01-22-08 BZA Minutes
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
January 22, 2008
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday,
January 22,2008 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, Nederveld, Segelbaum and
Planning Commission Representative McCarty. Also present were Director of Planning
and Development Mark Grimes, City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant
Lisa Wittman.
I. Approval of Minutes - December 18,2007
MOVED by Nederveld, seconded by Boudreau-Landis and motion carried unanimously to
approve the December 18, 2007 minutes as submitted.
II. The Petitions are:
9400 Golden Valley Road (08-01-01)
Steve Johnson, TDB Builders, Applicant
Request: Waiver from Section 11.45, Subd. 4(A)(3) Side Yard Setback
Requirements
. 5.72 ft. off the required 20 ft. to a distance of 14.28 ft. at its closest
point to the side yard (east) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a parking structure.
Grimes explained that the applicant is proposing to build a 3-stall parking structure along
the east property line. He stated that this property is zoned Business and Professional
Offices and that parking structures are allowed in this zoning district. However, the side
yard setback requirement is 20 feet and the proposed garage would be located 14.28 feet
from the east property line.
Grimes stated that the owner of this property is in the process of building an addition onto
their existing building and as a part of that process they had to meet the Bassett Creek
Water Management Commission's water quality requirements and build a pond. The
pond's location is one of the reasons they feel they can't meet the setback requirements
for the proposed new parking structure.
Steve Johnson, TDB Builders, representing the owner of the property, reiterated that
because of the location and requirements of the pond they had to move the proposed
parking structure further to the east. He stated that the owners have an ambulance, two
company vehicles and general maintenance items that they would like to store in this
proposed parking structure. He added that the size of the ambulance is also dictating the
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
January 22, 2008
Page 2
size of the parking structure and that the owner would like to have this parking structure for
safety of the vehicles and to clean up the look of the site and the parking lot.
Johnson referred to renderings of the proposed new parking structure and explained that
the materials will match the existing building and the new addition which will be a LEED
certified building.
McCarty asked how far along construction is on the garage. Johnson stated that the. pad is
ready but that they aren't planning on building the garage until spring. He added that there
is a slight swale along the east property line and the new trash enclosure and the new
garage will help direct the water to the pond.
Hughes asked if the new parking structure will reduce the number of parking spaces.
Johnson said no.
McCarty asked what the term "proof-of-parking" means. Grimes explained that "proof of
parking" means they have the ability and the room to put more parking on the site if it is
required in the future.
Boudreau-Landis opened the public hearing.
Teresa Raymond, 9326 Golden Valley Road, said she wants to make sure that this
proposal won't affect her property in any way. Grimes explained that the proposed garage
would be five feet closer to the property line than required and that it won't affect her
property at all.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Boudreau-Landis closed the public
hearing.
McCarty said he doesn't have any objections to the proposal.
Nederveld said that the pond requirements are a unique aspect of this property. He said
he's not sure that needing a garage is a hardship but he doesn't have any objections to
the proposal either. Boudreau-Landis agreed and added that the ponding requirements
were not created by the property owner so he would also support the variance request.
MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Hughes and motion carried unanimously to approve the
variance request for 5.72 ft. off the required 20 ft. to a distance of 14.28 ft. at its closest
point to the side yard (east) property line to allow for the construction of a parking
structure.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
January 22, 2008
Page 3
2440 Valders Avenue North (08~01~02)
Thomas Bequette, Applicant
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(1) Accessory Structure
Location Requirements
. 4 ft. off the required 10ft. to a distance of 6 ft. at its closest point
to the principal structure.
Purpose: To bring the existing garage into conformance with accessory
structure location requirements.
Hogeboom stated that the applicant is requesting a variance in order to bring his existing
garage into conformance with accessory structure location requirements. He explained
that the garage is located 10 feet away from the home as required, but it is only 6 feet
away from a deck. He stated that the hardship noted by the applicant is that the location
he built the garage in is the only suitable location on the lot because of the topography.
Nederveld asked when the garage was constructed. Grimes said it was just recently
constructed and upon inspection it was discovered that the garage was built too close to
the existing deck. Grimes said it is his guess that when the applicant applied for a building
permit for the garage the existing deck wasn't shown on the survey. He added that this is
the reason staff would like to see current surveys when applicants apply for building
permits.
Hughes asked why there needs to be 10 feet between the garage and the deck and noted
that a fire truck couldn't fit between the deck and garage anyway. Grimes stated that the
zoning code requires 10 feet between principal and accessory structures.
Nederveld asked the applicant if he received a building permit for the garage. Thomas
Bequette, applicant, stated yes. Grimes asked the applicant if he received a building
permit for the deck. Bequette said no. He stated that he knew the garage was supposed to
be built 10 feet away from the house but he did not realize that it was supposed to be built
10 feet away from the deck as well.
Nederveld asked about the distinction between the deck being attached or unattached to
the house. Boudreau-Landis said his guess is that the deck would have to be bolted to the
house to be considered attached. Grimes explained that even if the deck were considered
an accessory structure and not part of the principal structure there would still need to be
10 feet of separation between it and the garage.
Segelbaum asked if retaining walls are considered accessory structures. Grimes said no.
Segelbaum asked if the property has the same slope on the other side (the north) of the
house. Bequette stated that there are large trees on the north side of the prope.rty and the
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
January 22, 2008
Page 4
driveway was already located on the southwest side of the lot so it was the most logical
place to put the garage.
McCarty asked about the distance from the garage to the south property line. Bequette
said he thinks the distance from the garage to the south property line is approximately 5 or
6 feet.
Grimes asked the applicant if there was a garage previously on the site. Bequette said no,
there was no garage on the property.
Segelbaum asked the applicant if he had to bring in fill in order to build the garage.
Bequette said yes and he also had to build a retaining wall behind the garage.
Boudreau-Landis opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to
comment Boudreau-Landis closed the public hearing.
Boudreau-Landis said he doesn't have any issues with the garage but he does have an
issue with the deck being built without a building permit.
Nederveld stated that the applicant didn't have a garage, the garage is minimal in size and
it was built in a reasonable place and the Board probably would have granted a variance
for it if the applicant would have come to them before it was built so he is inclined to
approve it. McCarty said he agrees but if the applicant would have come before the Board
prior to building the garage they could have asked him to push it back a little bit further
and it might not have needed a variance.
Grimes said he would talk to the Inspections Department about requiring all structures to
be shown on a survey at the time a building permit is requested.
MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Boudreau-Landis and motion carried unanimously to
approve a variance for 4 ft. off the required 10ft. to a distance of 6 ft. at its closest point to
the principal structure to bring the existing garage into conformance with accessory
structure location requirements.
III. Other Business
No other business was discussed.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 pm.
A,.~.8-r7-
~son Boudreau-Landis, Chair
~.
Mark Grimes, Staff Liaison