Loading...
07-26-16 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 26, 2016 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, July 26, 2016, at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Perich called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Those present were Members Maxwell (arrived at 7:25), Nelson, Orenstein, Perich and Planning Commission Representative Kluchka. Also present were Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, Planning Intern Chloe McGuire Brigl, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes— June 28, 2016, Regular Meeting MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Orenstein and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve the June 28, 2016, minutes as submitted. Commissioner Kluchka abstained. II. The Petition(s) are: 1439 Tyrol Trail (Continued Item) Michael and Caitv Bateman, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3)(b) Side Yard Setback Requirements • 2.5 ft. off of the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 10 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (east) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new garage. Goellner reminded the Board that this proposal was tabled at their last meeting. She explained that the applicants are now proposing to build a new garage with a deck above, 2.5 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 10 ft. at its closest point to the east property line rather than the originally proposed 3.6 ft. to the east property line. She discussed some of the alternative ways the proposed garage could be built including: adapting the current garage, lowering the garage floor, or removing the center post. However, the homeowners would still be left with the turning radius problem because of the L-shaped driveway. Goellner stated that staff is recommending approval of this variance request because it is a reasonable use of space, the proposed garage will have minimal impact on the neighboring property, and the applicants have explored other alternatives and have altered their plans based on the Board's recommendations. Caitlin Bateman, Applicant, said they went back to the drawing board and looked at ways to lessen the impact and improve the usability of the garage. She stated that they explored many options and this one seems to be the best. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 26, 2016 Page 2 Nelson asked if the new garage door will face the front or the side of the property. Bateman said it will face the front. Perich opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to comment, Perich closed the public hearing. Nelson stated that she had concerns about the original proposal but she applauds the applicants for exploring other alternatives that minimize the impact to the neighboring property. She added that she thinks this proposal meets the criteria the Board uses when considering variance requests. Perich agreed. Kluchka said the proposal sounds reasonable and questioned if language could be added as a condition that would prohibit the construction of anything on top of the proposed garage because he doesn't want the footprint to set precedent for future building. Perich said conditions could be added. Nelson noted that the plans submitted with this proposal are what the Board would be approving. Goellner stated that if the applicants want to build an addition on top of the garage it would have to meet the setback requirements or they would have to come back to the City with another variance request. MOVED by Orenstein, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to approve the requested variance for 2.5 ft. off of the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 10 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (east) property line to allow for the construction of a new garage/deck addition. 221 Westwood Drive North Peter & Beth Newland, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.03: Definitions (Zoning Code), Definition 14. Building, Height • The applicant is seeking a variance of 2.27 feet off the allowed 1-foot increase in average grade for new construction, for a total increase of 3.27 feet from the existing average grade. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new home. McGuire Brigl referred to an aerial photo of the property and pointed out a bowl-shaped depression in the front yard. She stated that the applicants' proposal is to return the grade of the property to its natural topography in order to build a new home. McGuire Brigl explained that the Zoning Code only allows for a one-foot increase in the average grade for new construction. She stated that if the bowl-shaped depression were not present, a normal two-story home could be built without a variance. Perich asked if the City knows what the original topography of the lot was before the bowl- shaped depression was carved into the yard. McGuire Brigl said no. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 26, 2016 Page 3 Orenstein said he remembers approving variances for this property in the past. Ben Awes, Architect representing the applicant, stated that essentially they want to fill in the odd, bowl-shaped depression in the front yard back to the natural grade in order to build a modest two-story house, but the Zoning Code won't allow them to raise the grade more than one foot. Nelson asked if the fact that this is a corner lot affects the grade. Goellner said yes and explained that the grade along both front property lines are taken into consideration when calculating the average grade. Kluchka referred to the grade of the lot and stated that a tuck under garage would have been built even without the bowl-shaped depression. Goellner agreed that the house probably would have been a walk-out with or without the depression. Kluchka noted that the grade of the side yard is probably original. Awes stated that the previous owners carved into a hillside to build the garage and probably also did some carving in order to get a flat driveway. He added that they are not proposing to raise the grade on the side, they are really just filling in the "bowl" in front. Goellner added that the front door of the new home will be in a similar location and that the intent of the Zoning Code requirement is to keep people from building up the grade in order to build a taller house. Kluchka asked if the existing house is taller, or similar in height with other homes nearby. Orenstein said it is similar in height with others in the area. Perich opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Perich closed the public hearing. Orenstein said he thinks the new home is a welcome change and an improvement. Nelson said the impact is fairly minimal. Perich agreed and added that the property is unique and the proposal is reasonable, it is in harmony with the City's plans, and it won't alter the character of its locality. MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Orenstein and motion carried unanimously to approve the requested variance of 2.27 feet off the allowed 1-foot increase in average grade for new construction, for a total increase of 3.27 feet from the existing average grade to allow for the construction of a new home. 204 Parkview Terrace Nick Thompson, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11 (Bj Height Limitations • 8 ft. over the 25 ft. of height allowed for a total height of 33 ft. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a second story addition. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 26, 2016 Page 4 Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11 (A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements • .6 ft. off of the required 15 ft. to a distance of 14.4 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a second story addition. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11 (A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements • .2 ft. off of the required 15 ft. to a distance of 14.8 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a second story addition. McGuire Brigl referred to a diagram drawing of the proposal and explained the applicant's request to construct a second story addition and a rooftop deck. She stated that the proposal requires three variances. The first request is for the stairway access to the rooftop deck to be 33 ft. in height (rather than the allowed 25 ft.), the second request is to allow the second floor addition to be located 14.4 ft. (rather than the required 15 ft.) at its closest point to the south property line, and the third is to allow the second floor addition to be located 14.8 ft. (rather than the required 15 ft.) at its closest point to the north property line. She explained that the applicant's stated unique circumstances are that they would like to utilize the existing structure to build the second story, the side yard setbacks for the existing home are already non-conforming, there is approximately 23 feet between this home and the neighboring home to the south, and they would like the opportunity for a summer rooftop deck and garden space to help make the home more green. McGuire Brigl stated that staff is recommending denial of the requested variances because the proposed rooftop deck could be accessed by an outdoor staircase and the second story addition could meet the side yard setback requirements by stepping in, or sloping slightly without the need for variances. Nelson referred to a similar variance request that was approved at their last meeting and noted that staff stated at that time that the Zoning Code might be amended to address the height of flat roof homes versus the height of pitched roof homes. Goellner stated that the Zoning Code has not yet been amended. Maxwell asked if this proposal would be allowed under the proposed code changes. Goellner stated that this proposal is similar to the variance request approved last month. In this case the applicant is close to fitting within the allowed building envelope, but they are proposing to build the house taller than even the 28 feet of height allowed for a pitched roof house. Nelson asked if the proposal from the meeting last month fit within the building envelope. Goellner said yes. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 26, 2016 Page 5 Nelson asked how the existing house is non-conforming. McGuire Brigl stated the south side of the existing house is located14.4 ft. from the property line instead of the required 15 ft. Kluchka asked if there are plans that are further along in the design process. McGuire Brigl stated that the applicant has an updated plan that indicates they don't need a variance on the north side of the property. Nick Thompson, Applicant, showed the Board a new plan that would not need a variance on the north side. He clarified that the proposed rooftop stair access is located in the center, toward the rear of the home so from the street view it won't feel like a tower sticking up. Perich asked the applicant if he has considered putting in an exterior staircase. Thompson said an outdoor spiral staircase would be a really tight option. Also, there would be a lot of inetal and it would be more of an eyesore. He added that there are two other houses on this street that have the same rooftop deck he is proposing. Flora Brown, Applicant, reiterated that putting the rooftop stair access toward the back of the home will be less intrusive. Nelson asked if there is a way to make the rooftop stair access shorter. Thompson stated that they need the proposed height for headroom. Brown stated that functionally, an outside staircase is more hazardous and they want to have garden space on the rooftop deck as well. Kluchka asked about the plans for the rest of the rooftop space. Thompson said it would be left as a flat roof with a 6 to 8-inch parapet that could be garden space in the future. Perich opened the public hearing. Todd Stahl, 212 Parkview Terrace, said his house is 15 ft. from the side yard property line and he is concerned about privacy because his house sits higher and the applicants rooftop deck would be an entertaining area that would look into the private areas of his house. He said he is concerned about a mature oak tree on the north side that already has limited light and the applicants' proposal could make that worse. He said he is also concerned about the scale of the applicants' house and stated that the building envelopes are in place to ensure balance and harmony with the homes that are already there. He said the proposed new addition would basically dwarf his house and make it feel tiny and insignificant. Martha Abbott, 301 Parkview Terrace, said this proposal, which is basically a shed on the roof, would alter the character of the neighborhood. She said this isn't a problem that is unique to this property or any property. She said the houses on either side of this one are one-story and are built right up to the setback lines so if the proposed house is allowed to be the maximum height with another 8 ft. on top of that it would alter the character of the neighborhood. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 26, 2016 Page 6 Perich asked Abbott if she would prefer a stairway on the side of the house. Abbott said yes, because it would be more open visually as opposed to having a big solid mass. She said stairs could also go in the back, or there could be a deck at a certain point with stairs going up to provide a break in the look of the staircase. David Michael, 201 Parkview Terrace, said the architectural integrity of the neighborhood is being violated with something that is so different from the rest of existing neighborhood. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Perich closed the public hearing. Goellner said a rooftop deck might be allowed without the need for variances depending how tall the guard rail is. Thompson said the guard rail is 36" tall. McGuire Brigl said it would still require a height variance, but not a variance from the building envelope requirements. Goellner said it appears they would need a 1 ft. variance from the height requirements. Kluchka asked the applicant if he would consider having internal stairs with a hatch roof access. Thompson said he would consider that. Goellner said she is not sure what the Building Code requirements are for a hatch roof. Orenstein asked if the Zoning Code language regarding height might be changed within the next six months. Goellner said she didn't know for sure. Kluchka asked what types of changes are being proposed. Goellner stated that there doesn't need to be different height requirements for flat roofs and pitched roofs now that there are building envelope requirements so staff is considering proposing one height for both types of roofs. Maxwell asked if this variance proposal were considered as a pitched roof where the midpoint of the roof would be. Thompson said they would be close to the building envelope boundaries with a pitched roof as well. Orenstein asked how visible the rooftop access would be from the street. He said it would be less visible than the house down the street which is basically three stories tall. Orenstein asked if the rooftop access could be moved further toward the back of the house. Thompson said yes, he would consider that. Nelson said she is not sure what the unique circumstances are in this case that are not being caused by the landowner. Thompson said he could build a taller pitched roof addition, but he wants to have usable rooftop space. He referred to the neighbors comments about privacy and noted that there is a dense tree line between their houses. McGuire Brigl confirmed that the living space area on the roof would be the furthest away from the neighbor who spoke. Perich agreed that this circumstance is being caused by the landowner and it will alter the character of the neighborhood. Kluchka stated that the essential character in Golden Valley is the variety of houses. Perich said he understands that the requirements could be different soon, and he understands that pitched roof homes could be taller, but a deck could not be built on top of a pitched roof. Nelson agreed that Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 26, 2016 Page 7 outdoor space would be more impactful than a taller pitched roof. Maxwell noted that if the applicants can shrink the house by a foot, they can build a rooftop deck without any variances. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Perich and motion carried unanimously to deny the following variance requests: .6 ft. off of the required 15 ft. to a distance of 14.4 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. .2 ft. off of the required 15 ft. to a distance of 14.8 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line. Nelson stated that the proposal is reasonable but there just aren't any unique circumstances that are not being caused by the landowner. She added that she may feel differently if the height request was only for 1 ft. taller. Kluchka said he couldn't come up with a good reason for even a 1 ft. height variance, but that doesn't mean the City would not allow this proposal in the future. Thompson said he understands and asked if the rooftop deck, including the guard rail, is 25 ft. in height if he could do the entire roof as deck space. McGuire Brigl said yes. MOVED by Perich, seconded by Maxwell and motion carried unanimously to deny the variance request for 8 ft. over the 25 ft. of height allowed for a total height of 33 ft. for a rooftop deck. 1750 Major Drive D.R. and Jennifer Schroeder, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11 (D) Side Wall Articulation • Any wall longer than 32 feet in length must be articulated, with a shift of at least 2 feet in depth for at least 8 feet in length. The applicant is requesting a variance from this regulation to build a garage wall approximately 40 feet in length with no articulation. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new home. McGuire Brigl referred to a survey of the property and explained the applicants' proposal to build a new, passive home. Passive homes are built with high energy standards and seek to be energy efficient through maximum passive solar exposure using more sun in the winter to warm the house and less sun in the summer to keep the house cooler. The applicants are requesting a variance to construct the garage along the west side of the property approximately 40 in length without any articulation. The Zoning Code requires any wall longer than 32 feet to articulate at least 2 feet in depth for at least 8 feet in length. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 26, 2016 Page 8 McGuire Brigl noted that the applicants have stated that their unique circumstances are that the home must be oriented to the south for a passive home design, the proposed garage is being placed in the flattest location, the property is heavily wooded, in- or out- articulations will create safety hazards, as they conceal people, animals, and items in the driveway, they would like to keep the style of the garage and home similar, and there are few visible neighbors. McGuire Brigl stated that while staff is supportive of the passive home design, and thinks the property would be used in a reasonable manner, and fits the goals of the City, they are recommending denial of the requested variance because the problems are not unique to the property. It is a large, vacant, newly subdivided lot with room to build within the regulations. Also, the problem is caused by the landowner. The design of the garage could include articulation to match the design of the articulation shown on the proposed home. Staff doesn't feel that articulations in the garage would cause a safety issue. And lastly, the proposed garage would alter the essential character of its locality because all homes in Golden Valley are subject to the same side wall articulation requirement, and a passive home does not require a 3-stall garage without articulation. Maxwell asked if a different variance would be required if the garage did have articulation. McGuire Brigl said no. Perich asked if the proposed garage is 960 square feet in size. McGuire Brigl said yes and noted that an average garage is 22 ft. x 22 ft. or 24 ft. x 24 ft. in size. Maxwell explained that the Board has to consider the four criteria set by state statute, when considering variance requests. If those criteria aren't met, they can't approve the request. He questioned what is unique in this case that is not caused by the landowner. Stephan Tanner, Architect, asked about the intent of the articulation requirement. He said to him the intent is to improve the design and quality of the neighborhood. He said articulation in this case would not add to the design or quality, it would distract from it because it would just make the garage look less architectural. He added that no one will really be able to see the garage and added that the landowners are coming to Golden Valley as stewards, interested in the lakeshore and the woods and building a passive home that will generate more energy than it uses. Maxwell said the City creates rules and the Board has limited ability to grant exceptions. He said he thinks the proposed use is reasonable, it is consistent with the City's plans, the character of the locality isn't really an issue, but he is having difficulty finding a unique circumstance that is not caused by the landowner because it is new construction. Tanner discussed the design approach and said they want to have as much southern exposure as possible so the house is oriented east/west on the lot. He said he has lake setbacks and trees to consider and that leaves limitations and limited space in order to design a passive home. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 26, 2016 Page 9 Perich asked if the garage would be considered passive if it were articulated. Tanner said the garage is not considered in the passive calculations. He questioned why he would make an indentation in the box when it doesn't really affect anyone. He also questions why they should articulate, just to articulate and reiterated that he doesn't understand the intent of the ordinance and it seems like a pretty weak controlling mechanism. Orenstein noted that there is an appeals process, and that the City Council may have a solution. Goellner said she is not sure the City Council would approve this variance request, because they want to see articulation in side walls. Perich opened the public hearing. Don Schroeder, Applicant, noted that the garage doors would be set in 8". Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment. Perich closed the public hearing. Orenstein said he agrees with the architect that it is articulation for the sake of articulation. He added that the house won't be highly visible and would have very little impact. Perich stated that 960 square feet is a large garage. Orenstein said it is not disproportionate to the house. Perich said he worries about setting a precedent. Goellner stated that a 40-foot long wall without articulation is quite unprecedented. Kluchka noted that there was a plan in the agenda packet that shows articulation of the second garage door and asked if that was proposed by the City or the applicant. McGuire Brigl said that plan was submitted by the applicant. Kluchka asked if the entry door could articulate instead of the garage door. Goellner said she doesn't think that would provide a long enough articulation. MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried 4 to 1 to deny the requested variance. Orenstein abstained. III. Other Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 pm. David Perich, Chair Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant