05-22-12 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
May 22, 2012
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday,
May 22, 2012 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair
Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm.
Thase present were Members, Maxwell and Nelson, and Planning Commission
Representatives Cera and McCarty. Also present were Gity Planner Joe Hogeboom and
Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Member Boudreau-Landis was absent.
I. Approval of Minutes —April 24, 2012 Regular Meeting
McCarty referred to the second sentence in the fifth paragraph on page one and noted the
word "font" should be changed to the word "front." McCarty referred to the first sentence in
the fifth paragraph on page three and stated that a comma should be added between the
words "line" and "they."
MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Maxwell and motion carried unanimously to approve
the April 24, 2012 minutes with the above noted corrections. Cera abstained.
I1. The Petitions are:
501 Radisson Road
John and Nicole Bean, Applicants (12-05-06)
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1),
Subd. 11(A)(2) Rear Yard Setback Requirements
• 15.42 ft. off the required 53.83 ft. to a distance of 38.41 ft. at its clasest point
to the rear yard (east) property line.
Purpase: To allow for the construction of a new garage.
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1),
Subd. 11iA)(2) Rear Yard Setback Requirements
• 11.17 ft. off the required 40.33 ft. to a distance of 29.16 ft. at its closest point
to the rear yard (east) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a house addition.
Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and explained the applicant's request far
variances in order to allow for the construction of a new garage and an addition to the
rear of the existing home. He stated that this lot is irregular in shape and the house was
placed fairly deep on the lot. He added that the existing detached garage will be
removed.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
May 22, 2012
Page 2
Cera asked abaut the depth of a typical City lot. Hogeboom said there really isn't an
average-sized lot depth, but this lot is deeper than usual making the rear yard setback
larger than most.
John Bean, Applicant, explained that he would like to expand his home because he has
two kids and only two bedrooms. He stated that he doesn't want to build an addition on
fhe front of the home because it would require re-working the interior of the house and it
would look like a big monolithic addition. He added that if the addition was built on the
front of the home four massive oak trees would also need to be removed. If they build
the addition on the rear of the home only one oak tree would need to be removed. He
added that the topography of the property would also make an addition to the front of
the home difficult and he also doesn't want to add on to the front of the house because
it would impact the neighbor's view. He stated that he has also been working with the
neighbor behind him regarding screening the proposed addition with some trees or
landscaping.
Maxwell asked if the existing detached garage would be removed. Bean said yes and
added that a large portion of the pavement would also be removed.
McCarty asked the applicant if he had considered turning the garage 90 degrees or
moving it more westerly so that it would fit within the setback area. Bean said he hadn't
considered that but he would be concerned about the oak trees being damaged. He
added that backing out the driveway is problematic and he's not sure he would have
enough raom for a turnaround if the garage was situated differently. Hogeboom added
that turning the garage 90 degrees would be more visually impactful on the neighbor to
the west.
Maxwelt asked if there are any other unique features of the property other than the
tapography and the original placement of the house on the lot. Bean added that the
depth of the lot is unique.
Nelson said she thinks an attached garage and three bedrooms is a reasonabfe
request. She agreed that it is a very deep lot and the house is set way back on the lot.
She added that she feels the proposal meets the criteria the Board is supposed to
, consider when granting variances, It is keeping within the essential character of the
neighborhood, the situation wasn't caused by this homeowner and the design af the
proposed addition is the least impactful to the neighboring properties. Cera agreed
especially given the depth and topography of the lot. Maxwell also agreed and added
that the proposed addition will be as far away from the rear property line as most
homes are required to be. It is only because the lot is so deep that this property has a
larger than normal rear yard setback requirement.
Nelson opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Nelson closed the public hearing.
McCarty said he thinks the proposed plan and layout are good, but the garage addition
can be done without requiring a variance. He said he understands trying to minimize the
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
May 22, 2012
Page 3
impact to the neighboring property but still feels the garage could be situated in such a
way as to not require a variance.
MOVED by Cera, seconded by Maxwell and mation carried unanimously to approve the
following variance requests:
• 15.42 ft. off the required 53.83 ft. to a distance of 38.41 ft. at its closest point to the
rear yard (east) property line to allow for the construction of a new garage.
• 11.17 ft. off the required 40.33 ft. to a distance of 29.16 ft. at its closest point to the
rear yard (east) property line to allow for the construction of a house addition.
500 Janalyn Circle
Greq and Jeanne Mevissen. Applicants (12-05-07)
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1),
Subd. 11(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements
• 6 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 9 ft. at its closest point to the side
yard (east) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a screen porch on a portion of the
existing deck.
Hogeboom discussed the applicant's request to canstruct a screen porch. He explained
that the property was granted a variance in 1994 to construct a deck and screen porch,
however only the deck was constructed at that time, so after one year the variance for
the screen porch addition expired.
Nelson asked if the footprint of the deck will expand. Hogeboam said no and added that
they are asking for the same variance that was granted in 1994.
Maxwell asked if the deck could be re-built. Hogeboom said yes, the applicant could
rebuild the deck in the same footprint and at the same height, but adding the screen
porch is considered an expansion which requires a variance.
Greg Mevissen, Applicant, stated they are seeking to build the same porch addition, in
the same footprint, that was approved in 1994. He added that he measured the
distance from the existing deck ta the property line to be 13.5 feet but he is requesting
the variance to be 9 feet to the property line so it wouldn't be confusing with what was
approved in 1994. Hogeboom noted that the survey showed the dimension to be 9 feet.
Nelson asked the applicant how long they've lived at this property and if the intention
has always been to construct the proposed screen porch. Mevissen said they've lived in
the home for nine years and they did intend to build the screen porch. He explained that
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
May 22, 2012
Page 4
when the deck was originally constructed the footings were built to accommodate the
porch addition in the future.
Cera questioned what could be considered unique about this property. Mevissen stated
that it is an irregular shaped lot, the house was placed further to the east on the lot and
the deck is already there so it would be awkward to move the entire structure. Maxwell
added that this applicant/homeowner didn't build the deck or the house in their current
location so the situation was not caused by Mr. Mevissen.
Nelson asked if the neighbors to the east are aware of this proposal. Mevissen said
yes.
Rob Odden, On Time Contractors, representing the applicant, explained that there are
some strategically placed piers on the corners of the existing deck in order to
accommodate the screen porch addition, so if they tried to move the structure they
would have to dig up the footings. Cera asked if the footings are original to when the
deck was built. Odden said yes.
Nelson opened the public hearing.
Rob Yost, 504 Janalyn Circle, said he doesn't have any objection to the proposed
screen porch as long at the existing footprint is the same. He asked about the height of
the screen porch. Odden referred to an illustration and explained that the height of the
screen porch will be lower than the existing peak of the house. It will also have the
same roof pitch and be constructed with the same materials as the house.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Nelson closed the public hearing.
McCarty said he is fine with the proposal because the deck already exists and the same
project was approved in the past. He added that he would feel differently if the proposal
was for a new deck and screen poreh.
Maxwell said he also supports the proposal because of the property's unique shape and
the way the house is situated on the lot. Also, the homeowner didn't put the deck or the
house in their existing locations and the screen porch will match the character of the
existing home.
Cera suggested granting a variance for the current distance from the deck to the
property line instead of saying it can be 9 feet away from the side yard property line.
Hogeboom said he is comfortable with the 9-foot dimension as shown on the survey.
MQVED by Maxwell, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to approve the
variance request for 6 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 9 ft. at its closest point to
the side yard (east) property line to allow for the construction of a screen porch an a
portion of the existing deck with the understanding that the porch will not exceed the
footprint of the existing deck.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Baard of Zoning Appeals
May 22, 2012
Page 5
8600 Duluth Street
Greqorv and Kathleen Larson, Applicants (12-05-07)
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1),
Subd. 11(A)(2) Rear Yard Setback Requirements
• 17.6 ft. off the required 25 ft. to a distance of 7.4 ft. at its closest point to the
rear yard (west) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage addition.
Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and explained the applicant's request to
construct a garage addition. He noted that this is a corner lot so the rear yard really acts
more like a side yard in this case. He added that the lot also abuts a nature area, so the
garage addition wauld not impact any neighboring views.
Cera referred to the survey and asked if the existing shed is in a conforming location.
Hogeboom explained that sheds are required to be located 5 feet from rear and side
yard property lines. However, this survey states that the location of the shed is
approximate, so it is difficult to say if it is in a conforming location or not.
Nelson asked what the setback requirement would be if this were not a corner lot.
Hogeboom said the required setback would be 15 feet from a side yard property line.
He noted that the house also sits at an angle on the lot so the garage addition would
only be 7.4 feet from the property line at its closest point.
McCarty said he feels a single-stall garage is a hardship.
Greg Larson, Applicant, explained that this propased garage addition is part of a larger
remodeling plan that may include living space or a deck above the garage, He added
that the driveway is already fairly wide so he may not need to widen it any further to
accommodate the second garage stall.
Hogeboom suggested the Board add language to their motion regarding living space
above the garage so there is no confusion in the future.
Nelson opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Nelson closed the public hearing.
MOVED by Cera, seconded by Maxwell and motion carried unanimously to apprave the
variance request far 17.6 ft, off the required 25 ft. to a distance of 7.4 ft. at its closest
point to the rear yard (west) property line to allow for the construction of a garage
addition with living space above.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
May 22, 2012
Page 6
III. Other Business
No other business was discussed.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8 pm.
.....� �(�_
�
Nancy J. Nelson, Chair Joseph S. H eboom, Staff Liaison