04-09-96 BZA Minutes
I
I
I
)42D
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
I
April 9, 1996
The regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held Tuesday, April 9, 1996,
in the Golden Valley City Hall COuncil Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Rd., Golden Valley, MN.
Chair Mahlon Swedberg called the meeting to order at 7pm.
Those present were: Chair Swedberg, Members Pentel, Polachek, Sell, and Shaffer. Also present
were Staff Liaison Mark Grimes and Recording Secretary Eve Lomaistro.
I. Approval of Minutes - February 13, 1996.
MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Polachek, and motion carried unanimously to approve the minutes
of the February 13, 1996 meeting with the following amendments:
Page 1 at the end of the petition for 1115 Hampshire Avenue North and prior to the motion, add this
paragraph: "It was learned from the applicant that in an unknown year in the past, what is now the
existing single garage was added to the house and, at that same time, the then existing garage was
converted to living space. The new proposed addition is to be added to that previous addition."
Page 4 at the end of the petition for 1446 Rhode Island Avenue North change the final motion to
read: "MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Polachek and motion carried unanimously to approve the
waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 12 (Accessory Buildings) for 3.3 feet off the required 5 feet to a
distance of 1.7 feet to the rear lot line and 32.3 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance 2.7 feet
from Winsdale Street to allow existing courses of blocks of the previous garage to act as a retaining
wall. This will also allow the proponent to construct a temporary playhouse with a height no greater
than the height of the existing fence."
I
Approval of Minutes - February 20, 1996
MOVED by Shaffer, seCOnded by Polachek, and carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the
February 20, 1996, special meeting with the following amendments:
Page 2, in the paragraph following the bullets, at the end of the second line, add after the word
dangerous and before the word parking "drive-in angle".
Page 3, before the motions, add this paragraph: "Widening the street would have to be done for the
full width of the property facing Wayzata Boulevard. This would have to be done by the City at tax
payer expense. The cost of constructing an indented space for parking would be at applicant
expense and would not be for the full width of the property. Curb parking without indented parking
space would be unsafe, considering the present narrow width of the street and the speed of cars
driving by."
Page 3, in the last motion, replace the word requiring with "which will require".
II. Election of Chairperson
I
Chairperson Swedberg turned the meeting over to Staff Liaison Mark Grimes in order to accept
nominations for chairperson. (A new chairperson is elected from the members by the April meeting
each year after the members are appointed by the City Council.)
I
I
I
1421
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
April 9, 1996
Page Two
Member Polachek was nominated as Chairperson for the BZA; no other nominations were
entertained.
MOVED by Sell, seconded by Pentel, to accept the nomination of Member Polachek as Chairperson
of the BZA for a one-year term. Motion carried unanimously.
MOVED by Swedberg, seconded by Sell, and motion carried unanimously to elect Polachek by
acclimation.
Newly elected Chairperson Polachek took over the meeting at this point.
III. The Petitions:
4425 Douglas Avenue (96-4-7)
Sidney (Jack) Katz
Request:
Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- 1.69 feet off the
required 35 feet to a distance of 33.31 feet for the existing structure; and
Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- 2 feet off the
required 35 feet to a distance of 33 feet for the proposed garage/living
addition; and
Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(2) Side Yard Setback -- 3.35 feet off the
required 12.3 feet to a distance of 8.95 feet for the proposed garagelliving
addition; and
Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 12 Accessory Buildings -- 1.61 feet off the
required 5 feet to a distance of 3.39 feet for the existing shed located at the
rear of the property.
Purpose:
To bring the existing house into conformance and allow for the construction of
a garagelliving addition into the side yard setback.
Staff Liaison Grimes described the proposed addition that would be added to the east side of the
house; it would provide both a second garage stall and living space above. The addition is
proposed to extend slightly into both the side and front yard setback. Mr. Grimes also commented
that a variance is needed to maintain the existing storage shed in its current location in the rear
yard. The shed is too close to the rear property line.
Sidney (Jack) Katz explained that he and his wife, Jane, are in the process of purchasing the house
and will close on May 1, 1996. The architect's request is actually for a few inches more than they
need and Mr. Katz is willing to reduce the request accordingly. The Katz's are willing to do the
construction when the neighbor's, on the east side, are on vacation. The design of the house will
carry through on the front and back and the addition will enhance the value ofthe house and the
neighborhood. Mr. Katz talked about the importance of having a two-car garage and maintaining
the design of the house Yihich he and his wife like very much.
1422
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
April 9, 1996
Page Three
Joe Shallbetter, son-in-law to neighbors Betty and Darrel Vaughn, spoke for the Vaughns. He first
stated that although the Vaughns have not yet signed the consent form on the variance application,
it did not mean that they objected to it. They would like additional information on the following
points:
· An improvement done properly will increase the value of the house and those of the neighbors.
Will this improvement be done properly?
· The house still has the For Sale/Sold sign in the front yard. Is the house really sold?
· There is a large tree in the area leading to the proposed garage addition. Will that stay or not?
And if it comes out, is there any requirement to replant a tree or trees as there is for commercial
property?
· Will the new windows be the same as the existing ones?
· Since new shingles will probably not match the existing ones, will the roof be entirely replaced?
. Will new siding match old siding?
· Regarding the accessory building, will the City require it be moved to reduce the overall setback
violations on the property?
The Board and Mr. Katz answered Mr. Shallbetter's questions as follows:
· Many owners do renovations themselves but Mr. Katz has retained an architect, at his own
expense, in order that the addition be done professionally and remain consistent with the
present house. In addition, the BZA has no jurisdiction over aesthetics. During the tenure of the
existing BZA members (11 to 30 years) there have been no complaints regarding aesthetics
from neighbors after variances have been granted and remodeling has been completed.
· Variance(s) are granted to the property, not the owner, and last for one year. In this case, the
present owner and Mr. Katz have agreed on the proposed variance application in order to
expand the house.
· Whether the tree stays or goes is the decision of the owner, not the BZA. There are no City
requirements for tree replacement in residential districts.
· Mr. Katz made it clear that the windows in the addition will be identical to the existing ones.
· The new part of the roof is visible only in the rear of the house~ the roof does not face to the
front or east side.
· Mr. Katz stated that the siding from the side of the house will be removed and used in the front
of the house to insure an identical match in the front.
· The City will not restrict the rights of the owner regarding the accessory building.
I
I
,
I
I
I
1423
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
April 9, 1996
Page Four
The board discussed the request in detail. The consensus was that the architect will make every
effort that the addition blends in with the existing house. It was suggested that that the variance not
be reduced in size to guarantee enough space and grant some latitude for the project.
MOVED by Swedberg, seconded by Sell, and motion carried unanimously to grant the following
variances of Section 11.21: Subd. 7(A) front setback for 1.69 feet off the required 35 feet to a
distance of 33.31 feet for the existing structure, and 2 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of
33 feet for the proposed garage/living addition; Subd. 7(C)(2) side yard setback for 3.35 feet off the
required 12.3 to a distance of 8.95 feet for the proposed garagelliving addition on the east side.
Chair Polachek asked Mr. Katz if the shed can be moved. Mr. Katz is uncertain. Member Pentel
commented that the shed faces only the apartments which are a good distance away.
MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Sell, and motion carried unanimously to approve a waiver of
variance to Section 11.21, Subd. 12 Accessory Buildings for 1.61 feet off the required 5 feet to a
distance of 3.39 feet for the existing shed located at the rear of the property.
1890 Valders Avenue (96-4-8)
William G. Parks
Request:
Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback - 5 feet off the
required 35 feet to a distance of 30 feet for the existing structure; and
Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setback - 3.9 feet off the
required 15 feet to a distance of 11.1 feet for the existing structure.
Purpose:
To make the existing structure legally nonconforming so a conforming deck
may be built onto the rear of the house.
Staff Liaison Grimes commented that in 1981 a variance had been granted for the construction of a
second stall onto the existing garage on the north side. The garage was never constructed. Mr.
Grimes said that this is a straightforward request and the deck would be a legally conforming
structure. The owner has already removed a deck which was deteriorating.
MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Swedberg, and motion carried unanimously to approve the
following waivers of Section 11.21: Subd. 7(A) front yard setback for 5 feet off the required 35 feet
to a distance of 30 feet for the existing structure on the north side, and Subd. 7(C)(1) side yard
setback for 3.9 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 11.1 feet for the existing structure on the
south side of the house.
5430 Glenwood Avenue North (96-4-9)
Meadowbrook School (ISO #~70)
Request:
Waiver of Section 11.46, Subd. 9 Front Yard setback - 12.3 feet off the
required 35 feet to a distance of 22.7 feet for the existing structure known as
the pump-house.
1.424
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
April 9, 1996
Page Five
Purpose:
To make the existing pump-house legally nonconforming so it can be used
as a storage building.
I
Staff Liaison Mark Grimes explained that originally the City required the pump-house to be built to
overcome an environmental problem due to a leaking fuel oil tank. The environmental problem has
now been resolved and the pump is no longer needed. Mr. Grimes continued by saying that the
applicant is now requesting the existing pump-house to be used as a storage building for the school.
The pump-house is brick sided similar to the school building.
John Pfluger, architect with the Cunningham Group, represented ISO #270 at this meeting.
The Board asked questions of Mr. Pfluger and discussed the request.
MOVED by Sell and seconded by Pentel, and motion.carried unanimously to approve wavier of
Section 11.46, Subd. 9 front yard setback for 12.3 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 22.7
feet for the existing structure known as the pump-house.
IV. Other Business
The Board discussed the possibility of changing the meeting night of the BZA from the second
Tuesday to the fourth Tuesday of the month because Staff Liaison Mark Grimes also needs to be in I
attendance of the HRA meetings which have been on the same night as the BZA meetings but at an
earlier time; the HRA meetings have been changed to 7pm. The Board requested Staff Liaison
Grimes review other dates and report back to the BZA. Member Sell requested that staff give the
Board members ample time before the change becomes effective due to summer vacation ~nd
other commitments already set.
Also discussed was the presence of a Planning Commission representative at BZA meetings.
Member Pentel, currently the Planning Commission Vice Chair and representative to the BZA, has
requested that this responsibility be shared by members of the Planning Commission in order to
relieve her busy schedule. The Board noted the necessity of having consistency on the BZA. Staff
Liaison Grimes commented that State law says that a member of the Planning Commission must be
in attendance when the BZA makes decisions. Mark will bring a copy of the law to the next meeting
and the issue will be discussed further.
V. Adjournment
Chair Polachek adjourned the meeting at 8:15 PM.
~p~
I
Herb Polachek, Chair
Mark Grimes, Staff Liaison