Loading...
10-25-16 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 25, 2016 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, October 25, 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, 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— September 27, 2016, Regular Meeting MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Orenstein and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve the September 27, 2016, minutes as submitted. Commissioner Baker abstained. II. The Petition(s) are: 1350 Boone Avenue North Adrian Mov, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11 (A)(1) FrontYard Setback Requirements • 0.8ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 34.2 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (west) 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 (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 second story addition with side walls 38'-1" in length with no articulation. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a second story addition. Goellner explained the applicant's request to build a second story addition on the existing home. The proposal requires variances from the front yard setback requirements and the articulation requirements. Goellner referred to a survey of the property and explained that the existing footprint of the house won't change. The existing house is located 34.2 feet from the front property line at its closest point which is also the requested variance for the proposed second story. She discussed the Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 25, 2016 Page 2 articulation requirements of the side walls and stated that the applicant would like to build the second story addition without any articulation. Goellner noted that the applicant stated that the unique circumstances include the lack of living space, the desire to grow their family but stay in the same home and neighborhood, and that it is a reasonable request that will increase their property value. Goellner stated that staff is recommending approval of the variance from the front yard setback requirement because the location of the existing home was not caused by the landowner and that the minimal amount requested would not alter the character of the locality. She stated that staff is recommending denial of request for no articulation because there is not a unique circumstance, nor a practical difficulty, the situation is caused by the landowner, and it will alter the character of the locality. Baker asked if the fireplace chimney would constitute articulation. Goellner said it would if it jogged out 2 feet for a distance of 8 feet. Baker asked if a bay window could also constitute articulation. Goellner said yes. Nefson asked if installing bay windows would then require variances from the side yard setback requirements. Goellner stated that bay windows and chimneys are allowed in the setback area. Maxwell noted that the drawings submitted are from a variance request 20 years ago and that there were no requirements for articulation back then. Perich asked when the house was built. Adrian Moy, Applicant, said it was built in 1963. Moy showed the Board a model of the house with the proposed second story addition and stated that he appreciates the bay window suggestion. He said their family is growing and they love the neighborhood and don't want to move. He stated that the plans submitted are from when his father-in-law received approval to build a second story addition but didn't end up doing it. He clarified that they are not proposing to build the fireplace or stair addition shown on the plans and that a "bump in" doesn't feel natural. Maxvvell stated that the articulation can go in or out. Moy said he didn't realize the 2 feet of articulation could bump out. He added that he thinks a square house with no articulation would be more aesthetically appealing so he would rather not articulate the side walls. Maxwell questioned the unique circumstance in this case that is not caused by the landowner. Moy stated that the existing house is already 38 feet long and he feels that is the unique circumstance and that articulation would be outside of what is natural. Nelson explained that the Board tries to be consistent with the variances they grant. Maxwell stated that a variance for 1 foot or 1.5 feet of articulation might be an option instead of no articulation. Baker reiterated that a bay window would not need a variance. Moy asked if the articulation could be a combined 8 feet. Baker said he thinks that would be a different variance request. Maxwell agreed and said they'd have to see a proposed design. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 25, 2016 Page 3 Moy asked the Board if any of them are against square walls. Baker stated that the Board is not for or against the proposed design, the Board's job is to enforce the requirements in the Z�ning Code. Perich opened the public hearing. Gary Box, former resident of 1350 Boone Avenue North, said he received a variance in 1987 for a second story addition, but he never built it. He said he is disturbed by the requirement for articulation because the impression of the language in the Zoning Code is that the articulation can only go inward. Baker stated that a cantilevered space would count as articulation as well. Shannon Moy, 1350 Boone Avenue North, asked if there has to be articulation on both side walls. Maxwell said yes. Mrs. Moy said she is worried about resale because she thinks articulation would look ridiculous and will hurt the value of their home. Nelson said she doesn't think adding articulation would hurt the value of their home. Baker asked if the applicants came back with a variance request of 6 feet of articulation instead of the required 8 feet, if that is something the Board would consider. Maxwell said yes. Mrs. Moy said they would have to completely re-do their plans in order to have a random bump-out. Goellner noted that small side yard variances have also been granted in order to meet the articulation requirement. Theresa Reina, 1330 Boone Avenue North, said she would not like her neighbor to put in a bay window on the side of their house because she would then be looking directly into their window. She said right now the space between the houses is small and she thinks it is incorrect to say articulation won't hurt their home's resale value. She questioned why the Board would want the applicants to have such a large window looking right at the neighbor. She said she would like to keep the house square because it wouldn't take away space between the homes that are already close together. She questioned if the required bump-out could be in the front instead. Nelson stated that there are no articulation requirements for front walls. Michelle Trafas, 1619 Aquila Avenue North, said she used to live in southwest Minneapolis where the houses were similar to this area and one of the reasons they moved to Golden Valley is because people in her former neighborhood were expanding their houses upward and the variances they received to do that made them odd and aesthetically unpleasing. Also, a chimney bump out or a bay window bump out looks odd. She stated that a square house amongst others is aesthetically pleasing. Goellner referred to the plans submitted and noted that they show a staircase bump out and a chimney bump out, which if made wider would meet the articulation requirements. She said there appears to be enough room on the lot to add something that will meet the articulation requirement without the need for a variance from the side yard setback requirements. Mr. Box asked if articulation in the middle of the side walls would work. Goellner explained that in order to not require a variance the articulation would have to be 8 feet Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 25, 2016 Page,4 in leiigth. Box asked if the bump out could include a closet or a bathroom. Maxwell said ye�, and added that a different proposal could be submitted asking for a smaller articulation as well. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Perich closed the public hearing. MOVED by Orenstein, seconded by Maxwell and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request for 0.8 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance af 34.2 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (west) property line to allow for the construction of a second story addition. Perich said he looks at the existing house as a square that was not caused by the current landowner. He said he thinks it is weird to bump out the second floor and not the first floor. He added that there are a lot of options the applicant could explore, but he thinks the requested variances meet the criteria the Board uses when considering variance proposals. Nelson said she is struggling with the criteria regarding the need for a variance not being caused by the landowner. She said she feels that the applicants need to explore other options and explained that this is a large variance request and that the Board needs to be consistent with what th� Zoning Code says. Perich asked if the Board has been consistent with second floor variances. Maxwell said yes. He said they have granted smaller variances in the past, but agreed that this a large variance request without submitting plans to review. He stated that applicants usually try to explain why they can't meet the Zoning Code requirements or they show other options they've considered. Baker said he understands the articulation requirements because there are a lot of situations in the City that have the opportunity for long, straight walls that are not aesthetically pleasing. He added that when done right, it can be aesthetically pleasing to have articulation and he thinks it's a good rule to adhere to. Maxwell explained to the applicant that they could table their request in order to explore other options. Mr. Moy said he would like to table their request. Mrs. Moy stated that their original plans had bump-outs for the stairs and the chimney but they were told by the City that they could not have them because they would be too close to the side yard property lines. Goellner stated that if the bump-outs were too close the side yard property lines then they would probably need variances from the side yard setback requirement. Mrs. Moy said she was confused as to why she wasn't told any of this. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Perich and motion carried unanimously to table the variance request regarding articulation to the November 22, 2016, Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. Minutes of th� (�olden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 25, 2016 Page 5 III. Other Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 pm. r'� � ,.� ,. � � '� David Perich, Chair Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant