Loading...
12-27-16 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals December 27, 2016 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, December 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, Perich and Planning Commission Representative Johnson. Also present were Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Member Orenstein was absent. I. Approval of Minutes— November 22, 2016, Regular Meeting MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Nelson and motion carried unanimously to approve the November 22, 2016 minutes as submitted. II. The Petition(s) are: 1350 Boone Avenue North (continued item) Adrian Mov, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3)(c) Side Yard Setback Requirements • .21 ft. off of the required 4 ft. to a distance of 3.79 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) 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)(c) Side Yard Setback Requirements • .47 ft. off of the required 8 ft. to a distance of 7.53 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a second story addition. Goellner reminded the Board that this item was heard at the October Board of Zoning Appeals meeting and tabled at the November Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. She referred to the site plan and stated that a front yard variance was granted in October. She explained that one of the original variance requests was to allow the side walls to be longer than the allowed 32 feet without articulation. Since then, the applicant has changed his plans and has added articulation to the proposed second story addition and is now requesting variances from the side yard setback requirements instead. She noted that the applicants have stated their unique circumstances are that there is a relatively small buildable area on the property, they have a growing family and would like to stay in the Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals December 27, 2016 Page 2 same home and neighborhood, and that this proposed new plan meets the articulation requirement. Goellner discussed some alternatives which could include: waiving the articulation requirement, reducing the side wall to 32 feet in length to avoid the articulation requirement, or articulating the proposed second story walls inward rather than outward. Maxwell stated that another unique circumstance is the fact that this is a very narrow lot and the applicant can't do much else. Goellner agreed and stated that in this case the side yard setback requirements and the articulation requirement are in conflict with each other because of the size of the lot. Adrian Moy, Applicant, explained the changes he has made to his plans and how those changes meet the articulation requirement, but still require slight side yard setback variances. Perich asked Moy if he had considered articulating the walls inward. Moy said he did not. Perich opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to comment, Perich closed the public hearing. Maxwell said he likes this plan better than the applicant's original proposal. Perich agreed and said he thinks the applicant considered everything the Board discussed at their meeting in October. He added that the request is reasonable and meets the criteria used when considering variance requests. Nelson agreed and added that the variances requested are very minimal. Johnson noted that all of the houses on this street are the same height and questioned if allowing this home to be two stories in height would be altering the character of the locality. Nelson clarified that the applicant is allowed to build a second story without a variance and that the variances in this case are from other requirements, not height. Johnson agreed. MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Maxwell and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variance requests: • .21 ft. off of the required 4 ft. to a distance of 3.79 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line. • .47 ft. off of the required 8 ft. to a distance of 7.53 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. 1509 Alpine Pass James Rutherford, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3)(b) Side Yard Setback Requirements Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals December 27, 2016 Page 3 • 1.9 ft. off of the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 10.6 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(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements • 2.6 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 32.4 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a home addition. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3)(b) Side Yard Setback Requirements • 3.5 ft. off of the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 9 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a home addition. Goellner explained the applicant's proposal to construct a garage and master bedroom/bathroom addition on the north side of the existing home and a porch/office addition on the south side of the existing home. She referred to the variances requested and noted that upon the submittal of more detailed drawings it was determined that the front yard variance request is not needed. It was also determined that the requested side yard variances differ slightly as well due to a rounding error. The variance request for the addition on the north side should be changed to 1.83 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 10.67 ft. at its closest point to the north property line. The variance request for the addition on the south side should be changed to 3.34 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 9.16 ft. at its closest point to the south property line. Goellner noted that the applicants have stated their unique circumstances include the challenging topography, the relatively small lot with a limited buildable area and existing patio and retaining walls, there is currently only a one-stall, tuck-under garage, and it is difficult to renovate a 1940s home with its small rooms, ductwork, etc. She added that the alternative would be to build smaller additions. Maxwell asked if the applicant would need a variance in order to construct a standard size second garage stall. Goellner said they would not need a variance to construct a typical 12- foot wide garage stall. Johnson asked Goellner if she has documentation from the applicant showing other possibilities and why they would not work. Goellner said no. Maxwell referred to the variance request on the south side of the property and asked if the applicants are adding a new porch and turning the existing porch into an office. Goellner Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals December 27, 2016 Page 4 said yes. Nelson asked if a variance would be needed on the south side of the property no matter what was built. Goellner said yes and explained that the existing porch is approximately 10.5 ft. x 12 ft. in size and that the proposed new porch addition would be would be 7 ft. x 12 ft. in size. Maxwell asked if the existing oak tree on the north side of the property would be removed. Goellner said yes, the oak tree and the existing steps would be removed for the new garage addition. James Rutherford, Applicant, stated that this is the first house they've bought. He said they love the neighborhood and one of the first things they want to do is make this house a place where they want to stay and raise a family. He stated that the size of the proposed garage addition has to do partially with the size of the proposed living space above it. He said the costs to make a smaller addition are practically the same as the size they are proposing and they want to have enough space for there to be a nursery and an office. He referred to the oak tree on the north side of the property and said it is part of the charm of the property, but it is leaning and deteriorating and causing part of the foundation to crack. He added that they want a two-stall garage and what they are proposing fits in with the neighborhood. He gave the Board floorplans of the existing house, floorplans of the house with the proposed additions, and emails from two neighbors expressing their support of the proposal. Perich asked Rutherford what other options he has considered that wouldn't need a variance. Rutherford stated that the couple of extra feet he is asking for is to make the master bedroom a more useful space. He said they have looked at other, smaller options but that would be less desirable. Nelson noted that the proposed bedroom would be approximately 14 ft. x 11 ft. which is not enormous. Gary RutherFord, Representing the Applicant, stated that the trapezoid-shaped lot is unique. He referred to the plans and explained where the existing beams are located, how the center walls hold the duct work for the home, and the difficulties in finding alternate ways to get heat to the second floor. He referred to the existing porch and stated that by adding on to it and heating it they can make it a useful part of the house. He noted that the size of the main floor without the porch is only 1,100 square feet and that only a small portion of the proposed garage addition on the north side would be located in the setback area. Maxwell asked about adding on to the back of the house toward the rear property line. RutherFord stated that the house is not square to any of the property lines and that the variances requested are critical in making the proposed additions work. He reiterated that this is not a big house and that even with the addition it would only be approximately 1,600 square feet. He said the goal is to make the house fit in with the neighborhood with a 21St century home. He added that it will look essentially the same as it does now and if they make the additions smaller it might not be worth it. Johnson asked Rutherford if he considered keeping the proposed porch parallel with the property line. Rutherford said that would mean cutting off the back corner of the porch. He said it could be done, but it would look odd. He added that there is a lot of space between Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals December 27, 2016 Page 5 their house and the house to the south. James RutherFord added that his desk would fit best in the addition they are proposing. Johnson asked the applicants if they had considered placing the master bedroom addition in the back of the house. Gary RutherFord said yes, and explained that it wouldn't work that way with the plumbing and the beams. He added that there is also a steep hill in the back yard and it would be clumsy to build the additions toward the back yard. Perich opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Perich closed the public hearing. Johnson said he recalls considering variances for lots like this in the past. Nelson agreed and stated that this neighborhood in particular has several lots that are oddly shaped with topography issues. Perich said he thinks the applicant's request meets the factors the Board uses when considering variances. He said it is difficult to say that the need for the variances aren't being caused by the landowner, but he understands that this is not an overly large house and that the applicant isn't asking for huge variances. He stated that cutting off the corner of the porch would look odd and he would be in favor of granting both variance requests. Nelson agreed that this is not a very big house with big rooms and that the applicant's request is very reasonable. She said this is a charming neighborhood but there are odd lot sizes and shapes. She said she thinks the unique circumstance in this case is the size of the lot and the placement of the house on the lot and that she is in favor of proposal. Johnson said he understands the logic of the proposed additions, but he is inclined to vote no because he doesn't know what the alternatives are and what the additions would look like if they met the setback requirements. He agreed that he would not want a "trapezoidal- shaped" office but he doesn't want to grant variances because the applicant has a good plan when he doesn't know the alternatives. Nelson stated that the applicant has considered other alternatives and has explained why they won't fit or won't work. Maxwell agreed and stated that there are a lot of structural issues with this old home and that limits what they can do. He said there are unique circumstances in this case and that just a small sliver of the garage addition would be located in the setback area. Perich agreed that the applicants have talked through many other options and that they have good reasons for the variances they are asking for. He added that he would rather have a 1940s home brought up to today's standards. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Perich and motion carried 3 to 1 to approve the following variance requests. Commissioner Johnson voted no. • 1.83 ft. off of the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 10.67 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line to allow for the construction of a garage/master bedroom addition. • 3.34 ft. off of the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 9.16 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line to allow for the construction of a porch addition. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals December 27, 2016 Page 6 8640 Winsdale Street North Jav Isenberq, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements • 11.4 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 23.6 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage. Goellner referred to a photo of the property and explained the applicant's request to replace the existing carport with an enclosed two-stall garage 24 ft. x 24 ft. in size. She noted that the applicant has stated that the unique circumstances in this case include that the existing house is built right at the 35-foot front setback line, and the existing carport is only 12 feet deep rather than the typical depth of at least 20 feet for a garage. She noted that the alternatives could include building a garage to the east of the existing carport, extending a garage deeper into the footprint of the existing home, or building a garage on the west side of the home and relocating the driveway. Perich asked when the home was built. Goellner said she thinks it was built in the 1950s. Johnson referred to the narrative submitted by the applicant and asked what a "sloping interior wall" means. Jay Isenberg, Applicant, stated that the house was built in 1958. He said there are a couple of other homes in the neighborhood that were built with carports but he doesn't know why this home was built with a 12-foot deep carport. He referred to the interior sloping wall in the carport and stated that the back wall of the garage slopes inward which limits the ability to store things or get a car into the carport. He added that building a new garage on the west side of the property would ruin the view of the nature area across the street which is one of the main attractions of this home and he really doesn't see any other options. Johnson asked about the total square footage of the home after the proposed additions are complete. Isenberg stated that the additions would add approximately 1,500 square feet to the home and that it will be a substantial investment. Perich opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Perich closed the public hearing. Maxwell stated that the Board is usually supportive of applicant's wanting to build a two- stall garage and usually not supportive of front yard variances but he thinks this case is an exception. Perich agreed and said he thinks it meets all of the criteria used when considering variances. Nelson also agreed and noted that other homes in the neighborhood are close to the front property line as well so this proposal will not change the character of the neighborhood. Johnson agreed and said other alternatives have been thoroughly explored and he would be supportive of the requested variance for this unique house. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals December 27, 2016 Page 7 MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request for 11.4 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 23.6 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (south) property line to allow for the construction of a garage. III. Other Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:08 pm. �- . / t f/ � � /� .�/ �� ��/�j, j� + /l �,- ;��� � ��° �._. , �� � � avid Perich, Chair Li Wittman, Administrative Assistant