Loading...
09-27-16 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 27, 2016 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, September 27, 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 Waldhauser. Also present were Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, Planning Intern Chloe McGuire Brigl, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes—August 23, 2016, Regular Meeting MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Maxwell and motion carried 3 to 2 to approve the August 23, 2016, minutes as submitted. Waldhauser and Perich abstained. II. The Petition(s) are: 4805 Markay Ridge— (Continued Item) Kirk & Pamela Hvatt, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 12 (A)(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. Purpose: To allow the recently constructed shed to remain. McGuire Brigl reminded the Board that this item was tabled at their last meeting. She explained the applicant's request to maintain a recently constructed shed in a non- conforming location next to the garage, not completely to the rear of the home, and not 10 feet away from the home as required. McGuire Brigl clarified the requirements between the Building Code and the Zoning Code and noted that the shed can remain as is and be considered conforming to the Building Code, but that it would still be considered non-conforming with the Zoning Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 27, 2016 Page 2 Code. Nelson asked if the shed could be attached to the house/garage. McGuire Brigl said yes, if it has frost footings. McGuire Brigl discussed the applicant's stated unique circumstances including: corner lots have a limited rear yard area, the rear yard on his property is largely mature gardens and trees, the shed improves the home, and the neighbors like it. Waldhauser asked if the 10-foot separation requirement is really an issue with this proposal because there is enough room to move around the shed. McGuire Brigl agreed that the separation requirement probably isn't as big of an issue in this case as it might be in other cases. Maxwell asked McGuire Brigl what staff is recommending. McGuire Brigl stated that if the Board feels the location of the shed is ok then they should approve the variance. Staff did not give a recommendation. Kirk Hyatt, Applicant, stated that he thought the shed was part of the overall plan of the remodeling project he is doing. He found out that it was not, but even if he had known, there isn't any place else to put it. He stated that this is a corner lot with mature landscaping and trees and that there are issues with putting a shed in the side or rear yard because it would impact the neighbor's aesthetic. He added that if he put the shed in a conforming location he would have to put in a sidewalk in order to get his snow blower to the driveway. Waldhauser asked the applicant if there is room in his garage to store his snow blower. Hyatt said yes, but he has garbage cans to store as well. Nelson said she understands the location of the shed, and it looks nice where it was built, but the Board has to be consistent with everyone. She questioned why the shed couldn't be attached to the house and frost footings added. Hyatt said that is an option. Waldhauser asked if the reason for requiring frost footings is in case a homeowner wants to attach an accessory structure later. McGuire Brigl said yes. Hyatt stated that he's created a more functional and better looking option and location for the shed. Perich asked Hyatt if the variance is denied if he would put frost footings under the shed. Hyatt said no, that would not be the plan. He added that it is encouraging to him that staff is more supportive of his request than they were last month. Maxwell said his understanding is that the homeowner thought a permit had been pulled for the shed and found out later that it had not. Hyatt agreed. Orenstein asked if a City Inspector noticed the shed. Hyatt said yes, that is what he was told. Perich opened the public hearing. Linda Buchanan, 2164 Perry Avenue North, stated that her backyard is adjacent to the applicant's back yard and what she sees now is beautiful gardens and mature trees. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 27, 2016 Page 3 She stated that if the applicant moved his shed to his back yard it would impact her view so she is supportive of allowing the shed to remain where it is. Lucy Feneis, 4825 Markay Ridge, said she can see the shed from her property and it just looks like a part of the house. She added that it now holds the stuff she used to have to look at so she is also supportive of keeping the shed where it is. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Perich closed the public hearing. Waldhauser said she is persuaded by two things, the combination of the Building and Zoning Codes don't really accommodate this type of situation and footings seem to not be necessary in this case. She said the location of the shed works best for the homeowner and neighbors. She stated that normally landscaping isn't a reason not to follow the code, but the location works and seems to make sense. She added that she will discuss this issue with the Planning Commission. Perich said this situation is unique because the shed is already built. He said he thinks the request is reasonable, the property is unique, and the Board has taken trees into account in the past, but he is not sure this is a situation not caused by the landowner. He said he is concerned about this becoming a slippery slope for others to do the same thing. Nelson agreed and said she is sympathetic and in this case the shed looks good, but it might not in other situations. Orenstein said he is also sympathetic and in this case he would like to see the shed remain. He added that this seems to be a gray area and they don't have a mechanism to address it. Perich noted that he thinks the Board would feel differently if the applicant came to them with this request before he built his shed. Nelson agreed. Maxwell said he agrees the proposal is reasonable and it won't alter the character of its locality, but he questions the need for the variance not being caused by the landowner. He said he is somewhat persuaded because he knows that the applicant thought it was ok to build the shed where he did so that wasn't really his fault, and the Board has taken trees and landscaping into consideration in the past, and the neighbors are supportive which are all unique features in this case. Waldhauser said she doesn't think the homeowner caused the need for a variance in this case, but this property is not unique and there are a lot of other options and locations to put the shed. Goellner noted that the City Attorney has advised staff that the Board can look at each variance case individually and not just consider the precedent granting variances may set. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Orenstein and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve the following variance requests. Nelson voted no. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 27, 2016 Page 4 • The existing detached accessory structures does not have be located completely to the rear of the principal structure. • 9.75 ft. off the required 10 ft. to a distance of .25 ft. between the principal structure and the accessory structure. 4601 Elmdale Road James P Van Heel, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements • 14 ft. off of the required 30 ft. to a distance of 16 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of an open front porch. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11 (A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements • 15 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 20 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new attached garage McGuire Brigl referred to a survey of the property and explained the applicant's request to build an open front porch and an addition to the house that would include an attached garage, a dining room, a mud room and a half-bathroom. She explained that the applicant's stated unique circumstances are that the current structure was built in 1948 and has not changed since that time, the existing home is already non-conforming, the existing detached garage is 45 feet away from the home, and the corner lot limits the buildable area. She stated that staff is recommending approval of the requested variances. Maxwell questioned if there should also be a variance from the articulation requirements. Goellner said no because articulation is only required for side walls. Orenstein referred to the tree shown in the photos and asked if it would remain. McGuire Brigl said she didn't think the tree would be affected. Waldhauser stated that a lot of the houses in this neighborhood are set back differently and this proposal doesn't seem to aggravate that. Jim Van Heel, representing the property owner, said he feels the addition is nothing out of the ordinary, just an attached garage with a small bathroom, dining room and mudroom. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 27, 2016 Page 5 He stated that the addition was designed to be straight in line with the front of the house and that the open front porch addition will add visual interest. He noted that by today's codes this lot would be unbuildable. He referred to the house to the west and noted that the front of that house is 18 feet from the front property line at its closest point so he feels what they are proposing for this property will fit in with the other houses in the neighborhood. Waldhauser asked if it would make a difference in the variance request if the mudroom and laundry room weren't part of the proposed addition. Van Heel said no, because those rooms are not part of the depth of the proposed addition, they are part of the length. Maxwell noted that the unique circumstances in this case are the two front property lines, the fact that the house was built close to the north front property line, and that the buildable area is limited on this lot. Perich opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Perich closed the public hearing. Nelson said she thinks the proposal is in harmony with the City's ordinances, it is consistent with the comprehensive plan, it is reasonable, there are unique circumstances not created by the landowner, and it won't alter the essential character of the locality, so she is supportive of the variances as requested. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Perich and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variance requests: • 14 ft. off of the required 30 ft. to a distance of 16 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (north) property line to allow for the construction of an open front porch. • 15 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 20 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (north) property line to allow for the construction of a new attached garage/home addition. 1825 York Avenue North Gordon Huser, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11 (A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements • 6.5 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 28.5 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a screened porch/garage relocation. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 27, 2016 Page 6 McGuire Brigl referred to a survey of the property and explained the applicant's request to move the front of the garage forward and create a screened porch behind the garage. She explained that the applicant's stated unique circumstances include the triangular shaped lot limits the buildable area, the existing home is in a non-conforming location, and the � existing garage has water and safety issues and needs to be replaced. Perich asked if the entire garage had to be re-built if the applicant would need variances. Goellner said no, the homeowner would be allowed to replace the existing garage in its current location without variances. Gordon Huser, Applicant, explained that they have to replace the entire garage floor, so they would like to move the garage forward 6 feet and add a porch on to the back of the garage. He noted that this neighborhood is full of properties that have had variances or are non-conforming. He stated that his house will look the same from the street, the condition of the garage floor existed before he bought the house, and the shape of the lot makes it impossible to put a garage or screened porch elsewhere on the property without a variance. Waldhauser asked if the garage floor leaks. Huser stated that it doesn't leak but it is cracked and spalling so they have to replace it and have been advised not to park on it. Orenstein asked if the square footage of the garage is changing. Huser said there will be a minor change in the size of the garage. Waldhauser said this seems like a reasonable way to fix a grading issue. Orenstein agreed and said that there aren't a lot of other options with a triangular shaped lot. He added that the proposed garage addition won't alter the view from the street or impact the neighbors. MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Orenstein and motion carried unanimously to approve 6.5 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 28.5 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line to allow for the construction of a screened porch/garage relocation. 1115 Hampshire Avenue North Kevin O'Brien, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements • 10.9 ft. off of the required 30 ft. to a distance of 19.1 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of an open front porch/deck. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 27, 2016 Page 7 McGuire Brigl referred to a survey of the property and explained the applicant's proposal to replace his front steps with a deck/porch with no roof expansion or pillars. She noted that the existing home is located 24.1 feet from the front property line rather than the required 35 feet and that the proposed deck would be 19.1 feet from the front property line. Kevin O'Brien, Applicant, stated that he would like to replace the concrete steps with a 5 ft. x 9.6 ft. deck/porch for aesthetic reasons and to have some room for potted plants off of the steps. He added that the curb is approximately 15 additional feet from the property line so there is a lot more space from the proposed deck to the street. Nelson asked if the house is already in the front setback area. McGuire Brigl said yes. Waldhauser asked if the proposed deck were smaller if it would still need a variance. Goellner stated that a landing up to 25 square feet in size could be located in the front setback area. Nelson said she thinks the proposal is in harmony with the City's ordinances, it is reasonable, it is consistent with the comprehensive plan, it won't alter the character of the locality, and the house is already in the front setback area so she is supportive of the variance as requested. MOVED by Orenstein, seconded by Maxwell and motion carried unanimously to approve 10.9 ft. off of the required 30 ft. to a distance of 19.1 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line to allow for the construction of an open front porch/deck. III. Other Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 pm. / � ' �1 � �/ F, I` '�J' � �� �Q Y ' David Perich, hair L a Wittman, Administrative Assistant