stair landing and retaining wall which is already located 6.1 ft. from the east property line. Nelson asked about variances granted in the past for this property when this house was originally constructed. Goellner explained that in 2007 a different homeowner demolished the original house and asked for three variances to construct this house. The Board of Zoning Appeals at the time approved a rear yard variance, but denied variances for both side yards. Perich asked if the Board were to approve the current variance requests if the homeowner can only construct a solarium, or if they could build something different. Goellner stated that if the requested variances are approved the applicant is only allowed to build what they've proposed in their application. Maxwell referred to the patio area and questioned if it was originally determined to be a landing and landings are allowed to be in a setback area, if that is why the house is shaped the way it is. Goellner said that is correct. The retaining wall and patio area was interpreted at the time to be a landing. She clarified that landings are considered to be 25 square feet or less in size and that stairs and landings are allowed to be located within a setback area. Maxwell asked if the requested height of the proposed solarium is 16 feet because that is the height of the house. Goellner referred to a photo of the house and showed how tall the proposed solarium would be. Martha Abbot, designer representing the applicant, stated that there is a door leading out onto the deck area so they are proposing to build the solarium 16 ft. tall in order to get the structure above that door. Orenstein asked how tall the door is. Abbot stated that it would be possible to take out the existing door and put in a shorter door, but they thought it would be greener to use the existing door. Nelson asked when the applicants purchased the property. Abbot said they purchased the home three years ago. She explained that they would like to have some space on the first floor that they can close off because the home is very open. She stated that it is a narrow lot so there is limited space to add on to the house. She reiterated that the proposed solarium will be transparent and will have minimal impact and added that it would be set back almost 76 ft. from the street. She stated that the addition would be on top of the retaining wall which already marks the edge of the house and that it won't go any further into the setback area. Orenstein asked if the solarium would cantilever over the retaining wall. Abbot said no, it will go no further into the setback area than the retaining wall already does. Nelson asked Abbot if she has any drawings of the proposed solarium. Abbot said she does not because she wanted to try to get the variance first before she charged her Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals April 26, 2016 Page 3 clients for drawings. She stated that she would be willing to table her variance requests and bring schematic drawings back to the Board for consideration. Nelson asked about the square footage of the house. Abbot said she thinks the house is approximately 2,000 square feet in size. Blum asked if the proposed solarium could be built with a rounded or angled roof to avoid the height variance. Abbot stated that a flat roof would be in keeping with the style of the existing house. Perich asked Abbot if they had considered any other options or locations for the solarium. Abbot stated that if the solarium were built within the setback requirements it would be too small. She said they considered building a solarium on the roof top, and they considered building in the front yard, but those options would be more impactful. Maxwell questioned if a variance would be needed to build the solarium on the roof. Abbot said yes, and explained that the access to the solarium would be through a bedroom if they built it on the roof. Goellner noted that a variance from the rear yard setback requirement would be needed as well. Nelson asked if the solarium could be built on the west side of the property. Abbot stated that they would only have 3 ft. to work with on the west side and that the east side already has the space carved out for the proposed addition. Perich opened the public hearing. Neal Kielar, 4121 Beverly Avenue, said the setback requirements were different when his house was built so the distance between their houses is very small. He stated that the proposed addition would be very disruptive to him because it would be bringing the applicants' everyday life closer to his house which would be very impactful. He stated that when this house was built he spent a lot of money on window coverings and new privacy windows because the applicants' house is taller and closer than the previous house was. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Perich closed the public hearing. Nelson said she is sympathetic with the neighbor's comments and she agrees that the hauses are very close together. Blum stated that the landing/retaining wall area seems like a deck and is already pushing the limits so he is not in favor of this proposal. Nelson agreed and stated that the applicants bought the home in 2013 and should know there are big limitations given the size of the lot. Perich said he is also struggling with how close the proposed solarium would be to the side property line. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals April 26, 2016 Page 4 Maxwell said he has similar concerns and thinks there are other options to build a solarium on a different part of the house. He said he is not in favor of the proposed location because it will be so impactful to the neighboring property. MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Perich and motion carried unanimously to deny both of the requested variances. III. Other Business Maxwell asked about the variance request on Sunnyridge Lane that was tabled at their meeting last month. Goellner stated that the applicant for that proposal has withdrawn her request. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:35 pm. r' David Perich, Chair Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant