Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes, June 26, 2007
|
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the |
|
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals |
|
June 26, 2007 |
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, June 26, 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, Hughes, Sell and Planning Commission Representative Keysser. Also present were Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, Planning Intern Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Members Nederveld and Morrissey were absent.
MOVED by Sell, seconded by Hughes and motion carried unanimously to approve the May 22, 2007 minutes as submitted.
6620 Plymouth Avenue North (07-06-14)
A.K. (Marc) Hilal, Applicant
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a balcony
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a balcony
Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property. He explained that the applicant is requesting two variances in order to construct a balcony. He stated that the hardship noted by the applicant is that a balcony is needed because there is a sliding glass door in the house and there would be a large drop if a balcony wasn’t constructed. Also this property is a corner lot and has large setback requirements on both street sides.
Keysser asked if the proposed balcony would be replacing the existing deck located on the front of the house. Hogeboom said yes.
Marc Hilal, Applicant, stated that the existing deck is 40 years old and is rotting so he wants to replace a portion of it with the proposed balcony. He said that the balcony would go to the same distance to the west as the existing deck and they will be removing a set of stairs.
Boudreau-Landis asked the applicant if he needs stairs to get access to the front door. Hilal said no and explained that there is access to a front door, a back door and the proposed balcony would provide access from the sliding glass door.
Boudreau-Landis opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Boudreau-Landis closed the public hearing.
Hughes said he doesn’t see a problem with allowing the proposed balcony because it would be granting a smaller variance than what was granted originally for the existing deck in the same location.
Sell agreed and said the Board would basically be granting the same variance that was granted in 1999.
MOVED by Sell, seconded by Hughes and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variance requests:
5612 Olson Memorial Highway (07-06-15)
Tennant Company, Applicant
Request: Waiver from Section 11.35, Subd. 6(C)(2) Side Yard Setback Requirements
Purpose: To allow for the construction of 5,000 sq. ft. addition to the north end of the existing building to be used as the “Rebuild Center”
Hogeboom referred to photos of the property and explained that Tennant Company is petitioning the Board for a variance from side yard setback requirements in order to construct a “re-build” center. He stated that the property is currently owned by Bertelson Brothers but Tennant is in the process of acquiring the property. He clarified that the proposed “re-build” center is actually a 5,000 square foot addition and not 50,000 square feet as stated on the agenda and staff report.
Grimes asked how the building is currently being used. Hogeboom said the building is currently being used mainly as office and warehouse space.
Keysser asked what a “re-build” center is.
Larry Spears, Tennant Company, Applicant, stated that they have a purchase agreement on the property and they are scheduled to close on the property on June 27. He said that Bertelson Brothers will stay in the facility until December 1, 2007. He explained that a “re-build” center is where they service, refurbish, rebuild and resell their products and that there are 5 “re-build” centers in North America.
Ray Blesener, Architecture Advantage, Architect for the project, referred to an aerial photo of the property and explained the proposed addition. He stated that the addition will match the existing height of the building and won’t be visible from Highway 55.
Boudreau-Landis opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment Boudreau-Landis closed the public hearing.
Sell stated that the variance request would basically allow the addition to extend along the same line as the existing building so he sees no problem with the proposal and he is glad Tennant is moving back to Golden Valley.
MOVED by Sell, seconded by Keysser and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variance request:
6717 Plymouth Avenue North (07-06-16)
Roy Kelly, Applicant
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements
Purpose: To allow for the construction of an open front porch addition
Hogeboom stated that the applicant is requesting a variance from front yard setback requirements in order to construct an open front porch. He explained that the hardship in this case (as stated by the applicant) is that the lot is fairly narrow and there is a driveway on one side of the lot so any additions to the home would have to be made toward the front.
Keysser noted that the survey shows that there is an addition located in the front of the house and asked if that is where the proposed front porch would be located.
Roy Kelly, Applicant, explained that there used to be a front porch located on the house but that it has been demolished and that he is now proposing to build a new addition on the front of the house where that old porch was located and then build a new front porch onto the new addition. He added that the project he received variances for in 1998 were never done and that this new proposal is basically the same.
Hughes referred to photos of the house and asked if the foundation showing is where the old front porch used to be. Kelly said yes and showed drawings of what the new addition and front porch will look like.
Hughes noted that the homes on either side of this property protrude closer to the front yard setbacks than the applicant’s home.
Sell asked the applicant if the proposed addition would have the same roof line as the existing home. Kelly said yes.
Grimes asked the applicant what the upper level of the current garage is being used for. Kelly said he uses the upper level of the garage for storage from other construction projects.
Boudreau-Landis asked the applicant if he has plans to pave the driveway. Kelly said yes, he plans on paving the driveway after all of the major construction is finished.
Boudreau-Landis opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Boudreau-Landis closed the public hearing.
Boudreau-Landis asked why a side yard setback variance wasn’t required. Grimes explained that the Zoning Code allows people to round-up to the next whole foot so the applicant in this case would not need a side yard variance.
Boudreau-Landis stated that there should be two variance requests. One for the proposed new addition on the house to be built to within 30.4 ft. of the front yard property line and the second would be for the open front porch to be within 26.4 ft. of the front yard property line. Grimes agreed and said that the Board’s motion should address two variances, not one as the agenda and staff report state.
MOVED by Hughes, seconded by Keysser and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variance requests:
6478 Westchester Circle (07-06-17)
Jeremy C. Hagen, Applicant
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(D) Cornices and Eaves
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a deeper roof line over the existing garage to go into the allowed setback area
Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and explained that the applicant is proposing to construct a deeper roof line over the existing garage area and a corner of that roof line would go further into the setback area than allowed. He stated that the applicant’s stated hardship is that the entire front of his property in on a curved street. He noted that there was a variance granted for this property in 1966 that allowed for the construction of a third garage stall. Grimes added that there would be no change to the footprint of the existing home and that just a portion of the roof overhang would be in the setback area.
Hughes asked the applicant if this proposal is for aesthetics. Jeremy Hagen, Applicant, stated that he is trying to update the look of his 1960s rambler and balance out the look of previous additions to the home.
Sell asked the applicant how long he has lived in this home. Hagen said approximately one year.
Hughes said he is in favor of the proposal. Sell said he thinks the proposal will be a big improvement.
Boudreau-Landis opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Boudreau-Landis closed the public hearing.
MOVED by Sell, seconded by Keysser and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variance request:
640 Westwood Drive South (07-06-18)
Eric & Laura Kehrberg, Applicants
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new garage addition
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new garage addition
Hogeboom explained that the applicants are proposing to build a new 22 ft. x 22 ft. garage addition with office space above to replace their existing 20 ft. x 20 ft. garage. He added that this property is a corner lot and therefore requires two front yard setback variances. He stated that the applicants stated hardship is that the existing garage does not provide for adequate parking or storage. He added that this property received three variances in 2002 in order to bring the existing house into conformance.
John Dwyer, Shelter Architecture, referred to an aerial photo of the property and explained that there are water issues on this property which has made the existing garage deteriorate faster than normal. He explained some of the ways they are proposing to build the new garage that will help minimize the water problems.
Grimes noted that there is quite a bit of topography on this lot. Dwyer agreed and added that moving the garage back further on the lot in order to avoid needing a front yard variance would not help with the water problems and erosion.
Boudreau-Landis opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment Boudreau-Landis closed the public hearing.
Keysser said the proposal seems reasonable. Boudreau-Landis agreed and stated that there really is no other way to build the proposed garage. Sell agreed and noted that the proposed garage is minimal in size.
MOVED by Keysser, seconded by Sell and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variance requests:
Other Business
No other business was discussed.