Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes, May 22, 2007
|
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the |
|
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals |
|
May 22, 2007 |
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Boudreau-Landis called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Members, Boudreau-Landis, Morrissey, Sell and Planning Commission Representative McCarty. Also present were Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, Planning Intern Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Member Nederveld was absent.
I. Approval of Minutes – April 24, 2007
McCarty referred to the first paragraph on page 2 and noted that a comma should be placed after the word “applicant” in the first sentence.
MOVED by Sell, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to approve the April 24, 2007 minutes with the above noted correction.
II. The Petitions are:
1316 Tyrol Trail (07-05-10)
Stephanie Shopa, Applicant
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a bedroom addition above the existing garage
Grimes referred to a survey of the property and explained that the applicant is proposing to build a cantilevered addition above her existing garage that would located 32.5 ft away from the front yard property line at its closest point. Grimes added that the existing home meets the setback requirements and that just the proposed new addition would be in the setback area.
Wayne Branum, SALA Architects, architect for the project, explained that due to the topography on this lot it would be nearly impossible to build anything to the rear of the existing house so that is why the applicant is proposing to build the addition on the front of the home, cantilevered over the existing garage.
Boudreau-Landis asked if the applicant believes the hardship in this case is the site itself. Branum said yes and noted that there is a very steep hill on this site and that access to the back yard is difficult. He added that there would also be drainage issues created if they were to build toward the rear of the lot.
Grimes noted that the elevation goes from 906 in the back yard to 862 at the street level which is about a 45 foot drop in elevation from the middle of the back yard to the street. Branum agreed and stated that the home is quite screened and the addition won’t be detrimental to the neighborhood.
Boudreau-Landis opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Boudreau-Landis closed the public hearing.
MOVED by Morrissey, seconded by Sell and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variance request:
1711 Winnetka Avenue North (07-05-11)
Louise E. Bakken, Applicant
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a second garage stall
Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and explained that the applicant would like to construct a second garage stall onto her existing one stall garage which would bring the garage to within 7 feet of the south property line. He added that the applicant’s noted hardship is the fact that the current garage has only one stall.
Louise Bakken, Applicant, stated that she has outgrown her current one stall garage and is hoping to add another stall onto the existing garage.
Grimes noted that the applicant is also planning to make the garage slightly deeper. Bakken explained that she is proposed to make the garage deeper so that she can install a back door that would exit onto an existing sidewalk.
Sell asked the applicant if she’d be able to continue parking cars on the existing concrete pad near the proposed new garage. Bakken said she is not anticipating any problems. Grimes noted that that applicant could put a turnaround area on the other side of her driveway.
Sell asked the applicant how long she has lived at this property. Bakken said she’s owned the property since 2000.
Grimes stated that the applicant is fortunate to have approximately 19 feet available in her side yard to be able to build a second garage stall. He added that typically the City doesn’t like to see garages come any closer than 5 feet to the property line and in this case there will still be 7 feet from the new garage to the property line.
Boudreau-Landis opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to comment, Boudreau-Landis closed the public hearing.
Sell noted that the applicant can’t build a garage further toward the rear of the lot because it drops down too much.
MOVED by Sell, seconded by Morrissey and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variance:
2540 Zealand Avenue North (07-05-12)
Michele Lanci-Altomare, Applicant
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(2) Front Yard Setback Requirements
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a shed
Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and stated that the applicant is proposing to construct a shed that would go into the front yard setback area. He explained that this is a corner lot and therefore has two front yard setbacks. He stated that the applicant’s noted hardship is the awkward layout of the lot and placing the shed anywhere else on the lot would deny them reasonable use of the property.
Michele Lanci-Altomare, Applicant, stated that the property has been neglected for several years and that they’ve just recently replaced a “patchwork” fence. She stated that because of the location of an existing porch on the back of the house it would be a hardship for her to put a shed in a conforming location. She said that if they locate the shed where they are proposing she would have full access to it, it would still be located 35 feet away from the street and within the confines of her new fence, it would still allow her full use of her back yard and she wouldn’t have to destroy landscaping that is already in place. She showed the Board pictures of the proposed shed and said that her neighbors are in favor of the proposal and have liked how she’d fixed up the property.
McCarty asked the applicant how long she has lived at this property. Lanci-Altomare said she has lived at this property since January 2007.
Boudreau-Landis opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Boudreau-Landis closed the public hearing.
Boudreau-Landis asked about side yard setback requirements. Grimes explained that an accessory structure is required to be 5 feet away from side and rear yard property lines. He said this situation is slightly unique because it is a corner lot, it is an odd shape and the house was placed oddly on the lot. He added that with the new fence installed, the area where the applicant is proposing to place the shed is a more defined area than before the fence was there.
McCarty said he didn’t feel there was a real hardship in this case and that the issues than have been raised are more for convenience. He stated that the proposed shed probably would not be problematic where it is being proposed to be located but the applicant could still put it in a conforming location and have reasonable use of her property.
Sell noted that if the applicant could move the shed further to the east, to a conforming location, if she were to take out a tree. This would also allow for more yard space like the applicant wants. He noted that the proposed shed is also fairly large, almost the size of a single stall garage.
Syd Thomas, also residing at 2540 Zealand Ave. N., stated that the tree in question gives them a lot of shade and they don’t want to remove it. He added that the proposed shed will also help block the view of Medicine Lake Road which they feel is another hardship.
Lanci-Altomare stated that they would also be screening the shed with more trees and landscaping and that it is not convenient for her to have to move the shed to the far northeast corner of the yard because it would take up too much of her back yard. She said she is trying to do the right thing and the shed would still be located 35 feet from the street. Sell explained that the 35 foot setback is measured at the property line, not the street. Thomas said they realize that. He stated that the last two owners of the property did not take care of it, and they are just trying to fix it up.
Lanci-Altomare said that some of her other neighbors have sheds located in their front yards. She said she doesn’t feel as if the shed would be encroaching on anybody or cause any problem because it will be screened with trees. Grimes stated that there was a neighbor across the street that was made to remove their shed because it was located in the front yard.
Morrissey asked if the Board has discussed removing trees in the past. Grimes stated that there have been discussions about trees being a hardship and there are differing opinions. He said he knows that the applicant wants to create a buffer from Medicine Lake Road and she feels that a shed will help do that.
Morrissey said she realizes that the Board can debate whether the issues raised are hardships or conveniences, but if she lived at this property she would put the shed where it is being proposed and she is comfortable with the variance request. She added that it is a corner lot and the hardship is the property itself.
Thomas said Golden Valley is a city of trees and it is contradictory to take trees out even if trees aren’t a hardship.
McCarty said he realizes that the applicant wants to buffer the noise from Medicine Lake Road, but he is having a hard time defining a hardship in this case.
Lanci-Altomare said they wouldn’t be using the property properly if they move the proposed shed further to the east. McCarty said he understands that the proposed location is a good place to put the shed and it is a logical place for it, he just doesn’t see a hardship. Lanci-Altomare reiterated that the shed would still be located 35 feet from the street. Morrissey stated that the Board’s responsibility is to uphold the code’s requirements. Lanci-Altomare said she wouldn’t have bought this house if she’d known it had two front yards. She said she is trying to do something good and that she did what the City wanted her to do regarding her fence and now she is just trying to put up shed that no neighbors are complaining about.
Boudreau-Landis explained that since there are only 4 board members present the applicant could choose to table her request and come back when all 5 members are presents, or she could appeal the Board’s decision to the City Council.
Lanci-Altomare asked the Board if they could offer any other suggestions besides removing trees. McCarty asked if there is a reason that the proposed shed couldn’t be placed in the northeast corner of the yard. Lanci-Altomare said she doesn’t want the shed in the northeast corner because they couldn’t get to it in the winter, it would affect three other neighbors in that location and she’d have to change where the fence gate is located.
Grimes suggested that the applicant make the shed slightly smaller or come back to a future Board of Zoning Appeals meeting with a different hardship. Lanci-Altomare explained that this shed is part of a how-to project for a book so she can’t make it smaller or come back to the Board at a future date, or appeal the Board’s decision to the City Council because she is working with a tight deadline. Grimes asked the applicant if she had considered placing the shed in a north/south position instead. Lanci-Altomare said she did consider that but it would make the shed be located even closer to the house.
MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Sell and motion carried 3 to 1 to deny the requested variance. Morrissey voted no.
2155 Vale Crest Road (07-05-13)
Jonathan and Tara Harris, Applicants
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a storage area above the existing garage
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(1) Accessory Structure Requirements
Purpose: To bring the existing shed into conformance with accessory structure requirements
Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and explained that the applicants are requesting two variances. The first variance request would allow for the construction of a storage area above the existing garage and the second variance request would bring an existing shed located on the property into conformance. He stated that the applicant’s noted hardship is the fact that there is no room for storage in their house because there is no attic or basement.
Morrissey asked if the existing garage was compliant if the applicants would need a variance to build above it. Grimes explained that the existing garage wasn’t built exactly where it was supposed to have been built. In regard to the shed the homeowners and the City probably wouldn’t want it placed in the rear yard in this case because this property is on Bassett Creek which could flood.
Jonathan Harris, Applicant, stated that they are not adding to the footprint of the garage, they are proposing to build straight up on top of the garage. He said the house was built in the 1950s and there is no attic and no basement and they really need some space for storage. He added that the aesthetics of the home will be greatly enhanced by adding a peaked roof and getting rid of the existing flat roof garage. He noted that the neighbor to the north at 5755 Westbrook Road has stated that she would like the garbage cans to be screened from her view. He said that they did plant bushes to help screen the garbage cans but they haven’t grown very well so he is willing to install a fence to screen the garbage.
Harris referred to the existing shed and stated that it is in an area that is very well screened and if he moved it he thinks the neighbor’s view would be ruined.
Ryan Grefsheim, Contractor for the project, stated that the applicants currently have an offsite storage facility and building this storage area would allow them to have their things in their home.
Grimes asked if the proposed storage area would be a heated space. Grefsheim said yes, but it will not be used as a bedroom at this time.
Sell asked about the windows in the new addition and how they will work with the existing windows. Grefsheim said they are still working on that, but the existing windows won’t interfere with the new structure. He referred to the existing shed and stated that the City has done a bank stabilization project in the back yard of this property so he doesn’t think the homeowners can move the shed to the back yard because it would impede on the work the City did.
Boudreau-Landis opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to speak, Boudreau-Landis closed the public hearing.
Grimes stated that the applicant’s garbage cans are located in a conforming location, but that adding a fence to provide some screening would be a neighborly thing to do.
MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Sell and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variance requests:
No other business was discussed.