02-26-13 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
February 26, 2013
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday,
� February 26, 2013 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, Johnson, Nelson and Planning
Commission Representatives McCarty and Waldhauser. Also present were City Planner Joe
Hogeboam and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Member Maxwell was absent.
I. Approval of Minutes — January 22, 2012 Regular Meeting
Boudreau-Landis referred to the sixth paragraph on page three and note that the words
"would be" were duplicated in the first sentence.
MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Boudreau-Landis and motion carried unanimously to
approve the January 22, 2012 minutes with the above noted correction.
II. The Petition(s) are:
4505 Sunset Ridge
Duc and Jennifer Trinh, Applicants (13-02-031
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1),
Subd. 11(A)(1) FrontYard Setback Requirements
• 6.5 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 28.5 ft. at its closest point to
the front yard (east) property line.
Hogeboom referred to a location map of the property. He explained that the applicant is
proposing to build an addition on the east side of the existing house. During the building
permit process it was discovered that there is a platted street (Sumac Road) along the east
side of the property causing the request to become a variance from front yard setback
requirements rather than side yard requirements. He stated that the applicant could have
petitioned the City to vacate Sumac Road but the process is longer and more expense. He
added that the City hasn't vacated Sumac Road because the homeowners haven't petitianed
to have it vacated. He noted that this property received a variance in 2001 to allow a deck in
the rear yard to be closer to the pool than allowed.
Boudreau-Landis asked if the homeowner would have to buy the land if the street were
vacated. Hogeboom explained that the property owners on either side of the platted street
would receive half of the property. However, in this case there are utilities there so the City
would need to retain an easement over it. Waldhauser asked if the City could vacate the
platted street in this case instead of requiring the homeowner to petition for the vacation.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
February 26, 2013
Page 2
Hogeboom stated that without a homeowner petition the City would have to pay the
surveying and platting costs involved.
Johnson questioned the application where it states that the size of the addition would need
to be reduced to 20 feet in width, rather than the proposed 36 feet in width if the variance
isn't approved. Duc Trinh, Applicant, stated that the proposed addition includes a bedroom
and without the variance the bedroom would be too small and would have to be removed
from the plans.
McCarty said the proposal seems fine, but it is hard to tell without seeing floor plans if the
project could be redesigned withaut the need for a variance.
Nelson stated that having two front yards seems to cause problems and in this case the front
yard setback along Sumac Drive acts more like a side yard since Sumac Drive hasn't been
constructed and is really a "fictitious" street.
Nelson opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Nelson
closed the public hearing.
MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to approve
the variance request for 6.5 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 28.5 ft. at its closest
point to the front yard (east) property line
2944 Perry Avenue North
Scott Jorqenson, Applicant (13-02-04,�
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1),
Subd. 11(A)(3)(b) Side Yard Setback Requirements
• 7.5 ft. off of the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 5 ft. at its closest point to the
side yard (south) property line.
Hogeboom referred to a location map of the property. He explained that the home
currently has a one-stall garage that the applicant would like to replace with a two-stall
garage. He stated that the existing garage is located almost 15 feet away from the side
yard property line so there is not enough room to add a second garage stall without a
variance.
Nelson asked about the size of a typical two-stall garage. Hogeboom said 22 x 22 is
fairly standard for a two-stall garage.
Waldhauser asked if the proposed new garage would be standard in height or if it would
be taller. Hogeboom said the height of the proposed garage seems to be standard.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
February 26, 2013
Page 3
Scott Jorgenson, Applicant, explained that they are trying to keep the character and
design of the existing home and that the proposed garage would not be taller than a
standard garage.
Waldhauser asked if the existing garage would be torn down and rebuilt or if a second
stall is just being added. Jorgenson stated that the existing garage will be torn down
and rebuilt.
Waldhauser noted that a portion of the breezeway will be removed asked the applicant
if he has considered removing the breezeway entirely so there could be a larger side
yard setback area. Jorgenson said he thought removing the breezeway would make the
home look out of character.
Nelson stated that the board is sympathetic in allowing two-stall garages but noted that
the garage being proposed is wider and deeper than a typical garage. Waldhauser
noted that the depth of the garage doesn't require a variance. Jorgenson added that the
proposed extra depth of the garage helped them get more storage area without
changing the character of the front of the house.
Boudreau-Landis asked how long the carport has been in place. Jorgenson said he's
not sure, but it was there when they purchased the house and he thinks it has been
there for a while.
Boudreau-Landis asked the applicant if he has talked to the neighboring property
owners. Jorgenson said he has talked to his neighbors and they seem pleased and he
hasn't heard any concerns.
Boudreau-Landis asked if the existing pine tree in front of the parking space would have
to be removed. Jorgenson said that the tree should be able to stay. He added that the
existing concrete area will stay so there should be no need to remove the pine tree.
Johnson asked if the applicant would still need a variance if he were to remove the
entire breezeway. Jorgenson said the proposed new garage might fit without needing a
variance if the entire breezeway was removed but it would change the whole front of the
house. Boudreau-Landis said he thinks a variance would still be required even if the
breezeway were removed. Waldhauser agreed but noted that the applicants could also
build a smaller garage. Hogeboom added that the breezeway adds articulation to the
front fa�ade of the house. Waldhauser stated that there would still be articulation and
she's not sure that if the fact that the proposal looks nice is justification for a variance.
Boudreau-Landis referred to the criteria that the Board has to consider when granting
variances and noted that the proposal is reasonable, the need for a variance is
somewhat unique to the property, the need for a variance is not caused by the
landowner and the proposal doesn't alter the character of the neighborhood.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
February 26, 2013
Page 4
Waldhauser stated that the need for a variance is caused by the landowner because
they want to keep the breezeway. They do have other options like butting the proposed
new garage right up the house or making the garage smaller. McCarty agreed there
may be other options but said he appreciates that the applicant is proposing to take
some space from the existing breezeway for the proposed new garage. He said he
understands that a one-stall garage is a hardship and he is supportive of the variance in
this case even though the project could possibly be done without a variance.
Nelson stated that this variance request is not inconsistent with what the Board has
done in other cases. She said she doesn't want to force the hameowners to build
something that won't look as nice or function as well.
Baudreau-Landis agreed that there may be other options such as a detached garage,
which is less than ideal. He said he also appreciates that the applicant has proposed to
take away some of the breezeway space for the proposed new garage.
Johnson questioned if there are any requirements the Board should consider regarding
the proposed golf cart door on the side of the garage. McCarty stated there are
requirements regarding paved areas but not about where applicants want to install
doors. Jorgenson noted that the paved area going all the way to the property line
already exists.
Nelson opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to speak, Nelson
closed the public hearing.
MOVED by Boudreau-Landis, seconded by McCarty and motion carried 4 to 1 to
approve the variance request for 7.5 ft. off of the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 5 ft. at
its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Commissioner Waldhauser voted
no.
III. Other Business
No other business was discussed.
N. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:38 pm.
�
Nancy J. Nels Chair seph Hogeboom, Staff Liaison