07-23-13 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
July 23, 2013
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday,
July 23, 2013 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair
Maxwell 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 — June 25, 2013 Regular Meeting
MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Fonnest and motion carried unanimously to approve
the June 25, 2013 minutes as submitted.
II. The Petition(s) are:
8851 7th Avenue North
Sweet Cream Properties Golden Vallev, LLC dba Culver's, Applicant (13-07-10)
Request: Waiver from Section 11.30, Commercial Zoning District,
Subd. 9(B)(3) Side and Rear Yard Setback Requirements
• 8 ft. aff of the required 20 ft. to a distance of 12 ft. at its closest point to the
side yard (south) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction two-stall garage/dumpster enclosure
Request: Waiver from Section 11.30, Commercial Zoning District,
Subd. 9(B)(3) Side and Rear Yard Setback Requirements
• 9 ft. off of the required 20 ft. to a distance of 11 ft. at its closest point to the
rear yard (east) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the canstruction two-stall garage/dumpster enclosure
Angell referred to a site plan of the property and explained the applicant's proposal to build a
two-stall garage/dumpster enclosure closer to the south and east property lines than
allowed. Hogeboom explained that the applicant recently received approval for a Conditional
Use Permit to allow for the operation of a drive-thru window.
Julie Peterson, Applicant, explained that she would like to have the two-stall garage space
because they need space to store their patio umbrellas and the custard cart and trailer that
they take to events. She stated that they have considered other locations on the property for
the structure but the options considered took away too many parking spaces.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
July 23, 2013
Page 2
Nelson asked about the required number of parking spaces. Hogeboom stated that the site
is right at the required number of parking spaces and if they took away any spaces they
would be under-parked.
Nelson asked if a variance would be needed if the proposal was just for a dumpster.
Peterson said no, a dumpster could be in this proposed location. She stated that if the
garage/dumpster were moved to a different location the drive-thru traffic and pedestrian
traffic would also be impeded.
Nelson noted that two of the questions weren't addressed on the application and asked the
applicant what is unique about the property and why the need for a variance isn't being
necessitated by the landowner. Chris McGuire, Contractor for the project, explained that the
major reason for the variance is the parking. If the garage/dumpster is placed anywhere else
on the property blind intersections will be created. He added that the garage/dumpster will be
located near the Perkin's dumpster, it will be constructed with the same materials as the
building and will appear as if it is just a slightly larger dumpster. Johnson noted that Perkin's
dumpster is located away from their windows. McGuire stated that the proposed location
works for access and truck alignment as well.
McCarty asked how tall the garage/dumpster will be. McGuire said it will be 8 feet tall with a
pitched roof.
Maxwell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Maxwell closed the public hearing.
McCarty said he is comfortable with the proposal and thinks the impact is minimal.
Nelson agreed and said parking and safety issues meet the criteria the Board considers.
Fonnest also agreed and said the garage/dumpster won't be obvious to anyone and if it is
well maintained it should be fine.
Maxwell read the criteria the Board is to consider when granting variances and stated that
the proposal is in harmony with the City Code's intent, it is consistent with City's
Comprehensive Plan, it is a reasonable request, the circumstance is unique and the
proposal won't negatively impact the surrounding property owners.
MOVED by Fonnest, seconded by Nelson and motion carried unanimously to approve the
following variance requests to allow for the construction two-stall garage/dumpster
enclosure:
• 8 ft. off of the required 20 ft. to a distance of 12 ft. at its closest point to the side yard
(south) property line.
• 9 ft. off of the required 20 ft. to a distance of 11 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard
(east) property line.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
July 23, 2013
Page 3
517 Clover Lane
Jamie Paul and Natalie Schaefer, Applicants (13-07-11)
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1),
Subd. 11(A)(2) Rear Yard Setback Requirements
• 4.14 ft. off of the required 25.76 ft. to a distance of 21.62 ft. at its closest point
to the rear yard (northeast) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a deck in the rear yard.
Angell explained the applicant's request to construct a deck in their rear yard. He showed the
Board the proposed deck plans and noted that the lot is oddly shaped.
McCarty asked if there are height limitations for decks. Hogeboom said there are no height
limitations, however if a deck is under 8 inches in height it is not considered to be a structure
and therefore does not need to follow setback requirements.
Johnson referred to the application and questioned why the applicant wrote that a 15 foot
variance would allow for the construction of the proposed deck however, the agenda calls for
a variance of 4.14 feet. Jamie Paul, Applicant, explained that he initially asked for 15 feet
because the lot is oddly shaped. He stated that he just wants enough room to construct a
14-foot wide deck however the numbers work out.
Nelson noted that the current configuration of the steps is awkward and doesn't function
properly.
Hogeboom stated that the home is set further back on the lot than required and that if the
home were built at the 35-foot front yard setback line the proposed deck would fit within the
setback areas and would not need a variance.
Maxwell opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to comment,
Maxwell closed the public hearing.
Fonnest said this proposal seems reasonable and it will enhance the usability of the home.
Johnson agreed. Nelson a(so agreed and stated the proposal is in harmony with the City
Code's intent, it is consistent with City's Comprehensive Plan, the circumstance is unique
because of how far back the house sits on the property and the proposal won't negatively
impact the surrounding property owners.
MOVED by Nelson, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to approve
the variance request for 4.14 ft. off of the required 25.76 ft. to a distance of 21.62 ft. at
its closest point to the rear yard (northeast) property line to allow for the construction of
deck in the rear yard.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
July 23, 2013
Page 4
2720 Noble Avenue North
David and Wanda DeRemer, Applicants (13-07-12)
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1),
Subd. 11(Aj(3)(b) Side Yard Setback Requirements
• 11 ft. off of the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 1.5 ft. at its closest point to
the side yard (north) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the replacement of the carport in the same location.
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1),
Subd. 19(B) Paved Area Requirements
• 1.5 ft. off of the required 3 ft. to a distance of 1.5 ft. at its closest point to the
side yard (north) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the replacement of the driveway in the same location.
Angell referred to a site plan and photos of the property and explained the applicants'
proposal to replace the existing carport and driveway in their same locations.
Maxwell asked if the existing carport and driveway are grandfathered in. Hogeboom
explained that the existing carport and driveway are grandfathered in, however the
proposed new carport will be taller which is considered to be an expansion and
therefore it requires a variance. McCarty noted that the proposed carport will also be
deeper than the existing carport.
Johnson referred to the application where it states that a small portion of the
neighboring driveway is on the applicant's property and questioned if that matters.
Hogeboom stated that it would matter if the proposal was impacting the neighboring
property, but this proposal doesn't. He added that if the driveways were built today, they
would have to be located three feet away from the property line.
David DeRemer, Applicant, stated that in the process of replacing the driveway
underneath the carport it was discovered that the contractor couldn't get his equipment
under the carport, so they decided they would like to raise the height of the carport,
necessitating a variance.
Maxwell asked DeRemer if the carport existed when he purchased the house.
DeRemer said yes.
Nelson asked about the dimensions of the carport. DeRemer said it is currently about 5
feet shorter than the end of the house and he would like to carport to be the same
depth as the house.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
July 23, 2013
Page 5
Maxwell asked if there is only one garage stall without the carport. DeRemer said yes.
Fonnest asked if the overhang of the carport hangs over the property line. DeRemer
said no, not quite. Hogeboom explained that eaves and overhangs can go 30 inches
into a setback area, but they would not get a building permit if they cross over a
property line.
Maxwell questioned the unique circumstances with this property. DeRemer said there
are no other options because the property is heavily wooded. Maxwell asked DeRemer
if he had cansidered constructing a second garage stall instead. DeRemer said he
didn't think a garage addition would be approved because a garage is required to be
further away from the property line to accommodate for emergency vehicles.
Maxwell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Maxwell closed the public hearing.
Hogeboom stated that he received a phone call from a neighbor expressing support of
the proposal.
Maxwell referred the criteria the Board considers when granting variances and stated that
the proposal is in harmony with the City Code's intent, it is consistent with City's
Comprehensive Plan, it is a reasonable request, the circumstance is unique and the
proposal won't negatively impact the surrounding property owners, therefore he is in favor
of the proposal. Nelson agreed.
MOVED by Fonnest, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to approve
the following variances:
• 11 ft. off of the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 1.5 ft. at its closest point to the side
yard (north) property line to allow for the replacement of the carport in the same
location.
• 1.5 ft. off of the required 3 ft. to a distance of 1.5 ft. at its closest point to the side
yard (north) property line to allow for the replacement of the driveway in the same
location.
2507 Meridian Drive
Dan Stark, Applicant (13-07-13)
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1),
Subd. 11(A)(3)(b) Side Yard Setback Requirements
• 5.5 ft. off of the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 7 ft. at its closest point to the
side yard (south) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new deck.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
July 23, 2013
Page 6
Angell referred to a survey of the property and explained that the applicant is proposing
to build a deck that will match the existing plane of the garage which is located 7 feet
from south property line.
Josh Friberg, Contractor for the project, explained that an alternative would be to have
a landing space with steps in the setback area. However, that would greatly diminish
the space and he couldn't install the required footings. He added that they want to
encapsulate the existing steps and make it more attractive.
McCarty questioned the dimensions of the deck and noted that the last step on the
existing set of steps doesn't go all the way to the edge of the garage like the proposed
deck would. Friberg stated that the 12.5 foot setback measurement is right in the middle
of the existing third step up.
Nelson asked Friberg if he had considered going the other way (toward the norEh, rear
yard) with the proposed deck. Friberg explained that the existing door on the side of the
house will become a window and the existing window on the back of the house will
become a sliding door onto the proposed deck. He added that they are trying to create
a sitting area on the south side. McCarty stated that a bigger deck could be created in
the other area toward the back yard, rather than on the side.
Maxwell questioned what is unique about the property. Friberg stated that the location
of the existing garage and the fact that the neighboring house is two feet away from the
side yard property line are unique. He reiterated that they are trying to cover the
unsightly stairs and make the property more attractive.
Maxwell asked if a variance would still be required if the deck were built just to the edge
of the steps and not to the edge of the garage. Friberg said yes, they would still need a
variance of approximately two feet. Dan Stark, Applicant, stated that the neighbor is
supportive of the proposed deck.
McCarty asked Friberg if they had considered removing the existing steps instead of
covering them up. Friberg said they have considered that but it is not cost effective or
easy to do. McCarty agreed but noted that they are asking for a large variance for a
large deck.
Maxwell stated that the Board tries not to grant variances for more than what is needed
and asked Stark if he would be willing to take a smaller variance in order to just cover
the existing steps and not extend the deck all the way to the edge of the garage.
Johnson said he thinks extending the deck to be along the same plane as the garage
would make for a cleaner look. He added that other neighbors seemed to have done
the same thing and the proposed design seems to make sense.
Nelson agreed that the look would be cleaner but noted that the houses are close
together in this neighborhood so she is concerned about the impact on the neighbors.
McCarty agreed that the proposed deck would be visually impactful because it will be
three or four feet high and will look down into the neighbor's yard. Stark stated that the
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
July 23, 2013
Page 7
proposed location of the deck is really the only place that seems to make sense to have
a deck. He added that there are also two big trees in the back yard that he would like to
avoid.
McCarty said it seems like the proposed deck could be built a bit further away from side
yard property line in order to be less impactful. Stark stated that the neighbor has a
privacy fence and their back yard is lower than his so he doesn't think they'll be able to
see the proposed deck.
Maxwell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Maxwell closed the public hearing.
Fonnest said he shares McCarty's concerns about the impact on the neighboring
property.
Nelson asked the applicant how long he has lived in this house. Stark said seven years.
Nelson said that it seems to her like the deck could be moved further toward the north.
Maxell suggested allowing a variance for 3.5 feet off the required 12.5 feet to a distance
of 9 feet for the proposed deck.
Johnson said he thinks this is a no win situation and that any structure will have an
impact on the neighboring property whether or not the deck is a foot or two smaller. He
said it feels like they are splitting hairs and making the deck look choppy instead of
making the best of a bad situation. McCarty stated that the City has articulation
requirements and he feels that lessening the impact to the neighboring property is
significant. Stark said he thinks the impact is already there with the garage being
located where it is and he would not be going any closer to the neighboring property
than the garage already does.
Maxwell said he feels there are a few unique features with this property. There is a
huge set of unsightly steps that are problematic and may have frost footing underneath,
the houses in the neighborhood were placed close to the property lines and the
applicant didn't place the house or the steps where they are currently located.
McCarty said he still believes the steps could be removed. He said he would be willing
to support a lesser variance in order to give the applicant some flexibility, but not the
variance as requested because the footings for the proposed new deck would not
interfere with the existing steps. Nelson said she thinks the applicant could get what
they want and have an aesthetically pleasing deck with a smaller variance.
Maxwell asked if a variance for 3.5 feet off the required 12.5 feet to a distance of 9 feet
for the proposed deck would work. Friberg said that 2 feet off the required 12.5 feet to a
distance of 10.5 feet would bring the proposed deck to the bottom of the existing steps.
Maxwell asked Stark if he is interest�d in changing his variance request. Stark said yes.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
July 23, 2013
Page 8
MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Fonnest and motion carried unanimously to approve
a variance for 2 feet off the required 12.5 feet to a distance of 10.5 feet at its closest
point to the side yard (south) property line to allow for the construction of a new deck.
4032 Wayzata Blvd.
Joseph Cool, Applicant, (13-07-15)
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1),
Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements
• 5 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 30 ft. at its closest point to the
front yard (south) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new home.
Angell stated that the applicant is proposing to construct a new home on this vacant
property. He explained that there was previously a house on this property that burned
down in 2004 and that the proposed new house would follow a similar footprint as the
previous house.
Nelson stated that she is comfortable with this proposal due to the slope of the lot, the
fact that the proposed new house will be built where the previous house was located,
and that the proposed new house will line up with other houses next to it.
Johnson asked about the wooden stakes he saw in the ground on the property. Brent
Kompelinn, representing the applicant, explained that some of the stakes are marking
the setback lines and some are marking where the house will be located.
Johnson said it seems as if moving the house back 5 feet wouldn't put it too close to the
slope. Kompelinn stated that the bottom of the hill is located in that area. Also there are
trees there and the drainage could be problematic if the house were moved back 5 feet.
Johnson asked if the existing retaining walls would remain. Kompelinn said yes and
added that the house would be approximately 10 feet away from the retaining wall.
Maxwell asked Hogeboom if the proposed new house would be located in the same
place as the previous house. Hogeboom said he believes so and added that a portion
of this property was taken by MnDOT during the construction of 1-394.
Maxwell opened the public hearing.
Linda Fahrendorff, 4022 Wayzata Blvd, said she is interested in what will be built on
this property. She stated that she needed a variance to build her garage because
MnDOT also took property from her. She added that the previous home did line up with
her house.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
July 23, 2013
Page 9
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Maxwell closed the public
hearing.
Hogeboom referred to the site plan submitted and stated that the applicant understands
that there are other requirements he will have to meet and that the site plan he
submitted shows more of a building envelope area than the actual shape of the house.
Fonnest said he is comfortable with the applicant's request.
Johnson said when a property owner is starting with a blank slate he feels inclined to
require they work within the setback requirements, but in this case he is supportive
because the proposed house will line up the house next to it.
McCarty stated that the proposed new house would line up with the house to the east,
but not the house to west and that the grade does not look that steep to him. He said
he is having a hard time seeing the justification for variances in this case where it is a
blank slate.
Nelson said she is considering the impact to the neighborhood and added that the
topography is fairly steep. McCarty noted that the Board hasn't seen a house plan, all
they've seen is a building envelope area. Hogeboom stated that the applicant is
planning on meeting the rest of the setback requirements.
Johnson agreed that the applicant is trying to keep in harmony with the surrounding
properties.
MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Fonnest and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve a
variance for 5 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 30 ft. at its closest point to the
front yard (south) property line to allow for the construction of a new home. McCarty
voted no.
2390 Wisconsin Ave N
Jon Stadtherr & Karen Murphy, Applicants (13-07-16)
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1),
Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements
• 7 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 28 ft. at its closest point to the
front yard (west) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a closed front porch addition.
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1),
Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
July 23, 2013
Page 10
• 4 ft. off of the required 30 ft. to a distance of 26 ft. at its closest point to the
front yard (west) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of an open front porch addition.
Angell referred to a survey of the property and explained the applicants' request to build a
closed front porch and an open front porch.
Nelson asked about the current distance between the house and the front property line.
Angell stated that the house is 37 feet from the front property line and the garage is 35 feet
from the front property line.
McCarty questioned the use of the words "open front porch" versus "covered walkway"
versus "closed front porch" and "foyer." Hogeboom explained that the Zoning Code
considers anything covered with a roof and having no windows to be an open front porch,
Maxwell questioned the numbers in the requested variances. He said he thinks the requests
should be 5 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 30 ft. for the closed front porch and 2 ft.
off of the required 30 ft. to a distance of 28 ft. for the open front porch. Hogeboom stated
that the numbers shown on the agenda are correct because the existing house is located 37
feet away from the front property line.
Nelson asked the applicant if there is access into the house from the garage. Jon Stadtherr,
Applicant, said yes. He explained that the house is a split level home with at 4-foot wide
entryway. A larger entryway would accommodate his mother-in-law's walker and would also
allow more than two people at a time to be in the entryway.
Nelson asked the applicant how long they've owned the property. Karen Stadtherr, Applicant
said they've owned the property for 9 years. She reiterated that the current entryway is
inconvenient for her mother who has a walker and added that there is no other place to put a
new front entryway.
McCarty asked about the dimensions of the proposed new entryway. Jon Stadtherr stated
that the proposed closed front porch would measure 9 feet deep by 10 feet wide which
would require a variance of 7 feet.
McCarty referred to the drawing of the proposed entryway and asked what would be in the
second story portion of the structure. Jon Stadtherr explained that it would be an open, two-
story foyer.
Fonnest noted that the drawings submitted with the application indicate that there would be a
window in the proposed new entryway and asked if that was still in the plans. Karen
Stadtherr said yes, they are proposing to break up the look of the structure with more details.
McCarty asked the applicants if they are proposing to re-do the existing walkway. Jon
Stadtherr said yes.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
July 23, 2013
Page 11
Maxwell asked the applicants if there are any other unique features with the property. Jon
Stadtherr said he thinks it's important to keep the value of home up. Maxwell stated that split
level homes have limited access, especially for people with mobility issues. Karen Stadtherr
added that there is also a safety concern when coming up the stairs and being hit by the
front door. McCarty suggested reversing the door swing to allow the door to swing out rather
than in. Jon Stadtherr stated that the wind is too strong for the door to swing out and that he
has already had to replace two storm doors.
Maxwell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Maxwell closed the public hearing.
Fonnest asked if the existing doorway would be removed. Jon Stadtherr said yes and
explained that they would like to have any entry closet as well as a larger entryway space.
Nelson said she doesn't have an issue with open front porches or covered walkways, it is the
closed front porch part of this request that she is struggling with because it would have a big
impact on the front of the home. McCarty agreed that the structure seems to be a bit much to
address the applicants' concerns. Johnson questioned if there is another way to cover the
entryway and get the applicants what they need.
Hogeboom stated that the applicant could build a 7-foot deep, open front porch without a
variance. Fonnest added that vegetation could be planted to help with the wind issues.
McCarty stated that that would not address the applicants concern over not having enough
room inside the entryway. He suggested tabling the request to allow the applicants to come
back with a different, more minimal design plan. Nelson reiterated that the applicants can
build an open front porch without a variance. Johnson agreed and said he doesn't think the
plan in front of them will work.
MOVED by Johnson, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to table the
applicant's request to allow them to come back to the Board with a different plan.
7901 23rd Avenue North
Sohan Sinqh & Swarn Sinqh, Applicants (13-07-14)
Request: Waiver from Section 11.22, Moderate Density Residential Zoning
District (R-2), Subd. 10(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements
• 7 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 28 ft. at its closest point to the
front yard (east) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new twin home.
Hogeboom explained the applicant's proposal to construct a twin home. He stated that
the applicant is also going through the process to rezone the property to R2 and to
subdivide the property in order to construct the twin home. The subdivision would
create a "zero lot line" so that each homeowner can own their half of the twin hame.
Hogeboom stated that this property is vacant due to the soil conditions and that the
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
July 23, 2013
Page 12
proposed finrin home will be built on pilings. Hogeboom explained that as part of the
subdivision process Hennepin County will review the proposed plans because Winnetka
Avenue is a Gounty Road. It is anticipated as a part of the County's review that they will
take an additional 7 feet of right-of-way which is necessitating this variance request.
Maxwell asked if the County would still take the 7 feet of right-of-way if the proposed
twin home isn't built. Hogeboom said that the County would not take additional right-of-
way if the proposed subdivision doesn't happen.
Nelson asked if the variance would.stay with the land forever. Hogeboom clarified that if
the requested variance isn't acted upon within one year it is null and void.
McCarty clarified that the applicant isn't asking to build the proposed twin home closer
to the setback line; the setback line is moving closer to the proposed home because the
County is taking 7 feet of right-af-way.
Maxwell asked the applicant what is unique about the property that necessitates a
variance. DJ Chawla, realtor representing the applicants, stated that the applicants are
brothers who want to live next to each other and the need for the variance is because
the County is taking 7 feet of right-of-way. Dave Gardner, builder, explained that they
originally considered building single family homes but the soils are quite poor and the
cost to mitigate the soils would be prohibitive so building a twin home would help
spread the costs between the two units.
Nelson asked if there is any other way to move the twin home further away from
Winnetka Avenue. Gardner said that moving the home in any other direction would
require different variances. Nelson said she thinks the proposal is in harmony with the
City's requirements, the County taking 7 feet of additional right-of-way is necessitating
the variance and the character of the locality will be enhanced.
Maxwell opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to comment,
Maxwell closed the public hearing.
McCarty said he is supportive of the variance requested because the applicants
originally designed the home to fit within the setback area and then found out the
County will be taking 7 feet of additional right-of-way.
MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to approve
a variance for 7 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 28 ft. at its closest point to
the front yard (east) property line to alfow for the construction of a new twin home.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
July 23, 2013
Page 13
5501 Glenwood Avenue
Golden Vallev Lutheran Church, Applicant (13-07-15)
Request: Waiver from Section 11.46, Institutional Zoning District, Subd. 7
Side Yard Setback Requirements
• 1.17 ft. off of the required 50 ft. to a distance of 48.83 ft. at its closest point to
the side yard (west) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of an addition to the existing building.
Hogeboom stated that the applicant is proposing to build an addition on the south side
of the existing building. The separate house currently located on the property being
used for a daycare will be removed. Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and
noted that the building was not built completely parallel with the west property line so
1.17 feet of the proposed new addition would be in the setback area. He stated that the
applicant could potentially change their plans slightly but that would affect the flow on
the inside of the building.
Ken Mestelle, Building Committee Chair, explained that due to childcare licensing
requirements the church would have to spend approximately half a million dollars in
renovations on the existing house in order to keep their child care license. He said that
option doesn't make sense for the church so they are instead proposing to build an
addition on the south side of the church. The addition will house the infant care
program, expanded toddler rooms, administrative offices, an expanded lobby and a
multi-purpose area with a half-gym.
Ann Kuntz, Station 19 Architects, explained that there is a corridor/exit system that
needs to be maintained and there are existing conditions inside the building that they
are lining up with the proposed new addition. She stated that there is heavy foliage
along the west property line, so the neighbor to the west won't be able to see the new
addition and won't be impacted by it. She added that they did not create the problem
with the current building not being completely parallel with the west property line. If it
was parallel, they wouldn't need a variance.
Fonnest asked if the hallway alignments are required by code or if that is just more
convenient. Kuntz stated that the hallway in question is required because it is an exit
system. She noted that a total of 25 square feet of the proposed addition would be
located in the setback area.
Netson stated that the building was built where it is, they need to align the corridors, the
proposal is in harmony with the City's requirements and it is a reasonable request so
she supports this variance as requested.
Maxwell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Maxwell closed the public hearing.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
July 23, 2013
Page 14
MOVED by Fonnest, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to approve
a variance for 1.17 ft. off of the required 50 ft. to a distance of 48.83 ft. at its closest
point to the side yard (west) property line to allow for the construction of an addition to
the existing building.
III. Other Business
No other business was discussed.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 pm.
r' ,
,�'� �'
�,r' �..,: _.1
" , ��_
� i eorge axwell, air J�Ssep / . Hogeboom, Staff Liaison