Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes, July 24, 2007

Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the

Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals

July 24, 2007

A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, July 24, 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, Weisberg and Planning Commission Representative McCarty. Also present were Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, Planning Interns Joe Hogeboom and Teresa Murphy and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Member Nederveld was absent.

I. Approval of Minutes – June 26, 2007

MOVED by Sell, seconded by Boudreau-Landis and motion carried unanimously to approve the June 26, 2007 minutes as submitted. McCarty and Morrissey abstained from voting.

II. The Petitions are:

603 Parkview Terrace (07-07-19)
Houston White, Applicant

Request:       Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(B) Height Limitations

Purpose:      To bring the newly constructed house into conformance with zoning code requirements

Grimes referred to a survey of the property and stated that the home currently being constructed on this property is almost complete. He showed the Board photos of the home and explained that the third level or “penthouse” is the area of the house that exceeds 32 ft in height.

Grimes explained that when the original plans for this home were submitted the height of the home was shown to be 32 feet. The homeowner was informed at that time that the allowed height of the home would be 30 feet. The homeowner re-submitted plans that showed the height of the home to be 30 feet, but when the home was built it was constructed 32 feet in height so it is now considered to be in violation of the Zoning Code and Building Code. He noted that the applicant has stated that there was a mistake between the mason and the architect and the basement was built two feet too tall therefore causing the rest of the structure to be too tall. He explained that the Board now needs to decide if there is a hardship and grant a variance or deny the request and the applicant can appeal the decision to the City Council or bring the home into conformance.

McCarty asked if the original plans showed the third level penthouse area. Grimes said yes.

Boudreau-Landis asked how the plans were revised between the first and second submittal in order to bring the house down two feet. Grimes stated that the ceiling heights in the house were brought down on the second submittal in order to meet the 30 foot height requirement.

Boudreau-Landis asked if the rest of the house was built according to the plans. Grimes said yes and stated that upon inspection staff asked for a new survey that showed how tall the house was built. After the survey was submitted to the Inspections Department staff realized the problem.

Morrissey asked if it was the foundation height that resulted in the higher floor heights. Grimes said yes and explained that the applicant did lower the height of the floors on the plans, but when the basement was built it was two feet to tall.

Houston White, Applicant, stated that the basement was supposed to be 8 feet in height. He stated that when he found out that the house on his original plans was too tall, he dropped the ceiling heights down on all of the levels in order to meet the 30 foot height requirement. He explained that there was a misunderstanding between the architect and the mason and that this was a sincere mistake. He stated that the height on every other floor matches what the plans said and he is left with a basement that is two feet too high. He reiterated that this was an honest mistake and he is not trying to gain an extra two feet.

Sell questioned how the error could be a mason error because if the basement level was built two feet lower, the entrance to the home would be right at ground level and most homes have a step or two up to the front entrance. White stated that they had to bring in two feet of fill because of the soil conditions. He explained that this house has top bearing trusses and the front stoop would not have had to been so high if it had typical trusses and was built according to the plans.

Morrissey stated that if this is truly a mason error then the documents submitted would show that. Grimes said that would be irrelevant to him because the bottom line is that the house is 32 feet tall instead of the allowed 30 feet. He said the disturbing thing to him is that staff made it clear that the house could only be 30 feet tall and it was built to 32 feet in height.

McCarty asked when the mistake was discovered. White said it was discovered approximately a month ago. McCarty stated that White is the general contractor on this job so ultimately it is his responsibility. White agreed that it is his responsibility but reiterated that it was a mistake.

Morrissey asked Grimes if he and the Building Official looked at the property as part of a normal inspection. Grimes said no, he wanted to look at the house because he is very conscience of the infill issues in Golden Valley.
Boudreau-Landis opened the public hearing.

Carol Barry, 2936 Kyle Avenue North, asked about the infill issues in Golden Valley. Grimes explained that the infill issues have to do with people being concerned about small homes being torn down in order to build larger ones.

Ralph Jacobson, 516 Parkview Terrace, stated that the City asked the applicant to follow the City Code and he believes this home was built “out of code” on purpose and said there will be run-off problems as a result of this home being built. He told the Board that it is their job to conform to the Code requirements and that this project is an affront to what he has tried to do with his own home renovations.

Richard Vosepka, 901 Westview Drive, stated that the applicant had a plan and idea in mind; he was told it didn’t conform and he built the house anyway. He said the City has a problem with variances that should not have been granted and encouraged the Board and staff to follow-up on plans that are submitted.

Steve Schmidgall, 6534 Olympia Street, said he thinks this applicant should have a heightened awareness of the issues because the first set of plans was rejected. He said that almost every city is grappling with these infill issues and height is a major concern. He said he can’t believe the mason would lay out three extra courses of concrete block in error. He asked that the homeowner be required to remove the “penthouse” portion of the home and construct a roof hatch to access that area. He stated that he is on the Planning Commission and they have been working on ways to address these infill issues and allowing people to build whatever they want would be working against that.

Mary Leach, 301 Meadow Lane South, stated that a considerable amount of fill was placed on this lot. She said that every time an enormous home is built the neighbors are told that their taxes are going up. She asked the Board to think about how this home affects everything.

Bobbie Conner, 244 Janalyn Circle, said she agrees with the previous statements. She said that it is important for the Board to say that people have to play by the rules. She said this is precedent setting and they will be revisiting this issue again and again.

Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Boudreau-Landis closed the public hearing.

McCarty said that hardships go with the property itself and he is not seeing that in this case. In this case the hardship is due to an error in construction and he is finding it difficult to approve a variance for that.

Weisberg said he agrees but noted that the statute states that economic hardship alone does not constitute a hardship. McCarty noted that the statute also states that the hardship should not be created by the landowner and to him this situation was created by the landowner. Sell stated that he also can not support this variance request.

Weisberg asked if the entire house is out of conformance. Grimes stated that if it were not for the “penthouse” area the house would conform.

Morrissey stated that bringing the house into conformance could also mean increasing the grade. Grimes said he doesn’t think that increasing the grade on the site would help in this case.

MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Sell, and motion carried unanimously to deny the requested variance. Grimes told the applicant that he has 30 days to appeal the Board’s decision to the City Council if he wishes to do so.

4920 Dawnview Terrace (07-07-20)
Thomas & Barbara Leppke-Hennig, Applicants

Request:       Waiver from Section 11.35, Subd. 10(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements

Purpose:      To allow for the construction of an open front porch

Request:       Waiver from Section 11.35, Subd. 10(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements

Purpose:      To allow for the construction of a second story addition

Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and explained that the applicants are proposing to build a garage addition, a deck addition, a second story addition and an open front porch. The proposed front porch and second story addition require variances from front yard setback requirements. Grimes added that it is interesting to note that all of the homes in this area were built 30 feet from the front property lines instead of the required 35 feet.

Tom Leppke-Hennig, Applicant, explained that he found out he needed a variance in the process of planning the proposed projects. He stated that he feels that the open front porch would be keeping with the spirit of the Zoning Code and with what they’d like to see in their neighborhood. He explained that the lines of the existing house won’t be changing as a result of the proposed front porch and if the house was built in the right place to begin with, (35 feet from the front property line) he wouldn’t need a variance. He added that his front property line is also located unusually far from the street.
Grimes explained that there is 60 feet of right-of-way on Dawnview Terrace so if the street gets rebuilt it will probably be located in the same location. He agreed that there is a lot of green area in the front of the property.

McCarty asked if there are other homes with open front porches on this street. Leppke-Hennig said no.

Grimes stated that the Board could recommend to the Planning Commission that when blocks of homes are built too close to the front yard property line that they grant a “blanket” variance for the area in order to allow all of the property owners to be able to build open front porches without the need for a variance.

Sell stated that somewhere along the line, someone allowed the houses in this area to be built 30 feet from the front yard property line instead of 35 feet. Sell believed that allowing 5 additional feet to build an open front porch in this case is no different than allowing people who are at the 35-foot front setback to build a porch to 30 feet.

Boudreau-Landis opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Boudreau-Landis closed the public hearing.

Morrissey asked about the hardship in this case. She stated that the Board doesn’t know if these homeowners were allowed to build their homes 30 feet from the front property line or if it was contractor error. She said she can’t help but to compare this request to the previous one. She said the Board has to ask if the fact that the house wasn’t built 35 feet away from the front yard property line is really a hardship. She said she feels the same rules should be applied to every variance request.

Weisberg noted that the State Statute says that a hardship is unique to the property and not caused by the landowner. He said that the homeowners in this case did not create the condition of needing a variance as in the previous request. He said he would be more comfortable acknowledging and addressing the fact that all of the houses on this block were built to 30 feet and not 35 feet to the front yard property line.

Morrissey referred to a request the Board had a couple of months ago where they denied an open front porch request because they didn’t feel that adding an open front porch warranted a hardship. Grimes stated that request was for an open porch to be located 15 feet from the front property line. Morrissey said she is just trying to consistently apply the rules and not overreact to the infill issues because 1950s ramblers can have the same issues.

Weisberg said to him it is less a question of the structure and more a question of the fact that the property is already not in conformance with front yard setback requirements. He said he thinks the answer is to bring all of the houses in the area into conformance by granting the “blanket” variance.
McCarty said he thinks the design looks wonderful but he is having difficulty finding a hardship.

Leppke-Hennig stated that some of the undercurrent regarding this request worries him and if his proposal is denied it seems strange to review variance requests at all. Morrissey explained that the Board can only grant a variance if it meets the state statute requirements, it’s not dependent on how the Board feels about the request.

Sell stated that in the past the Board has agreed to let homeowners go 5 feet into setback areas and if this request were for 8 or 10 feet he’d say no, but for 50 years this house has been located 30 feet from the front property line so he’s inclined to look at it the same as if it were located 35 feet from the front property line. He added that this proposal is in harmony with what the City is trying to do.

Grimes stated that the intent of the Zoning Code and the City Council was to allow open front porches in order to create community. However they said open front porches would be allowed to go to within 30 feet, not 25 feet of the front yard property line.

McCarty noted that in other cases the Board has granted variances to allow open front porches.

Morrissey said she can support this request because the current landowner did not know that the house was originally built 30 feet from the front property line. She said she is just questioning if not having a front porch is a hardship or not and she wants to interpret and apply the rules consistently.

Boudreau-Landis said he agrees but feels that in this case the situation is unique to the property.

MOVED by Sell, seconded by Morrissey and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variance requests:

550 Kelly Drive (07-07-21)
Doug Tousey, Applicant

Request:       Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements

Purpose:      To allow for the construction of a new garage

Request:       Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements

Purpose:      To allow for the construction of a new garage

Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and stated that this lot has streets on three sides. The applicant would like to replace the existing garage because it has a cracked foundation and it is too small. (22 ft. x 16 ft.). He noted that the property received variances in 1968 in order to construct a porch addition and to bring the existing home and garage into conformance with zoning code requirements.

Morrissey asked if there is a location on this property where the applicant could build a conforming garage. Hogeboom said no.

Greg Zipoy, builder for the project, explained that the homeowner would like to remove the existing garage and build a new one that would measure 22 ft. x 26 ft. He stated that the proposed new garage would be built further into the yard, toward the house and would not encroach further toward the east property line than the existing garage already does.

Sell said that a variance was granted in 1968 to allow the garage to be located where it is and the applicant is limited in what he can do.

Boudreau-Landis opened the public hearing.

Linda Loomis, 6677 Olson Memorial Highway, said she walks by this property a lot and in the winter time the applicant puts his boat in the garage and tapes a big piece of plastic over the door. She said she would like the applicant to build the new garage deep enough to store his boat.

Zipoy explained that there was a wall built in the garage to help hold it up so the boat won’t currently fit inside. The homeowner has said that the boat will fit in the proposed new garage.

Sell said that the applicant could build a 24 ft. x 26 ft. new garage if he added two additional feet toward the south side. Grimes said the Board could allow the applicant could build a 24 ft. x 26 ft. garage to give him some flexibility.

Morrissey asked if the applicant would need a rear yard variance if he built the proposed new garage further toward the south property line. Grimes said no.

Boudreau-Landis asked if there are restrictions regarding boat and RV storage. Grimes explained that one boat or RV can be parked on the driveway or they can be stored in the side or rear yard if they are screened.

McCarty said he is fine with this proposal particularly because the current garage is a single stall garage and it is proposed to go closer to the house and not encroach further into the front setback area along the east.

MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Sell and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variance requests:

1205 Idaho Avenue North (07-07-22)
Christopher Knight, Applicant

Request:       Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements

Purpose:      To allow for the construction of a new garage

Request:       Waiver from Section 11.65, Subd. 5(A) Shoreland Management Zoning Provisions

Purpose:      To allow for the construction of a new garage

Request:       Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(2) Front Yard Setback Requirements for Accessory Structures

Purpose:      To bring an existing shed into conformance with zoning code requirements

Request:       Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(1) Location Requirements for Accessory Structures

Purpose:      To bring an existing shed into conformance with zoning code requirements

Request:       Waiver from Section 11.65, Subd. 5(A) Shoreland Management Zoning Provisions

Purpose:      To bring an existing shed into conformance with zoning code requirements

Request:       Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(1) Location Requirements for Accessory Structures

Purpose:      To bring an existing shed into conformance with zoning code requirements

Request:       Waiver from Section 11.65, Subd. 5(A) Shoreland Management Zoning Provisions

Purpose:      To bring an existing shed into conformance with zoning code requirements

Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and stated that the applicant would like to construct a garage addition onto the front of his home. He stated that the hardship noted by the applicant is the fact that there is currently no garage on the property. Hogeboom showed the Board some photos of the property and added that it is unique because Bassett Creek runs along the rear of the property and it is a corner lot. He noted that there are also two sheds located on the property that are not in conforming locations.

Sell noted that there should also be a variance request for the northwest corner of the existing home because it is not 50 feet away from the top of the bank of the creek. Grimes agreed and said that should be added to the agenda.

Morrissey asked if there is a conforming location to put a garage or shed on this lot. Hogeboom said no because even if the sheds were located completely to the rear of the home as required they would still be too close to the top of the bank of the creek. Morrissey questioned if not having a shed could be considered a hardship. Grimes stated that the current location the sheds is really the most logical location.

McCarty asked if the sheds were built on frost footings. Hogeboom said no.

Chris Knight, Applicant, stated that he didn’t realize that the sheds weren’t located in a compliant location. He said he would be willing to get rid of the smaller shed and possibly the bigger one when the proposed garage gets built.

Boudreau-Landis asked about the square footage of all of the accessory structures on the property. Grimes said there would be approximately 912 square feet of accessory structure space on the property after the proposed garage is built.

Grimes asked the applicant if there has been flooding issues on the property. Knight said there have been no issues with flooding in the last 10 to 12 years, ever since the City did work on the Creek.

Weisberg asked how high the proposed garage would be. McCarty asked if the roof of the proposed garage would interfere with the existing windows in the house. Knight said it is just a one story garage and the roof line would not interfere with the existing windows.

McCarty noted that the proposed garage is almost a 3 stall garage. Knight said he is proposing that the new garage be the same width as the house. Sell thought it would look odd if the proposed garage wasn’t the same width as the house.

Boudreau-Landis opened the public hearing.

Karen Griffiths, 1229 Hampshire Avenue North, stated that there used to be a tuck under garage on the house that was converted to living space. She said she has a problem with the location of the sheds because they are very visible. She said she has no problem with the proposed garage, but she would like to see both of the sheds removed.

Timm Nelson, 1227 Hampshire Avenue North, said he thinks the proposed garage is a good idea but the sheds should be removed completely or put behind the house somehow.
Steve Schmidgall, 6534 Olympia Street, said that he would support the idea of the proposed garage but he would like the sheds moved or at least repainted.

Boudreau-Landis asked if the applicant needed a variance in order to convert the original garage into living space. Grimes said no because the footprint of the home wasn’t enlarged. He stated that he has some concern that the house originally had a garage and was turned into a house with no garage and now the applicant needs a variance to build a new garage.

Boudreau-Landis asked about the RV’s parked on the property. Grimes said that the applicant does have a number of vehicles parked outside and that the applicant has said that he would like to store them inside the proposed new garage.

Weisberg asked if the new garage was constructed and the sheds were moved behind the house if they would comply with the Zoning Code requirements. Grimes said no because the sheds would be in the Bassett Creek setback area.

Sell suggested allowing one of the sheds to be moved to within 25 feet of the top of the bank of the creek because it would then at least be behind the house. Weisberg suggested possibly allowing the garage to be deeper. McCarty said he would rather have the homeowner remove one shed and move the other shed than making the proposed garage deeper. Morrissey agreed. Sell agreed and added that not having a shed is not a hardship.

Boudreau-Landis said he is in favor of the allowing the garage but the hardship was created by the homeowner. McCarty said even if the existing garage was still there, it would have been a hardship because it was a single stall garage.

MOVED by Weisberg to approve the variance requests regarding the garage addition and to deny the variance requests regarding the location of the sheds.

McCarty modified the motion to request that the sheds be removed within a week after the completion of the garage.

Morrissey suggested that the sheds be removed before a certificate of occupancy is issued. Grimes said that the problem with waiting for the certificate of occupancy is that sometimes people don’t close out their permits. He said he would rather require that the sheds be removed by a certain date. Sell suggested January 1, 2008.

Sell reiterated that a variance should also be added to the motion for the northwest corner of the existing house for 11.4 ft. off the 50 ft. to a distance of 38.6 ft. at its closest point to the Ordinary High Water Line of Bassett Creek.

The modified motion was seconded by McCarty and carried unanimously to approve/deny the following:

Approved:

Denied:

III. Other Business

No other business was discussed.

IV.      Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 pm.