04-24-12 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
April 24, 2012
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday,
April 24, 2012 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair
Nelson called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Members Boudreau-Landis, Maxwell and Nelson, and Planning
Commission Representative McCarty. Atso present were City Planner Joe Hogeboom and
Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman.
I. Approval of Minutes — March 27, 2012 Regular Meeting
Boudreau-Landis referred to the ninth paragraph an page 3 and stated that the word "he"
should be removed from the fifth sentence.
MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Boudreau-Landis and motion carried unanimously to
approve the March 27, 2012 minutes with the above noted correction.
II. The Petitions are:
1109 Rhode Island Ave N
Robert J. Hol1y, Applicant (12-04-04)
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1),
Subd. 11(A)(1) FrontYard Setback Requirements
• 5.4 ft. off the required 30 ft. to a distance of 24.6 ft. at its closest point to the
front yard (east) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of an open front porch.
Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and explained the applicant's request to
build an open front porch whieh would replace the existing front stoop. He noted that
the existing home is set back 31.6 feet from the front property line and the propased
front porch would be located 24.6 feet from the front property line. He added that no
prior variances have been granted for this property.
Nelsan questioned if the applicant were not proposing a roof to be over the deck
structure if a variance wauld be required. Hogeboom stated that a landing area, without
a roof and not greater than 25 square feet in area, could be built in the setback area.
Robert J. Holly, applicant, showed the Board a drawing of his proposed open front
parch. He explained that his wife operates a daycare in their home and it is difficult not
to have a covered entry. He added that a front porch would also improve the aesthetics
of his home.
Nelson asked if the width of the proposed porch is 5 feet. Holly said yes the width would
be 5 feet plus a 14-inch overhang that would match the rest of the house.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
April 24, 2012
Page 2
McCarty asked for further explanatian of the 14-inch overhang area. Holly referred to
his drawing and stated that the 14-inch overhang is the soffit area. He added that many
other homes in the area extend further, or at least as far, into the front yard setback
area as he is proposing so he doesn't feel his front parch addition would be intrusive.
Maxwell asked the applicant what he feels is unique about his property. Holly stated
that there is already an existing concrete slab covering an old well room which leaks.
He explained that the house is already located in the front setback area and the
proposed porch would basically be the same size as the concrete slab area.
Boudreau-Landis asked the applicant if he has been able to fix the leak. Holly said he
has fixed it temporarily.
Nelson said she feels that not having a covered entryway is a hardship. She said she
feels an open front porch is a reasonable request, is in harmony with the City's
ordinances and will not change the essential character of the neighborhood.
Maxwell asked if the existing leaks were present before the applicant bought the hause.
Hally said yes, the well room has had problems with leaks since he bought it.
Nelson opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to comment,
Nelson closed the public hearing.
Boudreau-Landis said he feels the request is reasonable and that it is a hardship that
the existing stoop leaks.
McCarty said he is fine with the proposed porch, but he doesn't think that a leak is a
hardship because it can be repaired. He said he feels the location of the home (31.6
feet from the front yard setback) on the property is more of a hardship.
Holly stated that he would like the proposed deck of the front porch to be a minimum of
5 feet in depth with an additional 14-inch overhang. Boudreau-Landis stated that would
make the overall depth of the porch 7 feet, 2 inches.
Maxwell said he is in favor of granting the variance because the applicant can't change
where the house is located.
Nelson questioned if the variance request would need to be amended in order to take
the 14-inch overhang into aecount. Hogeboom said the request would not have to be
changed because the house is 31.6 feet away from the front property line.
MOVED Maxwell, seconded Boudreau-Landis and motion carried unanimously to
approve the request for 5.4 ft. off the required 30 ft. to a distance of 24.6 ft. at its
closest point to the front yard (east) property line to allow for the construction of an
open front porch.
4224 Golden Valley Road
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
April 24, 2012
Page 3
Denise and Rob Kinq, Applicants (12-04-05)
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1),
Subd. 11(A)(2) Rear Yard Setback Requirements
• 5.5 ft. off the required 25 ft. to a distance of 19.5 ft. at its closest paint to the
rear yard (north) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a balcony.
Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and explained the applicant's request to
construct a balcony on the rear of their home. He stated that the rear yard setback is
20% of the lot depth. However, in this case, the setback was amended by the City
Council in 1964 to be 25 feet rather than the required 42 fee#. He explained that the
applicant received a variance for this same proposal in 1999 but the balcony was not
constructed within one year as required so the variance expired.
Denise King, applicant, reiterated that they did receive a variance in 1999 in order to
construct a balcony but they ran out of funds at that time to construct the balcony. She
explained that there is currently a sliding glass door located in the area where they wish
to build the balcony. She referred to a sketch of the proposed balcony and noted that it
would extend approximately 1.6 feet past the house.
MeGarty asked about the construction type and materials of the proposed balcony. Rab
King, applicant, said the balcony would be constructed like a typical deck with planks of
compQSite wood and white railings, there would not be a solid floor.
Maxwell asked the applicants to explain how the need for a variance is based on
circumstances that were not created by them. Ms. King said they didn't build the house
and the sliding glass door is dangerous because it is one-story up from the ground.
Nelson asked when the sliding door was installed. Ms. King said they installed the door
in 1999 when they received the variance ariginally. McCarty nated that the applicant put
the sliding door in and let the variance lapse, so they did create the situation. He said
where the house is located on the property is really the hardship that wasn't created by
the homeowners.
Mr. King said they are not proposing to build the balcony 5 feet closer to the property
line, they are just filling in a space that already exists between their fireplace and
house.
Nelson nated that the neighbor to the nQrth has a concern about drainage. Mr. King
said he can't imagine that the proposed balcony would affect drainage at all. McCarty
agreed that the balcony would not add to the current drainage issues.
Nelson opened the public hearing.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
April 24, 2012
Page 4
Bob Stanton, 4221 Legend Lane, said he doesn't have a problem with the King's but he
cannot support the proposed balcony. He said the applicant's house sits higher than his
so he is concerned about the height of the proposed balcony taking away his privacy
because they would be looking down into his property. He said he understands the
applicant's problem with their sliding glass door, but he is concerned about being able
to sell his house in the future if there is a lack of privacy.
Nelsan asked Mr. Stantan if the existing patio door looks onto his praperty now. Mr.
Stanton said yes, but the King's will spend more time on a balcony than they would
looking out of the patio door. He reiterated that his main concerr� is privacy.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to speak, Nelson closed the public hearing.
McCarty said he supports the applicant's request. He stated that if the applicants
wanted to look at Mr. Stanton they could stand at the window and do it now. Boudreau-
Landis agreed and noted that the currently proposed balcony is smaller than the
balcony they were going to build in 1999. Maacwell agreed.
Nelson said she feels the proposed balcony is in harmony with the City's ordinances
and it's a reasonable request but she also feels that it does somewhat affect the
neighbor and the essential character af the locality.
McCarty reiterated that he feels the hardship is that the house is located so close to the
rear yard property line. He added that there are ways to overcome the privacy issue
such as planting trees. Stantan added that if the applicant's property wasn't split the
way it was the house wouldn't be so close to the rear yard property line.
MOVED by Boudreau-Landis, seconded by McCarty and motion carried 3 to 1 to
approve the request for 5.5 ft. off the required 25 ft. to a distance of 19.5 ft. at its
closest point to the rear yard (narth) property line to allow for the construction of a
balcony. Nelson voted no.
III. Other Business
No other business was discussed.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 pm.
,/�� J
Nancy J. Nels , Chair Joseph S. ogeboom, Staff Liaison