Loading...
08-23-16 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 23, 2016 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, August 23, 2016, at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Vice Chair Maxwell called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Members Maxwell, Nelson, Orenstein, and Planning Commission Representatives Johnson and Kluchka. Also present were Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, Planning Intern Chloe McGuire Brigl, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Member Perich was absent. I. Approval of Minutes — July 26, 2016, Regular Meeting MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to approve the July 26, 2016, minutes as submitted. II. The Petition(s) are: 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. McGuire Brigl reminded the Board that at their June 28 meeting a variance to allow a new home with an 8 ft. x 22 ft. rooftop access room was granted. Since that meeting, the applicant's plans have changed and he is now asking to build a 14 ft. x 22 ft. rooftop access room. The height of the home remains the same as the original proposal at 28.5 ft. McGuire Brigl said that the applicant's stated unique circumstances are that the rooftop access room is not easily visible from Angelo Drive, the view from Angelo Drive would not change as a result of a larger rooftop access room, and they need more space to access the rooftop to maintain solar panels and remove snow. McGuire Brigl stated that staff is recommending denial of the requested variance because the new proposal doubles the length of the addition, above the maximum height allowed. Staff feels the previously approved plans were sufficient for a rooftop access, with a bathroom, stairs, and elevator. Also, the larger addition would significantly increase the impact to the neighboring properties. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 23, 2016 Page 2 Maxwell asked if this proposed, larger rooftop access addition would still fit within the building envelope. McGuire Brigl said the proposed home would still fit within the building envelope, but the rooftop access portion is much larger and more impactful than the original proposal. She reiterated that the original proposed size of the space is sufficient for an elevator, stairs and bathroom without causing as much impact. Kluchka asked about the space to the left of the rooftop access structure. Goellner explained that that space is rooftop terrace area and where the solar collectors would be located. Mohammed Vedadi, Applicant, said he thought his proposed new structure would be ok without requiring another variance. He clarified that the structure to the left of the rooftop access is deck space and a chimney. He stated that the originally proposed 8 ft. wide structure was just the minimal amount needed for a staircase. He said that after he received approval of his variance in June, he decided that he wants the area to be slightly larger than just an area to exit out onto the rooftop. He said the view from the street won't change and the house will still fit within the building envelope. He said it sounds like the code is going to be changed in the future to allow flat roofed houses to be 28 ft. in height, but it would be more expensive to wait until that happens to make the proposed changes to the rooftop access. Orenstein asked about the use of the space and questioned if it would have windows or if it could be used as a bedroom or additional living space. Vedadi said there will be two sliding-glass doors, but it will not be livable space. There will be room for a sitting area and room to exit the elevator and access the rooftop space. Maxwell asked Vedadi if he needed all 6 additional feet or if he could build the rooftop access space any smaller. Vedadi explained that it is a structural issue because the wall of the rooftop access sits on a wall beneath it for support. He added that ideally, his plan was to have a full third story. He said that if the code regarding the height of flat- roofed homes is changed he thinks he could do that within the building envelope. He reiterated that the proposed rooftop access won't change the view from the street and that they just want the space to be a little more usable. Maxwell opened the public hearing. Nancy Skophammer, 1250 Angelo Drive, said she looks at the applicant's home from her front door. She said that she doesn't see any reason not to allow the proposed addition. Vedadi added that the neighbors on both sides of his property are also in full support of his proposal. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Maxwell closed the public hearing. Johnson asked how the height of the home would be measured if it had a pitched roof. Goellner explained that the zoning code has different height regulations for pitched Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 23, 2016 Page 3 roofs and for flat roofs. The reason for the two different height regulations is because previously the code didn't include the "tent-shaped" method for determining the building envelope. She added that if this proposal was for a pitched-roof home it would still fit within the building envelope because the height would be determined at the midpoint of the pitched roof. She stated that the key difference in this case is that the applicant isn't trying to minimize the amount of space that requires a variance. McGuire Brigl noted that part of the reason for the original approval was to gain access to the rooftop, not for the extra amount of space now being proposed. Johnson asked if there are ADA requirements for access in the rooftop space. Goellner said that was considered by the architect. Orenstein said the issue is the additional space. Maxwell agreed but noted that if the roof was pitched they could create additional space. Kluchka noted that at last month's meeting they denied a variance request for a rooftop access addition. Maxwell said that proposal was taller than the 28 ft. allowed even for a pitched roof home. Johnson said this proposal is less intrusive than a pitched roof would be. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Johnson 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. 1250 Angelo Drive Kevin Bostrom & Nancv Skophammer, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3)(b) Requirements • 2.5 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 10 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a home addition. 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 an addition 35.5 feet in length with no articulation. McGuire Brigl referred to a site plan of the property and explained the applicant's request to build an addition that includes garage storage, an office, a mudroom/entry, and a powder room along the north side of the property. The setback requirement along the north side of the property is 12.5 ft. and the applicant is requesting that the proposed Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 23, 2016 Page 4 addition be located 10 ft. at its closest point to the side yard property line, without any articulation. McGuire Brigl referred to photos of the inside of the existing garage and explained that the applicant is proposing to remove a vestibule that juts into the garage. The new garage would not increase in width, but removing the vestibule would help increase the depth of the garage. She added that there is enough space to build a 23-foot wide garage without variances so staff is recommending denial of the request. Kluchka asked for clarification about the garage remaining the same width. McGuire Brigl explained that the vestibule inside the garage will be removed, but the width of the garage door will be the same. Johnson asked about the current distance from the garage to the north side yard property line. McGuire Brigl said the existing garage is 16.3 ft. away from the north property line. Nelson added that there is approximately 4 ft. they could still use without needing a variance. Nancy Skophammer, Applicant, stated that when they purchased this home it was marketed as having a two-stall garage and they didn't realize the vestibule inside the garage affected the depth. She explained that the previous owners took some of the interior garage space and created an entry into the kitchen. She stated that the proposed new garage would be slightly wider inside because they are going to be removing some existing shelves. She said they've gone through a lot of different design ideas and this proposal will give them a nice mudroom, powder room and office. She added that the neighbors approve of the proposed addition and she does not feel that it will decrease anyone's value or alter anyone's perspective. Nelson asked Skophammer what room they would enter if they just expanded the garage and removed the vestibule. Skophammer said they would enter into a small hallway. Nelson asked which rooms are behind the garage. Skophammer said there is a kitchen and a living area leading out to a deck. Orenstein asked Skophammer why the new addition can't be articulated. Skophammer said she thinks they could work with the articulation requirements and asked what qualifies as articulation. Maxwell explained that walls can be 32 ft. in length before they have to be bumped in or out 2 ft. for a distance of 8 ft. Skophammer asked if a canopy of the entrance would count as articulation. Goellner said no. Kluchka asked Skophammer how critical the proposed workbench space and bathroom are. Skophammer said currently the only bathroom on the main level is in the master bedroom and the workbench area would be used for storage of garage items. Maxwell opened the public hearing. Mohammed Vedadi, 1315 Angelo Drive, said a narrow garage is the same issue they have with their home. He said they all want to stay in their neighborhood and make their spaces Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 23, 2016 Page 5 better. He said he is in favor of this small variance request and noted that the property to the north has a garage along the side property line so it would not be impactful to them. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Maxwell closed the public hearing. Orenstein noted that the applicant is not asking for a three-stall garage and that the Board has granted larger variance requests in the past so granting the request would not be inconsistent. Nelson agreed and said she is sympathetic, but the applicant in this case could build a wider garage without variances. Orenstein said he would like the articulation requirement to be met. The Board agreed. Kluchka suggested that in order to meet the articulation requirement and have a functional space the applicant could remove the vestibule inside the garage, create a bump-out for the mudroom addition and then remove the proposed office in the back of the proposed addition or the workbench area in the front of the proposed addition. Maxwell suggested asking the applicant if she would like to do that. Kluchka said the Board has to address the application that was submitted. Nelson said it sounds like the Board is ok with the side yard variance request but not with the request for no articulation. Johnson said it doesn't make sense to knock down the garage for an additional 2 or 3 feet or to build a 4-foot wide office. Maxwell said they could remove the proposed office or workbench and they probably wouldn't need articulation. Skophammer said she thinks they can come up with articulation ideas. MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to approve a variance for 2.5 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 10 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line to allow for the construction of a home addition. MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to deny the variance request to build an addition 35.5 feet in length with no articulation. 4805 Markay Ridge Kirk & Pamela Hyatt, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 12 (Aj(1) Accessory Structure Location Requirements • Detached accessory structures shall be located completely to the rear of the principal structure. Purpose: To allow the recently constructed shed to remain. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 12 (A)(4) Separation Between Structure Requirements • 9.75 ft. off the required 10 ft. to a distance of .25 ft. between the principal structure and the accessory structure. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 23, 2016 Page 6 Purpose: To allow the recently constructed shed to remain. McGuire Brigl referred to a photo of the property and stated that the applicant is requesting variances in order to maintain a recently built, non-conforming shed. She explained that the shed should have been built completely to the rear of the home and that there should be 10 ft. of separation between the home and the shed. McGuire Brigl said that the applicant's stated unique circumstances are that his corner lot limits the rear yard area because of the two front yards, the rear yard is largely mature gardens and trees, and he needs the shed close the driveway to store his snow blower. Kluchka noted that a big part of this issue is that the shed is not attached to the garage. McGuire Brigl agreed and explained that the applicant could put frost footings under the shed and bolt the shed to the garage and it could remain where it is, or it could be moved to a conforming location. Maxwell noted that the Board has denied similar requests in the past and asked the reason for the footings and bolting it to the garage. McGuire Brigl said that is what it would take to make the shed compliant with the building code. Orenstein questioned why the homeowner does not want to put the shed in the buildable area. Johnson stated that the conforming area is heavily landscaped. Goellner added that there is a lot of conforming space the homeowner could use for the shed location, he just built it without knowing the regulations. Kirk Hyatt, Applicant, said they are doing significant interior remodeling to their house and part of that project was to address their storage area. He said they have historically stored their gardening items, etc. under a blue tarp. He stated that he thought he had the proper permits for the shed and that he didn't willingly or knowingly try to subvert the codes. He stated that 80 to 85% of the buildable area is not buildable because it has gardens, lighting, or irrigation. Maxwell asked Hyatt why he is opposed to putting in frost footing and bolting the shed to the garage. Hyatt said it seems like a sham. Orenstein said the Board can't pass judgement on the building code, they can only address zoning code issues. Nelson said she thinks the request is reasonable but the issue was caused by the landowner. She said the Board has to be consistent regarding the variances they grant and that another person asking for the same variance might not have as nice of a shed, so she is sympathetic, but it is beyond what the Board reviews. Maxwell reiterated that the shed doesn't have to be moved. Hyatt asked the Board if they would feel differently if there was discussion that says his shed does meet the building code requirements. Maxwell suggested tabling the variance requests so that the applicant can get clarity from the Inspections Department and maybe he won't be forced to move the shed. The applicant agreed. Maxwell opened the public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 23, 2016 Page 7 Dave Hoberg, 2157 Orchard Avenue North, said he is an engineer and he questions why frost footings would be needed because he thinks the garage is a floating slab so putting frost footings under the shed would not work. He said this is a unique neighborhood and he doesn't want to lose much of the character. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Maxwell closed the public hearing. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Orenstein and motion carried unanimously to table this proposal to the next Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. III. Other Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:23 pm. George Maxwell, Vice Chair Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant