Loading...
06-28-16 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 28, 2016 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, June 28, 2016, at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Perich called the meeting to order at 7:04 pm. Those present were Members Maxwell, Nelson, Orenstein, Perich and Planning Commission Representative Segelbaum. Also present were Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, Planning Intern Chloe McGuire Brigl, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes— May 24, 2016, Regular Meeting MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Maxwell and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve the May 24, 2016, minutes as submitted. Commissioner Segelbaum abstained. II. The Petition(s) are: 1439 Tyrol Trail Michael and Caitv Bateman, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3)(b) Side Yard Setback Requirements • 8.9 ft. off of the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 3.6 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (east) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new garage Goellner referred to a site plan of the property and explained the applicants' request to build a new two-stall garage addition with a deck above 3.6 feet from the side yard (east) property line. She noted that the existing garage is a standard sized two-stall garage, however the applicants have stated that their unique circumstances include: the challenging topography limits the buildable area, the existing garage is a tuck-under garage with an L-shaped driveway entrance, and their request is similar to a variance granted in 1983. Goellner stated that staff is recommending denial of the variance request because a garage addition 3.6 feet from the side yard property line is very unique and would impact the character of the neighborhood. It would also impact the home to the east which is only 12 feet away from the property line. Segelbaum referred to the criteria the Board uses in deciding variance requests and asked if altering the essential character of the locality is the criteria staff is referring to. Goellner said yes. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 28, 2016 Page 2 Orenstein asked about the variance granted in 1983. Goellner stated that the garage proposed in 1983 was essentially the same size as the current garage proposal, but the one in 1983 did not have a deck on top of it. She added that the size of the proposed garage is smaller than the existing garage. Orenstein asked if the current proposal didn't include a deck if staff would be supportive of it. Goellner stated that the existing garage while inconvenient, doesn't constitute a practical difficulty. Perich asked about the size of a standard two-stall garage. Goellner stated that a two- stall garage is typically 22 ft. x 22 ft. or 24 ft. x 24 ft. in size. Maxwell noted that the proposed garage is smaller than that. Goellner stated that the proposed garage is 20 ft. wide x 28 ft. deep which is narrower, but slightly deeper than the existing garage. Nelson asked if the existing garage was pushed further out toward the east if the turning and maneuvering issues would be the same. Goellner said yes. Caity Bateman, Applicant, stated that the existing garage is a two-stall garage, but it is very difficult to maneuver because there is a post in the middle of the two stalls. She stated that there are also foundation issues in the existing garage that need to be addressed so they would like to do both projects at the same time. Michael Bateman, Applicant, stated that the existing garage doors are 6.5 ft. in height. He stated that the look and height of the proposed new garage will be similar to the existing garage because they are proposing to drop the elevation of the garage floor. He stated that they want to be able to pull straight into the garage and not have to turn to enter. He added that the house to the east does not use their side entrance so the impact will be less and they are planning on adding a path between the two properties which will make the access better. Nelson noted that the applicants bought this home fairly recently and asked if they realized the situation before they bought it. Mr. Bateman said they knew about the foundation issue, but not the difficult maneuverability. Orenstein asked if the center post in the garage is structural. Mr. Bateman said yes. Orenstein asked if the post would be difficult to remove. Mr. Bateman said he didn't know. Perich asked when the house was built. Ms. Bateman said it was built in the 1930s. Perich opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Perich closed the public hearing. Orenstein said this is a difficult one. Nelson agreed and said she is sympathetic with the applicants' issues but the Board tries to keep setbacks consistent. She said this is a huge variance that will have a big impact on the neighbor and the garage should have been investigated further when the house was purchased. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 28, 2016 Page 3 Segelbaum agreed that consistency is a factor in considering variance requests. He said the Board is in favor of people improving their homes, but they have to balance that against the impact to the neighborhood. He said his concern is that granting this variance will provide too many arguments for others to want to do the same. Mr. Bateman stated that the house sits high above the road and the garage will be set back quite a bit on the lot so it won't be as impactful. Perich said he understands the issues with tuck-under garages and he is debating whether the proposed new garage is out of character with the neighborhood or not. He added that if the garage is left as it is they will have the same issues 20 years from now. Maxwell added that a similar variance was also approved in the past. Segelbaum said being able to sell the house in the future is important, but Tyrol is a gem that he wants to preserve. He added the he doesn't want to compromise the neighboring home and reiterated that he worries it will be harder to say no to similar variance requests in the future if they grant this one. Maxwell said he is concerned about how close the proposed garage would be to the side yard property line. Nelson agreed. John Sylvestre, Applicant's Contractor, said that the area in back of the garage is unusable and that the proposed garage would improve the look of the neighborhood. He stated that part of the charm of the property is the ability to have a two-stall garage and it is very difficult to get cars in the existing garage at all. He added that they considered building a smaller garage but then the applicants wouldn't be able to open their car doors inside of the garage. Maxwell asked how much smaller of a garage they considered. Sylvestre said a 16-foot wide garage door is standard which means they could build an 18-foot wide garage which is 2 feet smaller than proposed, but it would be difficult to open car doors. Maxwell noted that if an 18-foot wide garage was proposed the variance request would be for 10.9 ft. off of the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 5.6 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (east) property line. Goellner asked if the floor could be lowered in the existing garage. Sylvestre said they could possibly lower the existing garage floor, but that would not help with the turning and maneuverability issues. Goellner said she thinks having one wider garage door, rather than two individual doors might make it easier to maneuver. Maxwell said he understands that it is difficult to use the existing garage. Segelbaum asked if the driveway could be extended to make turning easier. Nelson said it seems other options are available. Maxwell asked the applicant if they would like to have their proposal tabled in order to explore other options. Mr. Bateman stated that they would like to convert the existing garage to living space. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 28, 2016 Page 4 Perich said the Board would like to exhaust other options because such a large variance request, this close to the property line, is difficult to grant. Goellner asked the Board what kind of information they would like the applicants to provide and stated that if the item is tabled the Board is indicating that they may approve a variance. Maxwell said he would like to know if the post in the existing garage can be removed and if there is a way to minimize the size of the variance request. Nelson said she is not going to be in favor of such a large variance. Segelbaum agreed. Perich also agreed and said even if the variance request is smaller he is not sure it will be approved. Mr. Bateman said they would like to table their request. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Perich and motion carried unanimously to table this item to the July 26, 2016, Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. 1315 Angelo Drive Mohammad Vedadi, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(B) Height Limitations • 3.5 ft. over the 25 ft. of height allowed for a total height of 28.5 ft. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new home. Goellner referred to a site plan of the property and explained the applicant's request to construct a new home 28.5 in height rather than the allowed height of 25 feet. She noted that the applicant is proposing to utilize the existing driveway and retaining walls. Goellner stated that the applicants stated unique circumstances include the fact that they are placing the new home in the same location as the existing home, they want an opportunity for a rooftop terrace, the rooftop access will allow for maintenance of proposed solar collectors, the rooftop access will not be easily visible from surrounding properties or from Angelo Drive, and the proposed new home will be similar in height as the existing home to the south. Goellner stated that staff is recommending approval of the variance request because the existing grading constitutes a practical difficulty in meeting the height requirement, the proposal would not require a variance if had a pitched roof design instead of a flat roof, the proposed home would not alter the essential character of its locality, and the proposed home has been designed to have as minimal visual impact as possible. Maxwell asked if the proposed home could be taller if it had a pitched roof. Goellner said yes and referred to the illustration in the Zoning Code regarding height. She explained that the Zoning Code currently has conflicting information about the height of houses with flat Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 28, 2016 Page 5 roof compared to the height of house with pitched roofs and that staff will be addressing the language in the future to make the requirements more clear. Segelbaum asked if the tallest portion of the structure is a deck area. Goellner said no, the tallest portion is the top of the elevator structure and would not be usable space. Segelbaum asked if it could be turned into usable space in the future. Goellner said the rooftop will be used as livable space, but not the top of the elevator. Maxwell questioned the unique circumstances in this case. Goellner explained the conflicting language in the Zoning Code regarding height. She noted that only a portion of the proposed new house would be 28.5 tall, not the entire house. Jerry Allen, Criteria Architects, said it is never his intent to seek variances. He stated that the homeowners have received variances in the past to add on to the existing garage, but they've decided that would not be a good option for them and it would be more impactful to neighboring property. He added that the elevator portion of the proposed home is the only part that is too tall and it is only 8 feet wide and will not be visible from the street. Segelbaum asked if they plan to put anything on top of the elevator structure. Allen said no and added that there would need to be another access to get to the top of the elevator structure. Perich opened the public hearing. Beth Hammer, 1305 Angelo Drive, said her house is taller than the applicant's proposed new house. She added that she has no problems with the proposal and thinks it will be a nice addition to the neighborhood. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Perich closed the public hearing. Nelson said she thinks the proposal is reasonable, it's in harmony with the City's Codes, and it will improve the character of the neighborhood. She added that she is also supportive of the requested variance because the Zoning Code has conflicting language regarding height, and if the proposed house had a pitched roof it would not require a variance. The Board agreed. MOVED by Orenstein, seconded by Maxwell and motion carried unanimously to approve the requested variance for 3.5 ft. over the 25 ft. of height allowed for a total height of 28.5 ft. to allow for the construction of a new home. 1361 Mandan Avenue North Peqqy Lahammer, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 28, 2016 Page 6 • 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 deck. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements • 10.67 ft. off of the required 30 ft. to a distance of 19.33 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (west) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new deck. McGuire Brigl, referred to a survey of the property and explained the applicant's request to build a deck approximately 560 square feet in size. Maxwell asked if the existing house is already located in the front setback area along Boone Avenue. McGuire Brigl said yes, and noted that the house is situated oddly on the lot. Segelbaum asked if variances need to be granted for the existing home. McGuire Brigl said no, the existing house is grandfathered in. McGuire Brigl referred to an illustration showing the allowable buildable area for a deck addition. She also showed the Board various deck configurations that would require a variance only from the west (front) property line, and not the south (side) property line. Segelbaum asked if the applicant would need variances to build a patio. Goellner said the applicant could build a patio 3 feet from the property lines. McGuire Brigl noted that the applicant has said the unique circumstances are that the home was built in the 1960s on a corner lot, the home was built in an unusual location on the lot, there are several other non-conforming decks in the neighborhood, and the home to the south was built within 4 feet of the property line. She stated that staff is recommending denial of the requested variances because a deck in the proposed location, 19.33 feet from the west property line and 3 feet from the south property line would impact the character of the neighborhood. Margaret (Peggy) Lahammer, applicant, stated that the home is small and was built in 1964. She said when she moved in she talked to the neighbors about her plans to build a deck and added that every home along Boone Avenue has a non-conforming deck. She stated that there is an additional 10 feet between the property line and the curb along Boone Avenue so the proposed deck won't be 19.33 feet from the street. She added that the deck she is proposing is very modest and the neighbors are pleased with it. Orenstein asked the applicant what she meant when she said the deck she is proposing is modest. Lahammer said she was referring to the size of the proposed deck and stated that she also has to build around a large air conditioning unit. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 28, 2016 Page 7 Nelson said she is sympathetic with corner lots and she is not as concerned about the variance request along Boone Avenue, as she is about the variance request from the south property line. Orenstein said the proposed deck is large and would be half the size of the house. Nelson agreed that the proposed deck seems out of proportion with the house. Lahammer showed the Board an alternative deck plan that would still be located 10.67 from the west (front) property line, but would not require a variance from the south (side) property line. Perich opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Perich closed the public hearing. Segelbaum said he thinks this property deserves a variance for a deck, but the proposed deck is fairly large. Maxwell agreed and said he would be more supportive of the alternate proposal shown. He noted that when the Board saw the buildable area that wouldn't require variances it's clear that some type of variance would be ok in this case. Perich agreed. Segelbaum asked if the proposed deck would destroy any site lines. Maxwell said he thinks the proposed deck would add uniformity with others in the area. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Nelson, and motion carried unanimously to deny the variance request for 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. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Nelson, and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request for 10.67 ft. off of the required 30 ft. to a distance of 19.33 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (west) property line. III. Other Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:12 pm. David Perich, Chair Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant