Loading...
11-28-17 BZA MinutesMinutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals November 28, 2017 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, November 28, 2017, 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 26, 2017, Regular Meeting MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Maxwell and motion carried to approve the September 26, 2016, minutes as submitted. Baker abstained. II. The Petition(s) are: 1300 Kelly Drive Brent and Brook Behn, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(2) Rear Yard Setback Requirements • 10 ft. off of the required 25 ft. to a distance of 15 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage and home addition. Goellner explained the applicants' proposal to demolish their existing garage and construct a new two -stall garage and home addition. She referred to the setback requirements and noted that the north property line is considered the rear yard property line. The existing garage is located 15 feet from the north property line and the proposed new garage would also be 15 feet from the north property line. Goellner explained that the applicants have stated their unique circumstances include: challenging topography, retaining walls, soil conditions, large trees and easements that limit the buildable area. The applicants have also stated that the rear of the house is not in the rear yard as a result of a subdivision done in 1958. Goellner noted that the proposed new garage includes a 9.6 ft. x 15.5 ft. storage area and another 6 ft. x 24 ft. storage area so an alternative to granting a variance could include reducing the size of the storage areas, or building smaller additions that meet setback requirements. She stated that staff is recommending denial of the request as the proposed half -story addition on the second floor will alter the essential character of its locality and there are options available to eliminate or reduce the size of the variance request. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 25, 2017 Page 2 Maxwell clarified that the proposed new garage would not go outside the footprint of the existing garage. Goellner agreed. Maxwell asked if the applicants built the existing garage. Goellner said she didn't know. Nelson asked if a detached garage can be closer to the property lines. Goellner said yes, but detached garages also have to be located completely to the rear of the home. Baker asked Goellner to explain the subdivision done in 1958. Goellner stated that the home was built in 1946 and in 1958 a subdivision was done which changed the size and shape of the lot. Nelson said she is sympathetic with corner lots and in this case what would normally be a 15 foot side yard setback is really a 25 foot rear yard setback. Perich asked if the existing garage was built in compliance with the Zoning Code. Goellner said yes. Baker noted that the applicant states there is a specimen tree on the east side of the property which limits construction and asked Goellner if she knows the species of that tree. Goellner said she doesn't know the species. Brent Behn, Applicant, stated they've lived in this house for 20 years. He said they've considered other options but they think their proposal is a modest addition and will allow them to stay in their home and their community. He stated that they have the support of their neighbors and they don't think the addition will negatively impact the neighborhood. He reiterated that the proposed new garage will be in the same footprint as the existing garage and that they can't attach the existing garage to the house because of the footings. He showed the Board photos of the rear yard (north) and stated that it acts like a side yard. He noted that there is a driveway easement on the north corner of the property and steep topography on the east side of the property. He said he was surprised to see that staff feels that this proposal would alter the character of the neighborhood because they went through a lot of work to make sure the addition fits in with the neighborhood. He stated that they can't make the addition smaller and still make it usable space. He added that he thinks their proposal is in line with the Comprehensive Plan and the Envision Golden Valley document. He stated that he approached the City three times and was assured that his plans were fine and that nothing in his plans have changed since meeting with the City. He reiterated that they've designed what they have to without creating sub -standard spaces and said that they can't use the existing footings and that building a second story would not get them what they need and they can't build to the south or the east. He stated that it has been frustrating because the City has made mistakes and has issued a permit using a survey showing that the existing garage will be removed so he is surprised that he had to request a variance. Orenstein asked which entrance would be the main entrance to the home. Brook Behn, Applicant, referred to an elevation drawing and stated that the new entry is set back so will not be the focal point and that the main front door is set out and will be the main entrance. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 25, 2017 Page 3 Maxwell asked the applicants if they constructed the existing garage. Mr. Behn said no. Nelson referred to the floor plans and asked about the space on the far north side of the garage. Mr. Behn stated that area is part of the garage and it helps them get additional livable space. Perich asked if the plans would have to be completely re-evaluated without this space. Mr. Behn said it would not be livable space without it. Mrs. Behn noted that there is also an elevation change from the foyer to the garage. Mr. Behn added that a wheelchair ramp could be added in the future for another access point. Nelson asked if the garage space will be 24 ft. x 24 ft. Mr. Behn said the garage will be 24 ft. x 30 ft. which is the same as the existing garage. Perich opened the public hearing Joe Forster, 1316 Kelly Drive, said he is excited about the proposed addition and that it won't impact his view of the golf course which he appreciates. He stated that the footprint isn't changing and this proposal will enhance his property value as well as the applicants. He stated that it takes 20 years of equity to put on such an addition and the opportunity is now because if the house is sold it will be another 20 years to get this opportunity again. He stated that the addition will enhance the neighborhood and it is a beautiful, well thought out design. Jason Hoffrogge, 1325 Kelly Drive, said the main issue seems to be the character of the neighborhood and that this proposal fits in and certainly would not make the neighborhood look worse. He said all the neighbors are committed to living in this neighborhood and that the house across the street was torn down and a much bigger house was built so he has no concerns and is excited about this proposal. Brian Gieseke, 1337 Kelly Drive, said he loves this neighborhood and showed the Board pictures of his house. He said the neighborhood has a lot of unique properties and that the proposal won't change things visually. He said he is excited about this proposal and thinks the addition is well thought out. Mike Sell, 1400 Valders Avenue North, said he was former Board of Zoning Appeals member and that corner lots have always been a bit difficult. He said he was surprised to hear that a permit has already been issued. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Perich closed the public hearing. Baker asked about the perceived staff error. Perich said it doesn't impact the criteria the Board is supposed to consider. Baker said he is wondering if there is a process flaw. Goellner explained that a stormwater management permit was issued, not a building permit. She stated that the stormwater permit probably should not have been issued until the zoning issues were resolved. Perich asked if the existing garage footings were underpinned if the applicant would still need a variance. Goellner said yes because it would then be an attached garage and the setback requirements would be the same. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 25, 2017 Page 4 Nelson said she is sympathetic because the north portion of the property appears to be a side yard. She stated that the applicant is not changing the footprint that is already there and she thinks the addition will enhance the neighborhood. She said the issues were not caused by the homeowner and they can't really make the additional smaller. Perich said he is struggling with the issue not being caused by the homeowner because they are tearing the existing garage down. He said he is sympathetic to improving the housing stock and he doesn't think it alters the character of its locality, so he is inclined to support the variance request. Orenstein said he is also sympathetic and it bothers him that the applicants were told by the City that their plans were a go. He said he thinks the applicants have incurred some hardships. Nelson stated that if this wasn't a corner lot they would not be having this conversation. Maxwell agreed and stated that this isn't the same homeowner who built the garage and now wants to attach it. He stated that the applicants are staying within the same footprint and that they've thought about all of their options. Baker referred the applicants comment in the application submittal regarding this not being the Golden Valley they expect. He stated that Golden Valley would not be the City it is if it let people trash the standards that it has set. He stated that the Zoning Code requirements benefit all of the residents and that the City works hard to apply the rules equally. Nelson agreed that they work hard to be fair, but she thinks this is a unique situation. MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Perich and motion carried unanimously to approve a variance request for 10 ft. off of the required 25 ft. to a distance of 15 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard (north) property line to allow for the construction of a garage and home addition. III. Other Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 pm. David Perich, Chair Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant