02-23-99 BZA Minutes
e
e
e
1653
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
February 23, 1999
The regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held Tuesday, February
23, 1999, in the Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN. Chair Sell
called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were: Chair Sell and Members Lang, Polachek and McCracken-Hunt
(alternate); and Planning Commission Representative Shaffer. Also present were Staff Liaison
Mary Oold, and Tammi Hall, Recording Secretary.
I. Approval of Minutes - January 26, 1999
MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Lang and motion carried unanimously to approve the minutes
of January 26, 1999 as submitted.
II. The Petitions:
2201 Lee Avenue North (Map 5) (99-2-3)
Morton and Merle Kane
Request:
Waiver from Section 11.65, Subd. 5Shoreland Management-Zoning
Provisions for:
· 18.8 feet off the required 50 feet to a distance of 31.2 feet for the
existing structure (deck) at its closest point to the ordinary high water
mark of Bassett Creek; and
· 39.4 feet off the required 50 feet to a distance of 10.6 feet for the
existing gazebo at its closest point to the ordinary high water mark of
Bassett Creek; and
· 16 feet off the required 50 feet to a distance of 34 feet for the
proposed addition, at its closest point to the ordinary high water mark
of Bassett Creek, located on the east side of the house; and
· 8.7 feet ~ff the required 50 feet to a distance of 41.3 feet for the
proposed addition, at its closest point to the ordinary high water mark
of Bassett Creek, located on the west side of the house.
Purpose:
To allow for the construction of living areas/decks into the setback from
Bassett Creek.
Chair Sell read the requested variances. Morton and Merle Kane were present. Their architect,
Steven Kleineman of SKO Architects, Inc. was also present.
/
1654
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
February 23, 1999
Page 2
e
Staff Liaison Dold reviewed the facts of the case. She indicated the Kanes are also dealing
with a drainage and utility easement issue. She stated that the existing house and part of the
proposed addition lie within the drainage and utility easement. Dold said that Mr. Kane has
requested the City to vacate the easement. She indicated the City Engineer believes that a
portion of the easement could be vacated so that it would not interfere with the proposed
addition.
Dold also stated that the property consists of two lots. She indicated the existing house is on
Lot 5 and the tennis court is on Lot 4. She stated that staff has informed the Kanes that if they
wish to sell Lot 4 in the future, they will need to do a minor subdivision and make both lots
conforming, which would involve either moving the lot line. They could request a side setback
variance for the existing house instead of requesting a minor subdivision.
Dold also reported that the DNR was notified of the variance request as required by city code.
The response from the DNR was distributed to Board members and to the Kanes prior to the
meeting for their review. The DNR stated that if the City approved the requested variances,
they would recommend measures be taken to mitigate the negative effects. They suggested
minimizing impervious surface wherever possible, removing the gazebo, and establishing
additional native vegetation for buffers between the tennis court and other structures, and the
Creek. Dold stated that if the Board approves the requested variance, staff would recommend
that the building permit obtained by the Kanes for the proposed construction include the
requirement that the applicant work with the DNR and the City's Environmental Technician to e
minimize the potential negative impact.
Dold briefly summarized the variances. Shaffer indicated the variance request should include
an additional item for the front setback. He stated that at the time the house was built a
variance was approved reducing the required front setback to 32.5 feet. The current survey
shows that the house is setback only 31.7 feet, resulting in the need for an additional variance
of 0.8 feet. The following variance request was added:
Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback for an additional 0.8 feet off
the required 35 feet to a distance of 31.7 feet for the existing house at its closest point to
the front property line. (A variance for 2.5 feet was approved at the time the house was
built.)
Steven Kleineman of SKD Architects, Inc. briefly reviewed the circumstances of the request.
He indicated that the Kanes felt they wanted to stay in their current home but that ,some of the
space was inadequate for their needs. He indicated they had reviewed various options but
concluded that expansion to the south would be the best alternative. Kleineman indicated they
tried to minimize the extension into the south side, but that the curve of the creek presents
problems in the corners. Mr. Kane stated that the gazebo was built approximately 15 to 20
years ago. He indicated the work was performed by a handy man and that he was unaware a
permit was necessary for the gazebo or the extension of the deck. He indicated they would be
willing to remove the gazebo if necessary, but they would prefer to keep it if possible. He also
stated, in response to the DNR concern regarding impervious surface, that the tennis court is _
made of a clay/sand material which allows water to pass through. He added that this is a large .,
expansive area with a lot of room for water absorption. Kleineman added that the corners of
the new addition that go into the setback are elevated off the ground and supported by columns
.
e
.
1655
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
February 23, 1999
Page 3
so no ground space would be lost in the setback area. Shaffer stated that the Board must
establish that there is a hardship in order to grant a variance and that, in his opinion, it may be
difficult in this case. Kleineman responded that much of the living area in the home is quite
small. Polacek asked the Kanes if the creek has ever risen higher than the gazebo. Mr. Kane
responded that they have lived in the home for 27 years and, in that time, it has been high three
or four times. He said, at its highest point, it reached the supports on the gazebo but never
came up over the floor. Lang asked if the 50-foot setback along the creek had been in effect for
the entire time the Kanes have owned their home. Dold responded that the City Planner, Beth
Knoblauch, estimated that the 50-foot setback was adopted in the mid-1980s. McCracken-Hunt
asked if there was any precedent for allowing a structure, such as the gazebo, to remain in its
present location but to prohibit improvement or replacement when the current structure reaches
the end of its life. Shaffer responded that, in the past, the Board has decided to allow a
structure to remain but denied a variance for it so that it cannot be rebuilt or replaced in the
same location. Shaffer stated that the problem with allowing the gazebo to remain is that if a
permit had been obtained, the Board would not have allowed construction of the gazebo in its
current location. He added that if a neighbor wishes to build one in the setback, the Board
would deny the variance so it seems unfair to allow the Kanes' gazebo to remain because they
built it without obtaining the proper permit. Shaffer stated he would be in favor of granting the
variance requests for the existing house, but he would be concerned with approving the
variances for the addition. He indicated he would have a problem with establishing a hardship
other than the fact that the 50-foot setback was enacted after the Kanes purchased the home.
McCracken-Hunt stated that it would be a problem if everyone along the creek placed a gazebo
in the setback. Shaffer stated that allowing the gazebo to remain sets a precedent. Mr. Kane
believed the gazebo was built prior to the time the 50-foot setback was enacted. Polachek
asked if the gazebo could be moved to another location on the property. Mr. Kane responded
that it would be difficult because there is no room. McCracken-Hunt stated she had no problem
with the amount of impervious surface on" the property. She stated that the vegetation
proposed by the DNR could provide some screening of the structure in the setback. She stated
that most of the houses across the creek from the Kanes appear to be located at least 100 feet
from the creek. Mr. Kane indicated that most of these houses are set back 150 feet from the
creek. He also stated that both neighbors across the creek have agreed to allow the proposed
addition. In regard to the gazebo, McCracken-Hunt stated she would be inclined to allow it to
remain but not approve a variance for it.
MOVED by Polachek, seconded by McCracken-Hunt and motion carried unanimously to
approve the following variances as requested:
Waiver from Section 11.65, Subd. 5 Shoreland Management-Zoning Provisions
for:
· 18.8 feet off the required 50 feet to a distance of 31.2 feet for the existing
structure (deck) at its closest point to the ordinary high water mark of Bassett
Creek; and
· 16 feet off the required 50 feet to a distance of 34 feet for the proposed
addition, at its closest point to the ordinary high water mark of Bassett Creek,
located on the east side of the house; and
/
1656
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
February 23, 1999
Page 4
.
· 8.7 feet off the required 50 feet to a distance of 41.3 feet for the proposed
addition, at its closest point to the ordinary high water mark of Bassett Creek,
located on the west side of the house.
Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback for an additional 0.8
feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 31.7 feet for the existing house at its
closest point to the front property line. (A variance for 2.5 feet was approved at
the time the house was built.)
These variances are approved with the following condition:
The building permit will require the applicant to work with AI Lundstrom, City
Environmental Technician and Tom Hovey, Area Hydrologist for the ONR to ensure that
the concerns expressed by the ONR are addressed in the construction of the proposed
addition.
The following variance requested by the applicant was not approved:
Waiver from Section 11.65, Subd. 5 Shoreland Management Zoning Provisions
for 39.4 feet off the required 50 feet to a distance of 10.6 feet for the existing
gazebo at its closest point to the ordinary high water mark of Bassett Creek.
The Board did not approve the variance for the gazebo so that once the current structure
reaches the end of its life it cannot be rebuilt or replaced in its current location.
.
Also, as part of the record, it is noted that Mr. Kane has been informed by City Staff, and has
agreed, that if he should ever wish to sell the property as two lots, he would be required to do a
minor subdivision and take whatever action is necessary to ensure that both lots are
conforming. This requirement will remain with the property and will also apply to any potential
future property owners.
Shaffer stated that he agreed to the variances only because the house was there prior to the
50-foot setback requirement, which could qualify as a hardship for the homeowner.
III. Other Business
No other business was addressed.
IV. Adjournment
Chair Sell adjourned the meeting at 8:05 p.m.
~~
Mike Sell, Chair
iytr1!t~
Mary Oold, taff Liaison
-