05-28-13 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
May 28, 2013
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday,
May 28, 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, Fonnest, Johnson, Maxwell, Nelson and Planning
Commission Representative McCarty. Also present were City Planner Joe Hogeboom,
Planning Intern Brett Angell and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman.
I. Approval of Minutes —April 23, 2013 Regular Meeting
Nelson referred to the second sentence in the third paragraph on page five and noted that
"Johnson" should be changed to "Nelson."
MOVED by Fonnest, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to approve
the April 23, 2013 minutes with the above noted correction.
II. The Petition(s) are:
1719 Xerxes Avenue North
Jean Kidd & Dennv Lutqen, Applicants (13-05-05)
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1),
Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements
• 4 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 31 ft. at its closest point to the
front yard (west) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new home.
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1),
Subd. 11(A)(2) Rear Yard Setback Requirements
• 20.99 ft. off of the required 26.99 ft. to a distance of 6 ft. at its closest point
to the rear yard (east) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new home.
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1),
Subd. 11(A)(3)(d) Articulation Requirements
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
May 28, 2013
Page 2
• City Code requires any wall longer than 32 feet in length to articulate. The
applicant is asking for the north wall of the proposed home to be 57 ft. in
length without articulation.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new home.
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1),
Subd. 11(A)(3)(d) Articulation Requirements
• City Code requires any wall longer than 32 feet in length to articulate. The
applicant is asking for the south wall of the proposed home to be 60 ft. in
length without articulation.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new home.
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1),
Subd. 19(B) Paved Area Setback Requirements
• 3 ft. off of the required 3 ft. to a distance of 0 ft. at its closest point to the
side yard (south) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new driveway.
Hogeboom referred to a site plan and explained that the applicants are proposing to tear
down the existing house and build a new one. He noted that there are significant topography
issues on this property and a large oak tree the applicants are trying to avoid. He explained
that the proposed new house would be primarily in the same location as the existing house
however it is shifting toward the south, further away from the neighbor to the north.
Maxwell asked why the property line along York Avenue is subject to front yard setback
requirements. Hogeboom stated that any property line along a street right-of-way is
considered to be a front property line.
Hogeboom referred to plans of the proposed house and noted that even though the
articulation requirements won't be met, the intent will because of the design of the eaves,
windows and doors along the north and south sides of the home. He added that the existing
shed located on the property will be removed. McCarty questioned how the intent of the
articulation requirements would be met if the walls are on one continuous plane.
Maxwell asked if the proposed new driveway will be in the same location as the existing
driveway. Hogeboom stated that the new driveway will be in the same location. He added
that if the proposed new garage were detached there would be a 5-foot setback requirement.
Johnson asked if the existing fence along the driveway would remain. Hogeboom said he
believes the applicants are planning to remove it.
Minutes of the Golden Vailey Board of Zoning Appeals
May 28, 2013
Page 3
Jean Kidd, Applicant, showed an illustration of the propased new house. She reiterated that
the house would be primarily in the same the location as the existing house, however they
are proposing to create more distance between them and the neighbor to the north, which
will improve the neighbor's site lines. She referred to the articulation requirements and stated
that it would be difficult to articulate the walls while trying to maintain an old oak tree that
currently exists on the property. She added that she thinks the proposed new house will be
an asset to the neighborhood and that she is working with the bank that owns the hause to
the south regarding the fence issue.
Nelson said she thinks the proposed house is in harmony with the intent of the Zoning Code,
the proposed use is reasonable and the property is unique because of the topography and
that fact that it has two front yards. She referred to the variance regarding articulation and
said that she is ok with the way the house is being proposed because the walls will be
broken up with windows, eaves and doors and won't be one long expansive wall with no
detail. Kidd added that staying away from the existing oak tree on the property is the most
important thing and the reason that they are proposing to build in the location shown on the
survey.
Fonnest questioned the alignment of the driveway and the proposed garage and asked if the
garage could be moved further north. Kidd stated that moving the garage further north would
take away from the view on that end of the house. She added that the dimensions of the new
garage are the same as the existing garage.
McCarty asked the applicant if she is intending to use the existing foundation. Kidd said no,
there will be a new foundation in approximately the same location.
Nelson opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Nelson
elosed the public hearing.
Johnson stated that the property is unique, there will be almost no impact to the neighbars
and the proposed new house will be an improvement to the area. He added that the location
of the existing fence gives him pause, but he is supportive of the variances as requested.
Nelson agreed and stated that there are a lot of complicated issues with this site. Maxwell
also agreed that the property is unique, the problems weren't caused by the current
landowners and the proposal won't impact anything around it.
McCarty stated that he is having difficulty supporting these variance requests. He said if the
applicants were proposing to modify or add on to the existing house he might feel more
inclined to grant the requested variances, however with new construction he thinks there is
more room to build without needing variances. He said he understands the applicant wanting
to save the large oak tree but he doesn't think the Board should take that into consideration.
He said he understands the constraints on the site but he thinks an architect could have
followed the Zoning Code and with some redesign the applicants could meet many of the
requirements given that it is new construction.
Minutes of the Goiden Valiey Board of Zoning Appeals
May 28, 2013
Page 4
Johnson questioned where a garage could be built. McCarty said that a detached garage
could be built. He added that he is more inclined to approve the variances regarding the
proposed garage than the variances from the front yard setbacks and articulation
requirements. Nelson stated that if there was a true front and rear yard, rather than two front
yards they would be having a different discussion. She also said she is considering the
topography of the lot more than the existing oak tree. McCarty reiterated that he thinks the
proposed new house could meet the articulation and front yard setback requirements.
Fonnest asked the applicant if she has considered positioning the house differently. Kidd
said they have considered different locations for the house, however there is a very small
narrow space where the lot is flat enough. They are also constrained by having two front
yards and she believes the trees are an important, valuable and an asset worth saving.
McCarty stated that he thinks the proposed design is very nice and he is not saying that
trees aren't valuable, he just doesn't think the Board is supposed to base their decisions on
trees being removed. He added that there are many properties in Golden Valley that have
topography issues so walk-outs are built or the properties are graded differently.
Johnson referred to the impact on the neighborhood and noted that this property is difficult to
see so he feels that the proposed construction won't impact or change the neighborhood.
Nelson reiterated that the criteria the Board is supposed to consider when granting variances
are being met. The proposal is in harmony with the intent of the Zoning Code, the proposal is
reasonable, the essential character of the locality will not be changed, rather it will be
enhanced and the property is unique in its shape, topography and the fact that there are two
front yards.
MOVED by Fonnest, seconded by Maxwell and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve the variance
request for 4 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 31 ft. at its closest point to the front
yard (west) property line for a proposed new home. McCarty voted no.
MOVED by Fonnest, seconded by Maxwell and motion carried unanimously to approve the
variance request for 20.99 ft. off of the required 26.99 ft. to a distance of 6 ft. at its closest
point to the rear yard (east) property line for a proposed new home.
MOVED by Fonnest, seconded by Maxwell and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve the
variance request to allow the north wall of the proposed home to be 57 ft. in length
without articulation. McCarty voted no.
MOVED by Fonnest, seconded by Maxwell and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve the
variance request to allow the south wall of the proposed home to be 60 ft. in length
without articulation. McCarty voted no.
MOVED by Fonnest, seconded by Maxwell and motion carried unanimously to approve
the variance request for 3 ft. off of the required 3 ft. to a distance of 0 ft. at its closest
point to the side yard (south) property line for a proposed new driveway.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
May 28, 2013
Page 5
2429 Parkview Bivd.
Matt Tyson, Applicant (13-05-061
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1),
Subd. 11(A)(3)(b) Side Yard Setback Requirements
• 10 ft. off of the required 15 ft. to a distance of 5 ft. at its closest point to the
side yard (north) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a second story addition.
Angell referred to a survey of the property and explained the applicanYs proposal to
construct a second story addition on the existing house. He added that the addition
would not be located any closer to the side yard (north) property line than the existing
house is currently.
Fonnest asked about the height of the house after the proposed addition is constructed.
Angell stated that the height of house will be 20 feet on the north side.
Matt Tyson, contractor representing Push Properties, stated that they are trying to
create a modern house with the bedrooms and bathrooms on the second level. He
stated that the existing home is currently located too close to the north property line and
they are trying to keep the design from looking too "boxy."
Nelson asked if the home will still look like it is a story and a half. Tyson said yes and
added that the house would not be taller than the 28-foot height limit as stated in the
Zoning Code. Nelson said she is concerned about how much taller the home will be
compared to how tall it is currently. Johnson noted that there are several different types
of homes in this neighborhood and that this house will be bigger, but in context it will
just have a different iook. Tyson said they have considered many different design
options that ended up looking bad.
Johnson asked if there have been any comments from the neighbors. Hogeboam
stated that staff received an email regarding the maintenance of the property but he
thinks the neighbors are ok with the proposed construction.
Nelson opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to comment,
Nelson closed the public hearing.
Fonnest compared this request to a similar request that the Board denied at their
meeting last month. He said he thinks this proposed project will be a vast improvement
to the neighborhood but he doesn't know if he can support a request for a second story
addition that close to the property line. Maxwell noted that the houses around the house
in last month's request were all similar in style whereas the homes in this area have
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
May 28, 2013
Page 6
different character. Fonnest stated that the area depends on how the word locality is
defined and that this house will be bigger in size and scope than other properties in this
neighborhood. Nelson said she too considered the Board's decision last month,
however this home won't be much taller than the existing home. Maxwell agreed and
added that the existing home is already a story and a half style house, not a rambler
going to two-stories. McCarty agreed and stated that he is favor of the requested
variances.
Nelson stated that she feels the request meets the criteria that the Board is required to
consider.
MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to approve
the variance request for 10 ft. off of the required 15 ft. to a distance of 5 ft. at its closest
point to the side yard (north) property line to allow for the construction of a second story
addition.
7759 Winsdale Street
Duane Tierney, Applicant (13-05-07)
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1),
Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements
• 12 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 23 ft. at its closest point to the
front yard (north) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new garage.
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1),
Subd. 11(A)(2) Rear Yard Setback Requirements
• 24.80 ft. off of the required 28.80 ft. to a distance of 4 ft. at its closest point
ta the rear yard (east) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new garage.
Angell referred to a survey of the property and explained the applicant's request to build
a two-stall garage.
Fonnest asked if staff has any concerns about the proposed garage being located 4
feet from the property line as shown on the survey. Hogeboom stated that the
Inspections Department may require different construction methods for a structure
located that close to a property line and there may be concerns about access issues.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
May 28, 2013
Page 7
Nelson stated that she is typically in favor of allowing people to build two-stall garages
however this proposed garage is really close to the property line. Angell noted that the
proposed new garage would be 24 x 28 in size.
Fonnest asked if the roof line on the proposed garage would match the existing roof line
of the house. McCarty stated that the roof of the proposed garage would probably be
taller.
Nelson asked if the applicant is proposing to add-on to the existing garage in order to
get a two-stall garage or if the intention is to convert the existing garage into living
space and then construct a two-stall garage. Maxwell stated that the survey seems to
indicate that the existing garage would be converted into living space.
Duane Tierney, Applicant, stated that his plan is to keep the roof line af the proposed
new garage the same as the existing house.
Nelson asked the applicant if the existing garage would be converted into living space.
Tierney stated that he anticipates that he will eventually convert the existing garage into
living space. McCarty questioned if in the meantime the existing garage would remain
garage space. Tierney said yes.
Nelson said she would feel more comfortable allowing the applicant to add an additional
garage space onto his existing garage in order to get a two-stall garage rather than
adding a new two-stall garage onto the existing garage.
Johnson stated that the proposed new garage wauld not impinge or encroach on the
neighboring properties and the applicant's request doesn't seem to be inconsistent with
the houses in the neighborhood.
Netson reiterated that she would be in favor of allowing a second garage stall to be built
but she is not in favor of turning the existing garage into a three-stall garage especially
when it would require such a large variance. Maxwell nated that either way, a front yard
variance would be required. Tierney added that the house on the neighboring property
to the east of his proposed garage addition is very far away.
Maxwell said he would be inclined to grant the variance as requested for the front yard
and suggested that the Board consider allowing a garage addition to be 10 feet from
the east property line instead of the requested 4 feet.
Johnson questioned how the Board would feel if the applicant converted the existing
garage into living space and then asked to construct a finro-stall garage. Hogeboom
stated that the Zoning Code requires that there be enough space on a property to
provide for a two-stall garage.
McCarty expressed concern over not seeing a plan for the proposed garage and just
relying on the applicant stating that someday he hopes to convert the existing garage
into living space.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
May 28, 2013
Page 8
Nelson explained to the applicant that the Board could table his request and he could
come back to the Board with more detailed plans of the proposed garage. Maxwell
explained to the applicant that the Board is trying to allow him enough space to build
another garage stall further away from the east property line than the proposed 4 feet.
The applicant agreed that he would like to table his request and come back to the
Board with more detailed plans for a finro-stall garage.
MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Fonnest and motion carried unanimously to table the
applicant's request.
III. Other Business
Election of Officers
MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously elect Maxwell
as Chair. Maxwell accepted the nomination.
MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Maxwell and motion carried unanimously elect Johnson
as Vice Chair. Johnson accepted the nomination.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:45 pm.
���
, � �.� �--,�.�_��
Nancy J. Nelson, Chair J seph 3�. Hogeboom, Staff Liaison