07-27-99 BZA Minutes
.
.
.
1681
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
July 27, 1999
The regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held Tuesday, July 27, 1999,
in the Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN. Chair Swedberg called the
meeting to order at 7 p.m.
Those present were: Members Lang, Polachek, Sell and Swedberg; and Planning Commission
Representative Shaffer. Also present were Staff Liaison Mary Dold and Tammi Hall, Recording
Secretary .
I. Approval of Minutes - June 22, 1999
MOVED by. Sell, seconded by Polachek and motion carried unanimously to approve the minutes of
June 22, 1999 as submitted.
II. The Petitions:
2445 Winfield Avenue (Map 11) (99-7-19)
James Roen
Request:
Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback for:
· 1 foot off the required 35 feet to a distance of 34 feet for the existing
structure at its closest point to the front property line.
Purpose:
To allow for the construction of a conforming 19' x 21' deck onto the rear (west
side) of the house.
Chair Swedberg read the requested variances. James Roen was present.
Staff Liaison Dold stated that the variance request is for one foot off the required 35 feet for the
existing structure.
MOVED by Polachek, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to.approve the variance
as requested.
4511 Strawberry Lane (Map 9) (99-7-20)
Alexander Nazarenko
Request:
Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setback for:
· 10 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 5 feet for a proposed garage
attached to the existing structure on the west side.
Purpose:
To allow for the construction of a garage and porch addition onto the west side
of the existing structure. A conforming single-stall garage and mudroom is
being proposed for the front and east side of the property attached to the
existing structure.
Chair Swedberg read the requested variances. Laurel Ulland, architect for the project, was present.
1682
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting
July 27, 1999
Page 2
.
Dold stated that the variance requested is for the garage addition on the west side. She indicated
that the garage addition would include living space above the garage and a ground level porch to the
rear. Dold said the existing garage would be turned into living space. She added that the proposed
construction on the front and east side of the property would be conforming.
Ulland told the Board the property owner on the west side is quite a distance from Mr. Nazarenko's
home and that they are separated by a wooded area and a circular drive. She stated that the
proposed garage would be accessed through the existing driveway. She stated that the existing
house is on pilings so there is no basement area for mechanicals. She indicated that it is the hope of
the owner that a partial basement can be constructed under the garage addition for mechanicals.
Ulland stated that Mr. Nazarenko has obtained signatures from all the required neighbors. She said
the addition on the west side would be 19 feet wide, 13 feet for the single garage and 6 feet for a
stairway that would access the basement area and the second floor.
Shaffer asked if there was any concern about possible access to the proposed garage roof to the
front of the house. His concern was that perhaps neighborhood children would climb onto the roof
causing a potential hazard and liability situation. Ulland responded that the top of the garage wall
would be five feet above grade, but a railing could be added to the wall along the driveway and the
garage roof if needed.
Lang asked if the applicant had considered other alternatives that would not require a variance.
Ulland responded that they had also considered a garage addition to the front but felt that the .
proposed option was the least obtrusive and fit best with the design of the house.
MOVED by Sell and seconded by Polachek to approve the variance as requested.
There was further discussion regarding the motion. Lang stated that he would be likely to approve
the variance request since the neighbor to the west, who would be most affected by the proposed
addition, does not object.
Shaffer expressed concern that the house and additions will be too large for the size of the lot. Ulland
responded that the house would still be a two bedroom, two bath home. She stated that they believe
the construction will enhance the house resulting in a better home than what currently exists.
Shaffer stated that there is a cantilever on the addition and the variance request should be amended
to include the cantilever.
Swedberg commented that he would not consider the request if the home were not located on a cul-
de-sac. Shaffer stated that it is difficult to determine the hardship issue in this case.
e
e
e
1683
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting
July 27, 1999
Page 3
from her property line. Swedberg indicated that he felt the impact on her property would be minimal.
Mrs. Fretzel stated that she agreed and that her only concern was any possible negative impact if she
were to try to sell her property in the future.
Whitney asked if they would be adding pilings for the proposed addition. Ulland responded that they
would probably add pilings to construct the addition.
Sell amended the motion to approve the variance request including the second floor cantilever for the
bathroom. The amended motion was seconded by Polachek and carried. Shaffer was opposed.
5005 Hampton Road (Map 4) (99-7-21)
Joseph and Joan Hammell
Request:
Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback for:
· 1.45 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 33.55 feet for the existing
house (cantilever) at its closest point to the front property line; and
Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setback for:
· 10.2 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 4.8 feet for a proposed
single-stall garage addition onto the existing garage; and
Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 12 Accessory Structures for:
· .22 feet off the required 5 feet to a distance of 4.78 feet for the existing
shed at its closest point to the south property line.
Purpose:
To allow for the construction of a single-stall garage addition onto the existing
garage which is located to the west side of the property.
Chair Swedberg read the requested variances. Joseph and Joan Hammell were present.
Dold stated that the owners would like to construct an addition to their existing garage, expanding it to
a two-stall garage. She stated that two of the variances are for existing conditions, the shed and the
cantilever, and a third variance is needed for the proposed garage addition.
Lang stated that if it is necessary to infringe upon the setback, the location proposed is the best
option due to the distance from the addition to the neighbor's home on this side. Swedberg stated
that it is about 44 feet from the proposed structure to the neighbor's house.
Peggy and Jack Specter, 5025 Hampton Road (the property to the west of the applicant) were
present. They indicated that they had some concerns with the proposed construction in regard to
drainage. Mr. Specter stated that drainage occurs between the side yards. He indicated that they
are concerned that the water drainage off the proposed garage roof would be closer to their house,
possibly creating water problems for them. Dold stated that the applicants will be required to submit a
grading, drainage and erosion control plan to obtain a building permit. She stated that the plans are
reviewed by the City Engineer to ensure that the construction does not make an existing situation any
worse. Mrs. Specter asked if the plan is reviewed after the variance is granted. Swedberg responded
1684
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting
July 27, 1999
Page 4
that the plan must be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. Mrs. Specter
asked what could be done to improve drainage in the area. Dold responded that the Specter's could
discuss this issue with the City Engineer.
e
Shaffer commented that the City Inspections Department has encouraged the Board to maintain a
minimum side yard setback of five feet. He suggested that the width of the proposed structure be
slightly reduced to maintain the five-foot setback. Swedberg asked the applicants how they would
deal with a five-foot setback. Mr. Hammell responded that the architect had suggested a width of
twelve feet for the garage addition. Mr. Hammell stated that they have already reduced the width to
ten feet and would prefer not to reduce the width any further.
MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Lang to approve a variance for the proposed garage addition for 10
feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 5 feet. The motion carried. Swedberg was opposed.
MOVED by Polachek, seconded by Sell and motion carried unanimously to approve the variances as
requested for the existing house (cantilever) and the existing shed.
2535 Vale Crest Road (Map 11)(99-7-22)
James and Virainia Anderson
Request:
Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback for:
· 6 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 29 feet for a proposed front .
porch at its closest point to the front property line.
Purpose:
To allow for the construction of an 8' x 13' porch onto the front of the house.
Chair Swedberg read the requested variances. James Anderson was present.
Dold stated that the proposed porch would encroach into the front setback by six feet.
Mr. Anderson stated that the porch would protect the front entryway from ice and snow. He said the
existing garage extends past the front of the house and that the proposed addition will extend
approximately one foot beyond the existing garage. He indicated that the porch would still be quite a
distance from the street. He added that the street curves so the addition is not obtrusive in
comparison to other homes on the street. He indicated that the neighbor to the south has a similar
porch and that the house is closer to the street than his proposed addition.
Swedberg asked if the major reason for the addition was to protect the entryway from ice and snow.
Anderson responded that the porch would not be large enough to use as a deck or living space area.
Swedberg asked how they determined the eight-foot width for the proposed porch. Anderson stated
that it provides enough room to open the door and allow two to three people to stand on the porch, as
well as space for a bench. Swedberg asked how far the current front step extends from the house.
Anderson responded that he would estimate it is approximately four to five feet.
Polachek asked if there were any plans to eventually enclose the porch. Anderson responded that
they do not plan to enclose the porch. Swedberg asked if the porch would require footings. Dold
responded that it would. Lang suggested that the Board's approval could include the condition that
the proposed addition must remain an open structure. Swedberg stated that the only justification for
e
.
e
e
1685
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting
July 27, 1999
Page 5
approving the variance request is that the neighbor's home is closer to the street than the applicant's
proposed porch.
MOVED by Sell, seconded by Lang and motion carried unanimously to grant the variance as
requested with the condition that the porch must be an open structure and can never be enclosed.
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue North (Map 15) (99-7-23)
Joel Oakland
Request:
Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front yard Setback for:
· 5.23 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 29.77 feet for a proposed
front porch at its closest point to the front property line.
Purpose:
To allow for the construction of a 6' x 19'6" porch onto the front of the house.
Chair Swedberg read the requested variances. Mr. Oakland was present.
Dold stated that the variance requested is for 5.23 feet off the required 35 feet to allow for
construction of a front porch. She stated that the applicant has provided a current survey and their
plans for the addition have been included in the information provided to the Board.
Swedberg asked how the length of the porch was determined. Oakland responded that the home has
a hip roof and a large picture window. He indicated that the size of the porch was determined by how
it fit aesthetically with the roof and the picture window. He added that they have no intention of
enclosing the porch in the future. He also indicated that the neighbors on both sides of his property
face the side streets so there is no site line that would be disrupted by the proposed addition.
MOVED by Polachek, seconded by Lang and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance as
requested with the condition that the porch must be an open structure and can never be enclosed.
1900 Rhode Island Avenue North (Map 14) 99-7-24
Lvnnae & Chris Finseth
Request:
Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback for:
· 2.5 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 32.5 feet for a proposed
front porch at its closest point to the front property line; and
Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setback for:
· 1.4 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 13.6 feet for the existing
house at its closest point to the side (north) property line; and
Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 12 Accessory Structures for:
· .1 feet off the required 5 feet to a distance of 4.9 feet for the existing shed
located in the northeast corner of the property.
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting
July 27, 1999
Page 6
1686
Chair Swedberg read the requested variances. Chris and Lynnae Finseth and their architect were
present.
.
Mr. Finseth stated that the variance for the accessory structure should be corrected to .2 feet off the
required 5 feet to a distance of 4.8 feet. Staff and the Board agreed that the variance request should
be revised as stated by Mr. Finseth.
Dold stated that two of the variances are for existing conditions. She said a third variance is needed
for the proposed porch that would be six feet wide and encroach into the front setback by 2.5 feet.
Mr. Finseth stated that they wanted to add a front porch to improve the appearance of the entrance to
their home as well as provide protection from the elements. He added that they have no intention of
enclosing the porch in the future. Mrs. Finseth stated they want to provide an inviting area and a front
yard connection with the neighborhood. Swedberg asked if the addition would be constructed of
wood. Mr. Finseth responded that it would be constructed of wood.
MOVED by Sell, seconded by Lang and motion carried unanimously to approve the variances as
requested with the revision to the accessory structure variance request and with the condition that the
porch would be an open structure and can never be enclosed.
Swedberg stated that the justification for approval of the front yard variance request is that the porch
will not extend beyond the existing roof line. Shaffer stated that the porch enhances the aesthetics of
the house and the neighborhood and causes minimal intrusion into the setback.
e
IV. Other Business
There was no other business discussed.
V. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
fr,.~Wi
Mary 0 d, Staff Liaison
e