08-27-96 BZA Minutes
1444
August 27, 1996 II
The regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held Tuesday, August 27,
1996, in the Golden Valley City Hall Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley,
Minnesota. Chair Herb Polachek called the meeting to order at 7pm.
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
Those present were: Chair Herb Polachek; Members Mike Sell, Robert Shaffer, and Mahlon
Swedberg; and Planning Commission Representative Paula Pentel. Also present were Staff
Liaison Mark Grimes and Recording Secretary Eve Lomaistro.
I. Approval of Minutes - July 9, 1996
MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Sell, and motion carried unanimously to approve the July 9, 1996
minutes as submitted.
II. Petition from Previous Meeting -- BZA Clarification of the City Code's Definition of
Cornices and Eaves -- Petitioner: Gina and Philip Carlson
Summary of February 13, 1996 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting: At the February 13, 1996,
BZA meeting the Carlsons presented an application for a variance concerning the eaves on the
house under construction at 120 King Hill Road. The variance request was for 6 inches more
than the permitted 30 inches per City Code, Section 11.21, Subd. 9. According to the survey
submitted to the Board, the eaves were only 36 inches in width. The Board granted this variance. II
The Inspections Department visited the site and found that the eaves extended another 18 inches
past the approved 36 inches. Mr. Grimes wrote to the Carlsons in March of 1996 requesting them
to submit a survey showing the full extension of the eaves which may be projecting into the
setback area. The Inspections Department requested that the Carlsons stop work on the roof
until this matter was settled. As of August 20, 1996, the roof and outside of the house had been
completed.
Gina Carlson was in attendance and requested the Board to review the definition of cornices and
eaves. She further stated that the word "facia" was not in the wording of the variance granted
February 13, 1996, and that the facia is what is in question. She believes that the City Code
definition of cornices and eaves is incomplete.
Robert Shaffer read the definition from the Dictionary of Architecture and Construction which
defines cornices and eaves as anything that projects beyond the wall. The Inspections
Department and the BZA believe that the wording in the City Code is clear.
The Board discussed the request, commenting that this was addressed at the time the Carlsons
submitted their request for additional inches onto the eaves at the February 13 meeting. The
Board believes, that for someone who has been in the field of construction for the past 23 years,
the definition of cornices and eaves should have been understood. The Board commented that
they are not in a position to change City Code.
MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Swedberg and motion carried unanimously to deny the Carlson's II
request to rewrite the definition of cornices and eaves found in the City Code.
I
I
I
1L1:45
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
August 27, 1996
Page Two
III. The Petitions are:
7400 Western Avenue (96-8-24)
Byron and Debra Wieberdink
Request:
Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setback -- 8 feet off the
required 15 feet to a distance of 7 feet for the proposed deck.
Purpose:
To allow for the construction of a nonconforming deck onto the north side of
the house.
Mark Grimes told the Board that Debra and Byron Wieberdink are building this house which is in
the final stages of completion. The house structure meets setback requirements on all sides of
the house; however, the Wieberdinks are proposing to put a deck on the northeast side of the
home that would project into the setback area by 8 feet. The purpose of the deck is to provide a
protected walk to the rear of the home and to give the family space off the kitchen for outdoor
activities. The Wieberdinks have contacted the property owner to the north who had no
objections to the construction of the deck.
The Board discussed the request and invited the applicants to make any comments.
Debra and Byron Weiberdink stated that they had raised the footings of the house by one foot to
provide a slope to the garage floor as requested by the City Engineer. The applicants would now
like to build an eight foot deck and a staircase to safely access the back yard from the kitchen.
They stressed the safety issue because they have small children. This plan would also preserve
much of the natural landscape. The Weiberdinks commented that a patio could be built on the
side of the house but this would endanger a tree located on the property line. Ken Larson,
contractor for the Wieberdinks, stated that that by putting the deck on the north side of the house,
the tree could be preserved along with the relationship of the neighbors on that side.
Member Pentel pointed out that the tree is mature and at the end of its life cycle. The Board also
commented on the issue of the footings being raised some time ago at which time the deck was
not mentioned. The Board commented that it rarely deals with new construction; it is expected
that owners and/or builders understand the requirements prior to construction. Furthermore, the
Board said they were at a loss to know how this would affect the neighbors since they have not
yet constructed their house.
Staff Liaison Grimes suggested that a landing and staircase, down to a patio, would not need a
variance since a ground level patio is not considered a structure.
The applicants commented that they feel a deck is a better solution and that it will also help the
neighbors to meet the grade of their property.
MOVED by Swedberg, seconded by Sell and motion carried unanimously to defer this request for
two months with an option to defer for an additional six months until a site plan or impact state-
ment from the neighbors is available. '
1446
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
August 27, 1996
Page Three
Ms. Wieberdink added that her family would like to remain residents of Golden Valley but the
Code is making it difficult regarding new construction requirements.
1015 Wisconsin Avenue South (96-8-25)
Lenard Mayzel
Request:
Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7 (B) Rear Yard Setback -- 12 feet off the
required 19 feet to a distance of 7 feet for the proposed deck; and
Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(2) Side Yard Setback -- 2 feet off the
required 11.25 feet to a distance of 9.25 feet for the proposed deck.
Purpose:
To allow for the construction of a nonconforming deck onto the southeast
side of the house (rear and side).
I
Staff Liaison Mark Grimes explained that this is an irregular shaped lot. He said that a variance
granted on this lot, in 1978, allowed the house to be built with smaller setbacks. The applicant is
proposing to construct an irregular shaped deck onto the rear and side (northeast corner) of the
house. Staff has heard from the neighbor to the south who is concerned with how close the deck
will come to the property line and the materials the applicant will be using in the construction of I
the deck.
The Board discussed the petition thoroughly and addressed a number of questions to Mr. Mayzel
who was in attendance. Mr. Mayzel responded that he would remove the existing deck; the deck
wraps around the corner to take advantage of the quietest side of the house, farthest from 1-394.
There is access from the kitchen from the rear of the house. He also commented that he
designed a larger deck to accommodate a three-season porch, to be constructed sometime inthe
future.
The Board stated that it usually grants variances only when there is no chance to build within
compliance. They believed that if the deck were smaller, it would not need a variance. Mr.
Mayzel answered that he wants a large deck and he is paying for it. Members of the Board
explored other options for which the deck might comply with City Code but the applicant was not
in agreement with any options. The Board discussed and agreed to eliminate the request for a
side yard setback variance. The Board also discussed the future three-season porch, and told
the applicant that he would need to bring his application for this porch to the Board for review of
the impact it may have on the neighborhood.
MOVED by Sell, seconded by Pentel and motion carried unanimously to grant a waiver of Section
11.21, Subd. 7(B) Rear Yard Setback for 12 feet off the required 19 feet to a distance of 7 feet for
the proposed deck; and to deny the waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(2) Side Yard Setback.
I
I
I
I
1447
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
August 27, 1996
Page Four
1109 Rhode Island Avenue North (96-8-26)
Guy and Amy Grussing
Request:
Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- 3 feet off the
required 35 feet to a distance of 32 feet for the existing house; and
Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(B) Rear Yard Setback -- 1 foot off the
required 5 feet to a distance of 4 feet for the existing shed.
Purpose:
To made the house legally nonconforming so the applicants could construct
a conforming deck onto the rear and side of the house.
Staff Liaison Grimes told the Board that this lot is rather narrow. Mr. Grimes suggested that if the
owner should build a garage, in the future, that it probably would ,need to be placed in the back
yard with the driveway running next to the constructed deck. The applicant commented that, at
this time, he does not intend to construct a garage on the lot.
MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to grant a waiver of
Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback for 3 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of
32 feet for the existing house; and the waiver from Subd. 7(B) Rear Yard Setback for 1 foot off
the required 5 feet to a distance of 4 feet for the existing shed.
1361 Mandan Avenue (96-8-27)
Reuben L. Duerksen
Request:
Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- 11 feet off ttle
required 20 feet to a distance of 9 feet for a proposed garage/storage
addition.
Purpose:
To allow for the construction of a nonconforming one-stall garage and
storage addition.
Staff Liaison Grimes explained that this lot is triangular in shape with streets on two sides. Mr.
Grimes talked about the two variances that were issued for this property, in 1964, which allowed
for the placement of house on the lot. These two variances were for 15 feet off the required 35
feet to distance of 20 feet for the front setback and the rear setback was set at 10 feet. Mr.
Duerksen is finding it difficult to place an addition on the south side of the existing garage due to
the shape of the lot, and therefore, has requested a front setback variance. The proposed
structure will meet setback requirements on the rear and east sides.
The Board discussed the request noting that the addition would create a structure the size of a
three car garage. Reuben and Eleanor Duerksen were in attendance. Mr. Duerksen stated that
he actually would like a three-stall garage. He believes the addition looks especially large next to
their small house. The Board asked the applicants why they wanted such a large garage. Mr.
Duerksen replied that the addition would be for the storage of his boat, additional storage and a
1.448
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
August 27, 1996
Page Five
I
work area. The Board suggested a compromise that would accomplish the owner's goals by
making the front of the garage 16 feet rather than the requested 24 feet. This would still allow
space for storage, the boat, and some work space.
MOVED by Sell, seconded by Swedberg and motion carried unanimously to grant a waiver of
Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback for 7 feet off the required 20 feet to a distance of
13 feet.
4700 Circle Down (96-8-28)
Joseph and Margaret Breimayer
Request:
Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- 6.4 feet off the
required 35 feet to a distance of 28.6 feet for the proposed addition; and
Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(B) Rear Yard Setback -- 2.5 feet off the
required 29.2 feet to a distance of 26.7 feet for the existing house.
Purpose:
To make the house legally nonconforming and to allow for the construction
of a nonconforming addition onto the north and east side of the house.
Staff Liaison Grimes briefed the Board on how staff determined that Natchez was. considered the
front of the house, thereby requiring the applicants to obtain variances on the front and rear yards.
He continued commenting that the applicants are proposing to put an addition onto the north side
of the existing garage; this addition will become the garage area and the original garage will
become living space. The applicants are proposing extensive interior work as well as exterior
work.
I
The Board discussed the request. Joseph and Margaret Breimayer were in attendance. Mr.
Breimayer commented that the addition will be finished with stone and tile to match the exterior of
the house.
MOVED by Swedberg, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to grant a waiver of
Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback for 6.4 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of
28.6 feet for the proposed addition; and a waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(B) Rear Yard Setback
for 2.5 feet off the required 29.2 feet to a distance of 26.7 feet for the existing house.
1886 Hampshire Lane (96-8-29)
Philip and Cheryl Hinz
Request:
Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback - 8 feet off the
required 35 feet to a distance of 27 feet for the existing house; and
Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- 13 feet off the I
required 35 feet to a distance of 22 feet for the proposed covering over the
front steps.
I
I
I
1t1:49
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
August 27, 1996
Page Six
Purpose:
To make the house legally nonconforming and to allow for the construction
of a covering over the front entrance and for a conforming deck onto the
rear of the house.
Staff Liaison Grimes commented that the proposed front covering would help alleviate snow and
ice on the steps in the winter and rain in the summer. The applicants approached staff in July and
asked. if the construction of the deck could be started before this BZA meeting. Staff determined
that the nonconformity of this lot was the existing house at the front setback, and therefore,
allowed the applicants to submit a "hold harmless" letter in order to begin construction.
MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Sell and motion carried unanimously to grant a waiver of Section
11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback for 8 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 27 feet for
the existing house; and a waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback for 13 feet off
the required 35 feet to a distance of 22 feet for the proposed covering over the front steps.
311 Burntside Drive (96-9-30)
Marvin Resnick
Request:
Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- 2.7 feet off the
required 35 feet to a distance of 32.3 feet for the existing house; and
Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 12 Accessory Buildings -- to allow for the
shed to remain 8.165 feet from the side property line and 32.3 feet from the
front property line.
Purpose:
To make the house legally nonconforming which will allow for the
construction of a conforming three-season porch onto the northwest corner
of the house and to allow the shed to remain where it is now located.
Staff Liaison Grimes explained the request and the Board discussed it. Marvin Resnick was in
attendance.
The Board noted that the rear yard falls off sharply and for this reason has grown into brush.
There is no way within reason that a shed could be placed in the rear yard.
MOVED by Swedberg, seconded by Pentel and motion carried unanimously to grant a waiver of
Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback for 2.7 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of
32.3 feet for the existing house; and a waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 12 Accessory Buildings
which will allow the shed to remain next to the main structure on the lot.
120 King Hill Road (96-8-31)
Philip and Gina Carlson
Request:
Waiyer of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- 2.73 feet off the
required 35 feet to a distance of 32.27 for the existing house facing
Glenwood Avenue; and
1,150
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
August 27, 1996
Page Seven
I
Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setback -- 3 feet off the
required 15 feet to a distance of 12 feet for the existing structure to the
south; and
Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 9 Cornices and Eaves -- 18 inches which
are beyond the 36 inch eaves.
Purpose:
To make the house legally nonconforming.
Staff Liaison Grimes briefed the Board on the Carlson's previous granted variance. The Carlsons
received a variance for 6 inches beyond the maximum of 30 inch eaves at the February 13, 1996,
BZA meeting. Staff Liaison Grimes said that he had written to the Carlsons, in March of 1996,
requesting a survey showing how much further the eaves protruded into the setback areas. He
also commented that the Planning Department and Inspections Department have received phone
calls by the neighbors concerning the large size of the house. The Carlsons have a closing date
set for tomorrow, August 28, 1996, and need the variances in order to obtain an occupancy permit
from the Inspections Department.
Philip and Gina Carlson were in attendance and showed drawings of three surveys, stating that
plans were approved over a year ago by the Inspections Department and the plans have not
changed. Now they feel that they are in a hardship situation with the upcoming closing date, plus I
the house is in the Parade of Homes.
The Board pointed out that the roof truss did not show on the original plans. The house is skewed
on the lot and the builders are pushing the envelope on the size of the house. The Board believe
this whole project was mishandled and asked the Carlsons why they should be granted the
variances. The Carlsons stated that the house, valued at over $450,000, is built and now itisa
hardship case; if the variances are not approved, it cannot be sold.
MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Sell to grant the following waivers: Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A)
Front Yard Setback for 2.73 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 32.27 for the existing
house facing Glenwood Avenue; and of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setback for 3 feet
off the required 15 feet to a distance of 12 feet for the existing structure to the south; and of
Section 11.21, Subd. 9 Cornices and Eaves -- 18 inches which are beyond the 36 inch eaves.
Member Shaffer identified himself as a practicing architect. He commented on his procedure of
researching ordinances and other data before designing a building to make sure the structure will
be in compliance with regulations. He stated, "This house should have and could have, if properly
planned, fit on this lot."
Other members of the Board indicated their dilemma and discussed other options. They felt that
this situation should not have happened. After a thorough discussion the Board held a role call
vote on the motion. The following voted yes: Pentel, Polachek, Sell, and Swedberg; the I
following voted no: Shaffer.
I
I
I
14:51
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
August 27, 1996
Page Eight
9315 Medicine Lake Road (96-8-32)
McDonald's Corporation
Request:
Waiver of Section 11.30, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- 17 feet off the
required 35 feet to a distance of 18 feet for the landscaped green area on
Hillsboro Avenue; and
Waiver of Section 11.30, Subd. 6(E) Loading and Parking Requirements --
25 parking spaces off the required 137 parking spaces to 112 parking
spaces; and
Waiver of Section 11.21 Principal Structure on One Lot -- to allow for the
existing structure to remain on the lot during the construction of a new
facility.
Purpose:
To allow for the construction of a new McDonald's Restaurant with a
playland.
Staff Liaison Mark Grimes commented on McDonald's proposal to construct a new restaurant with
a playland; they are proposing to keep the existing restaurant open during construction. The old
McDonald's restaurant would be demolished shortly after the completion of the new restaurant.
Staff Liaison Grimes reviewed the three waivers being requested by McDonald's as follows:
The first waiver relates to the setback from a public street. City Code states that all portions of a
lot, or parcel, abutting a public street shall be deemed to be front yards and a 35 foot front yard
setback shall be maintained as a landscaped green area. McDonald's is requesting a varianye of
17 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 18 feet for the landscaped area along Hillsboro
Avenue. Staff believe that if the existing facility is torn down before any construction begins,it
may be possible to build a new McDonald's that meets setback requirements.
The second waiver relates to parking spaces. City Code states that there must be at least one (1)
parking space for each 35 square feet of gross floor area, or one (1) parking space for each three
seats based on maximum design capacity whichever is greater. In this case, the gross floor area
calculation yields the larger number of 137 parking spaces.
The City has had a parking study prepared, by SRF Consulting Engineers, to determine if the
number of parking spaces proposed by McDonald's is adequate for the new 4,800
sq.ft. restaurant with a playland. SRF states that the new store will have a peak demand of 88
spaces. SRF estimates peak demand time to be on a Friday, at lunch time. The plan indicates
112 parking spaces or about 25 more spaces than the peak. This should be more than adequate,
although staff would not recommend going any lower.
1.452
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
August 27, 1996
Page Nine
I
The third waiver relates to the number of principal structures on one lot. City Code states that in
all of the zoning districts, every principal structure shall be located on a separate lot and in no
case shall there be more than one principal structure on a lot. The variance request is to allow
the existing McDonald's restaurant to remain standing, and in operation, while the new building is
being constructed on the same lot.
Staff Liaison Grimes commented on the importance of maintaining the street setback. He had
requested that McDonald's submit a revised site plan showing the new restaurant on the site by
itself to reveal if setbacks could be maintained with only one building on the site. The revised plan
had not been submitted for Planning Commission or BZA review. Staff also believe that it would
be best to keep the playland, which has glass walls and is much taller than the other part of the
building, as far from the street as possible because of the added height and bulk.
Board Member Pentel, who reviewed the tape of the Planning Commission meeting of August 12,
talked about McDonald's request for a Conditional Use Permit. The Planning Commission denied
the request for a number of reasons including the location of the building on Hillsboro Avenue and
the southern entrance/exit which was opposed by neighboring residents. The Planning
Commission discussed with Jerry Roper, representative for McDonald's, different locations on the
lot for the restaurant. The Planning Commission also looked at that if two buildings, being on one
lot, were granted the variance should be temporary with a clear termination date for demolition of
the existing restaurant, and a performance bond to ensure compliance.
The BZA discussed the issues in great detail and asked Mr. Roper a number of questions.
I
Mr. Roper stated that McDonald's wants to construct an improved restaurant, with a playland,
because the existing facility it outdated. He also commented on stacking in the drive~through
lane, saying there would be less stacking space available than is now available on the current
site. A member of the Board asked where the restaurant! playland could be located if the existing
restaurant were demolished before the construction of the proposed facility was started. Mr.
Roper answered exactly where it is proposed because the parking is located on the west side of
the lot and not the drive-through side. With this design, those choosing to enter the restaurant do
not have to cross the drive-through lane. Mr. Roper said that this was the preferred design for all
new restaurants for safety reasons.
Staff Liaison Grimes commented that the current stacking on the site is excellent and the drive~
through is wide and easily accessible for cars using the drive-through. He also said that there is
more than adequate parking with wide aisles.
The Board probed for alternatives and other options that would satisfy the needs of the City as
well as creating a new and larger restaurant for McDonald's. A number of suggestions were
proposed by the BZA. Member Shaffer suggested that a new restaurant be built immediately
south of the existing building. This new building would include the kitchen and the seating area.
After that building was completed, the old restaurant would be then be demolished and, in its I
place, the playland added to the new building. This would minimize or eliminate setback
variances. The Commission also commented on the beautiful landscaping currently at the site,
some of which would be eliminated in the new construction.
I
I
I
1453
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
August 27, 1996
Page Ten
The Board suggested deferring a decision on McDonald's request until they had an opportunity to
review other options. Mr. Roper preferred a denial which would enable McDonald's to appear
before the City Council, with an appeal, at the same time the Conditional Use Permit would be
heard.
MOVED by Swedberg, seconded by Shaffer, and motion carried unanimously to deny the above
mentioned variance requests as proposed.
IV. Other Business
No other business was presented.
V. Adjournment
Chair Polachek adjourned the meeting at 10:05 PM.
iU(l~"
Herb Polachek, Chair