09-28-10 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
September 28, 2010
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday,
September 28, 2010 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota.
Vice Chair Kisch called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Members Kisch, Maxwell, Nelson, Segelbaum, Sell and Planning
Commission Representative McCarty. Also present were City Planner Joe Hogeboom and
Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman.
Kisch introduced a new Board Member, George Maxwell and stated that member
Segelbaum is moving to the Planning Commission. The Board thanked member
Segelbaum and welcomed member Maxwell.
I. Approval of Minutes —August 24, 2010
MOVED by Sell, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to approve the
August 24, 2010 minutes as submitted.
II. The Petitions are:
Continued Item - 3335 Major Ave N (10-08-05)
Tim and Jean Mohr, Applicants
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback
Requirements
• 7 ft. off the required 30 ft. to a distance of 23 ft. at its closest point
to the front yard (west) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of an open front porch.
Hogeboom reviewed the applicant's proposal to construct an open front porch and
reminded the Board that this item was continued from their meeting last month. He
explained that the City Attorney has stated that the stair structure in front of the applicant's
home is not a porch, despite the fact that an underground room may exist beneath the
stairs. He added that even if it were considered to be an existing front porch it could not be
expanded by adding a roof to it because that would be expanding a non-conforming use.
McCarty asked Hogeboom if there is a definition for a stoop. Hogeboom said the Code
does not define a stoop but it does define a landing space as 25 square feet.
Segelbaum noted that this house was built prior to 1982 therefore the front yard setback is
25 feet so the existing house would not be considered to be non-conforming. He
questioned if the applicant, in this case, could build an open front porch no closer than 25
feet to the front yard property line without the need for a variance.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
September 28, 2010
Page 2
Hogeboom explained that the staff's interpretation of the language regarding structures
built prior to 1982 is that the front yard setback for the existing structure would be 25 feet
but that any new construction would have to following current zoning code requirements.
Segelbaum referred to Section 11.21 Subdivisions 13 and 14 regarding pre-1982
structures and noted that Subdivision 14 specifically states that "new construction and
additions to such properties must comply with current requirements of the Zoning Code"
but Subdivision 13 (regarding front yard setback requirements) does not include that
language. He questioned if interpreting the front setback to be 25 feet in this case would
set a precedent. Hogeboom noted that the City Attorney has stated that the Board's
interpretation of the zoning code only applies to a specific proposal.
Kisch asked if the Board decides that the porch is allowed to be built to within 25 feet of
the front property line if that means the cornices and eves could than project an additional
30 inches into the front setback area. Hogeboom stated that the cornices and eaves could
project an additional 30 inches into the front setback area. He noted that the applicant has
been talking with staff about his proposal since before the recent court decision was
made.
Maxwell noted that the front porch addition was part of a proposal in 1997 which received
variances and asked if those variances could still apply. Hogeboom explained that
variances have to be acted upon with one year or they expire. McCarty added that there
has to be ongoing construction activity to keep a permit open.
Nelson said Segelbaum's point is good but questioned if considering the front yard
setback to be 25 feet would work with the applicant's plans. She added that the definition
for a covered stoop is vague and needs to be clarified or better addressed in the Zoning
Code. Segelbaum stated that he thinks the applicant would have some options if the front
yard setback is determined to be 25 feet.
Tim Mohr, Applicant, showed the Board photos of the front steps he replaced and said he
will be replacing the front door and would really like to provide protection from water and
the weather.
Kisch opened the public hearing, seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Kisch
closed the public hearing.
McCarty stated that he doesn't think the length of time an applicant has been talking with
staff should be considered. He said he is not sure he is comfortable interpreting that the
front yard setback can be 25 feet especially if the applicant is then allowed to build ara
additional 30 inches of cornices and eaves into the setback area. He questioned if it would
make sense to deny the variance request and have the applicant appeal the decision to
the City Council so the Council could see that some members of the Board are in favor of
allowing the front yard setback to be 25 feet and some members might not be.
IVelson stated that if the Board decides that the front yard setback is 25 feet than the
applicant wouldn't need a variance.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
September 28, 2010
Page 3
Segelbaum discussed the issue regarding allowing the 30 additional inches of cornices
and eaves into the setback area and suggested that the Board make a separate motion
regarding this issue. Kisch reiterated that the code allows 30 inches of cornices and eaves
in a setback area so by saying that the front yard setback is 25 feet that means the
requirement regarding cornices and eaves would still apply and would be allowed.
Kisch asked the applicant if he could make his front porch plans work if the front yard
setback was considered to be 25 feet. Mohr said it would depend on the aesthetics and
the style of the roof.
Segelbaum noted that there are many homes in the City built prior to 1982 and he doesn't
want the Board's interpretation of this application to mean that all of the homes built prior
to 1982 can have a 25-foot front yard setback for new construction. He added that he
thinks there needs to be other reasons in this case as to the uniqueness of the property.
Nelson said she feels it is unreasonable to have mold and water in a basement and the
applicant is not adding a roof over his steps just because it will look prettier. She added
that other homes on the same street are sitting closer to the front yard property line than
this one. Kisch added that there is also habitable space underneath the stairs and the
footprint is not expanding.
McCarty stated that a roof or overhang isn't necessarily going to stop water from leaking
and the fact that the applicant already replaced the front steps will probably address the
water issues. He said he would be comfortable voting on interpreting the front yard
setback to be 25 feet, but he would not be comfortable allowing the 30 additional inches of
cornices and eaves and he doesn't see this as a unique property.
Segelbaum reiterated that he would like the language in Section 11.21 Subdivisions 13
and 14 regarding pre-1982 structures to be worded the same. He said he agrees with
McCarty that this property isn't unique and added that he would like the Board to make a
recommendation to the City Council and Planning Commission regarding the clarification
of the language in the Zoning Code in regard to front porches and landings.
MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Nelson and motion carried unanimously that the Board
of Zoning Appeals interprets Section 11.21, Subdivision 13 regarding pre-1982 structures
allowing a 25-foot front yard setback to be in effect on this property.
MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Sell to recognize that this Board would permit as
much as 30 inches of cornices and eaves to encroach into the 25-foot front yard setback
in this case.
McCarty suggested amending the above motion to state that Section 11.21, Subdivision
11(D) regarding cornices and eaves is in effect for this proposal.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
September 28, 2010
Page 4
The Board decided that Section 11.21, Subdivision 11(D) would already be in effect
therefore the motion to allow an additional 30 inches of cornices and eaves into the
setback area would not be needed. Segelbaum withdrew his motion.
MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously#o deny
the variance as requested because the Board has found the front yard setback in this
case to be 25 feet therefore this variance is not needed. Also, the legal requirements for a
variance have not been met.
III. Other Business
Nelson stated that she would like the City Council and Planning Commission to address
the issue of allowing a landing area, when the footprint is not expanding, to be covered.
Kisch said he would also like a clearer definition between an open and closed front porch,
a stoop and a landing.
Segelbaum noted that there is already language in the Zoning Code that allows front
porches to be Iocated 30 feet to the front yard property line. Nelson said she thinks front
steps should be allowed to be covered.
The Board discussed landings, decks and porches and possible language regarding
allowing covered landings or stairs and where the language could potentially be Iocated in
the Zoning Code. They also discussed the possibility of allowing more than 25 square feet
for a landing area.
MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to ask the
City Council to review the following items:
• Landing requirements — allowing a landing area to be more than 25 square feet in size
• Clarification of the definitions for porch (open and closed), stoop, landing, etc.
• Creating a separate definition and requirements regarding covered stairs or landings
• Clarification on where a setback is measured from (above or below ground foundations)
• Interpretation of the pre-1982 requirements — Section 11.21 Subdivision 13 vs.
Subdivision 14
Election of Officers
IVIOVED by Nelson, seconded by SeIB and motion carried unanimously elect Kisch as
Chair.
MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Maxwell and motion carried unanimously to elect
Nelson as Vice Chair.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
September 28, 2010
Page 5
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 pm.
���
�� c ,� , ���
Chu k Se elbaum, Chair � Jo Hog oom, Staff Liaison