02-28-12 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
February 28, 2012
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday,
February 28, 2012 at City Hall, 780Q Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota.
Ghair Nelson called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Members Boudreau-Landis, Ma�nrell and Nelson, and Planning
Commission Representatives Cera and McCarty. Also present were City Planner Joe
Hogebaom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman.
I. Approval of Minutes — December 27, 2011 Regular Meeting
MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Boudreau-Landis and motion carried unanimously to
approve the December 27, 2011 minutes as submitted.
II. The Petitions are:
8360 Patsy Lane
Barrv Armstronq, Applicant (12-02-01)
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1),
Subd. 11(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements
• 3 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 12 ft. at its closest point to the side
yard (west) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the constr�uction of an addition ta the existing garage.
Hogeboom referred to a map of the property and stated that the applicant is applying
for a variance in order to construction an 8-foot extension onto his existing garage. He
noted that the current width of the garage is 19.5 feet wide and the proposed 8-foot
wide addition would extend 3 feet into the west side yard setback area.Ne added that
although the variance application no longer requires signatures from the neighboring
properties, they do receive a hearing notice from the City.
Nelson noted that the hause to the east seems to be closer to the side yard property
line than the subject praperty and asked if the setback requirements have changed this
house was constructed. Hogeboom stated that setback requirements have changed
since these homes were built.
Brad Johnson, representing the applicant, showed the Board a photo of the interior of
the garage and noted that the fireplace extends into the garage which makes the space
even tighter.
Nelson asked about the standard width of a typical two-stall garage. McCarty said a
typical two-stall garage has a width of approximately 24 feet.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zaning Appeals
February 28, 2012
Page 2
McCarty referred the application which states that the existing garage is 19,5 feet wide
x 21 feet deep. However, the survey shows that the existing garage is 19.5 feet wide by
28 feet deep. He asked which document is correct. Johnson explained that the garage
is deeper on one side versus the other because there is a family room behind the
garage. Hogeboom added that the survey is referring to the outside dimensions of the
garage, not the inside.
Cera n4ted that a 5-foot wide addition could be added to the existing garage without a
variance. He said he doesn't see a "practical difficulty" with this property. Johnson
stated that he thinks the applicant picked the width of the propased addition based on
the need for storage, the ability to fit their cars in the garage and the fact that part of the
fireplace is in the garage.
Maxwell explained to Johnson that the Board has to consider what is unique abaut the
property when making decisions about variance requests. Nelson added that the Board
alsa has to consider if the use is reasonable, if the difficulty is not caused by the
landowner and if the proposal would alter the essential character of the locality.
Nelson opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to comment,
Nelson closed the public hearing.
Cera reiterated that the applicant could build a 5-foot wide addition without needing a
variance. McCarty added that the applicant could also build the addition wider in the
back than the front because of the way the property line angles.
Nelson stated that because the applicant would be able to construct a 24-foot wide
garage without a variance, she would not be in favor of approving the variance as
requested.
MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to deny the
request for 3 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 12 ft. at its closest point to the
side yard (west) property line.
2565 Brunswick Avenue North
Custom Remodelers Inc.. Applicant (12-02-02)
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1),
Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements
• 5 ft. off the required 30 ft. to a distance of 25 ft. at its closest point to the front
yard (north) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the replacement of the existing deck.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
February 28, 2012
Page 3
Hogeboom explained that the property owners are seeking a variance from the front
yard setback requirements in order to replace a deck. He referred to a map of the
property and noted that it is a corner lot. He explained that it was discovered during the
building permit process that the original deck did not have a building permit, therefore
the replacement deck couldn't not be built in the same lacation withaut a variance.
Nelson noted that if this were not a corner lot the setback requirement for the proposed
deck would be 15 feet rather than 30 feet because it would be considered a side yard.
Hogeboom added that the property is also at the end of a biock, enclosed by a fence
and adjacent to commercial and multiple family properties.
Boudreau-Landis asked if the new deck has already been constructed. Hogeboom said
no. Boudreau-Landis referred to the aerial photo and noted that it shows a dimension of
24 feet from the property line to the fence whereas the survey shows a dimension of 35
feet. Hogebaom explained that the aerial photo dimension is from the curb to the
property line and the survey's dimensions are from the property line ta the house.
Maxwell asked if the City knows when the original deck was built. Hageboom said he
doesn't know when the deck was built because there is no record of it in the property
files. Nelson noted that the application states the deck has been there for 20 years.
Todd Beggs, Custom Remodelers, Inc, stated that they had started doing some other
work on the house and had to remove some decking which turned out to be rotten that
in turn led them to learn that the deck was built in the wrong location. He stated that the
proposal is to build the deck in the exact same location where nobody will be able to
see it or even know it's there. He said he feels the property is unique because it is a
corner lot.
Nelson noted that the application states that the proposed location is the only place to
put a deck. Beggs stated that patio door already exists in the proposed location of the
deck.
Cera asked if corner lots have always been considered to have finro front yard setbacks.
Hogeboom said the zoning code has considered corner lots to have two front yard
setbacks since at least 1984.
Nelson opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing ta comment,
Nelson closed the public hearing.
Nelson stated she feels that the proposal is in harmony with the intent of the ordinance,
it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, it will not change the character of the
neighborhood and the property is unique because it is a corner lot where the yard has
one side that acts like a side yard. Boudreau-Landis added that another unique issue is
that an original building permit wasn't obtained. If it had been, the current homeowner
would have been able to replace the deck in the same location without a variance.
Minutes of the Golden Valiey Board of Zaning Appeals
February 28, 2012
Page 4
MOVED by Cera, seconded by Maxwell and motion carried unanimously to approve the
request for 5 ft. off the required 30 ft. to a distance of 25 ft. at its closest point to the
front yard (north) property line too allow for the replacement of the existing deck in the
same location.
III. Qther Business
Nelson referred to the variance application and suggested that instead of having the
applicant just sign it stating that they've considered other options that wouldn't require a
variance that they actually answer what other options they've considered and why they
wouldn't work. The Board members agreed that requiring applicant's to address other
options they've considered is a good idea.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 pm.
��--� `:�.� .�
Nancy J. Nelson, Chair Joseph . Hogeboom, Staff Liaison