03-25-14 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
March 25, 2014
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday,
March 25, 2014, at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair
Maxwell called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Members Maxwell, Nelson, Perich and Planning Commission
Representatives Boudreau-Landis and McCarty. Also present were City Planner Jason
Zimmerman, Planning Intern Nick Olson and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman.
Member Johnson was absent.
I. Approval of Minutes —January 28, 2014, and February 25, 2014, Regular
Meetings
MOVED by Nelson, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to approve the
January 28, 2014 minutes as submitted.
MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Boudreau-Landis and motion carried unanimously to
approve the February 25, 2014 minutes as submitted.
II. The Petition(s) are:
130 Edgewood Avenue South
Warren Kapsner, Applicant
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd.
11(A)(1) FrontYard Setback Requirements
• 6.4 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 28.6 ft. at its closest point to
the front yard (east) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new addition.
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd.
11(A)(3)(A) Side Yard Setback Requirements
• 3 ft. off of the required 15 ft. to a distance of 12 ft. at its closest point to the
side yard (north) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new addition.
Olson referred to a survey of the property and explained the applicant's proposal to
build a master suite addition on the north side of his house that would follow the same
plane as the existing front porch. He showed the Board a photo of the existing property
and noted that the front porch addition received a variance in 1998 to be located 26.6
feet from the front (east) property line.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
March 25, 2014
Page 2
Nelson asked if just the back (northwest) corner of the proposed new addition would be
located in the setback area. Olson said yes, and noted that the existing house is not
parallel with the north property line.
McCarty asked at what point the proposed addition crosses into the setback area.
Olson said he wasn't sure because the survey submitted with the application did not
have the proposed addition with dimensions drawn on it. Therefore, staff determined
that the applicant required a variance for 3 feet off of the side yard setback
requirements based on the dimensions given for the proposed addition.
Maxwell asked about the articulation requirements. Olson explained that Zoning Code
requires walls longer than 32 feet to articulate in or out 2 feet for a distance of 8 feet.
Warren Kapsner, Applicant, stated that they have lived at this property for 37 years and
have done several remodeling projects. He stated that the house currently has three
small bedrooms and they are proposing to build a new master suite with an accessible
bathroom because they plan on staying in this house.
Maxwell explained that several years ago the statutes regarding the granting of
variances changed. The Board now needs to consider if the variances proposed are in
harmony with the intent of the ordinance and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
if the proposal puts the property to use in a reasonable manner, if there are unique
circumstance to the property not created by the landowner and if granted, would the
variance alter the essential character of the locality. He asked the applicant what he
feels is unique about the property. Kapsner stated that there is a steep slope on the
south side of the property so the north side is the only place he can build the proposed
addition. He stated that the front of the proposed addition would look better if it were in
line with the plane of the front porch so that is the reason for the front yard variance
request. He added that a house with three small bedrooms won't work in today's market
and he wants to build a master suite that isn't just another small bedroom.
Nelson asked how many bathrooms the home has. Kapsner said the home has two
bathrooms.
McCarty asked Kapsner if he knows at what point the proposed addition would cross
into the setback area. Kapsner referred to the survey and said he thinks just a small
portion of the addition would be in the setback area and that he probably only needs
about a 1 foot variance, not 3 feet as stated. He said he showed his neighbor to the
north where the proposed addition would be located and she doesn't have any
concerns.
Nelson stated that the way the house was situated on the lot was not created by this
landowner and she thinks bumping out the proposed addition to match the plane of the
front porch would look better.
Boudreau-Landis asked Kapsner about the size of the proposed addition. Kapsner said
it would be approximately 700 square feet in size.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
March 25, 2014
Page 3
Perich asked Kapsner if he had considered any other options that would not encroach
into the side yard setback area. Kapsner said that such a small portion of the addition
will encroach that he never seriously considered any other options.
Maxwell asked Kapsner if he built the original house. Kapsner said no.
Maxwell asked Kapsner if he would be willing to bump the front part of the addition out
2 feet instead of the proposed 6 feet. Kapsner said if he bumped the front out only 2
feet it would not match the rest of the house and it would distract from the appearance
of the house from the street.
McCarty suggested a bay or bow window instead of the bump out in the front.
Zimmerman stated that window space can extend into a setback area but floor space
cannot. Boudreau-Landis asked if a bay or bow window would count as articulation.
Zimmerman said yes, as long as it was 2 feet deep for a length of 8 feet.
Maxwell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Maxwell closed the public hearing.
McCarty said it is a nice plan, he just doesn't see a hardship and he doesn't know at
what point the proposed addition crosses into the setback area. He said he thinks the
addition could fit within the side yard setback area with some finagling. He referred to
the front yard variance request and stated that the proposed addition would fit
aesthetically, however, it is due to a variance granted in the past for the front porch that
is creating the new front plane of the house now.
Nelson stated that the Board doesn't consider hardships. She said the proposed
addition is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, it is reasonable and it is in harmony
with the intent of the ordinance. She said she thinks that the angle of the lot and the
position of the house on the lot are unique circumstances in this case. She said the
proposed addition is aesthetically pleasing and she is in favor of both of the requested
variances.
McCarty reiterated that they don't know how much of a side yard variance the applicant
really needs. Boudreau-Landis suggested approving the addition to be built only 19 feet
wide however the numbers work out. McCarty stated that if the variance is for such a
small amount he thinks the addition should be able to be done without variances.
Maxwell said the proposal looks nice but it seems like the applicant caused the need for
these current variances because he wants to match the new addition to the plane of the
existing front porch. Nelson reiterated that this landowner did not cause the way the
house is sitting on the property. She added that this proposal would really enhance the
neighborhood and that the front plane of the house is already established. Boudreau-
Landis agreed and questioned if the conversation would different if a new owner of this
property were asking for these variances. Maxwell stated that a new homeowner would
not have created the problem. He added that he would be supportive of a 2-foot front
yard variance, but not a 6-foot variance.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
March 25, 2014
Page 4
Nelson suggested tabling the request in order to get better dimensions and plans
regarding the side yard variance request so the Board knows exactly where the
proposed addition would be in relation to the side yard property line.
MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Nelson and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve the
variance request for 6.4 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 28.6 ft. at its closest
point to the front yard (east) property line to allow for the construction of a new addition.
Chair Maxwell voted no.
MOVED by McCarty to deny the variance request for 3 ft. off of the required 15 ft. to a
distance of 12 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line to allow for the
construction of a new addition.
Maxwell suggested that the request regarding the side yard setback variance be tabled.
Kapsner asked if would need to come back to the Board if he changes the design of the
proposed addition and stays 15 feet away from the north property line. Maxwell said if
the addition is 15 feet away from the north property a side yard variance would no
longer be required. Kapsner said he would like to table his request for a side yard
setback variance.
McCarty rescinded his motion to deny the variance request for 3 ft. off of the required
15 ft. to a distance of 12 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line.
MOVED by Perich, seconded by Nelson and motion carried unanimously to table the
variance request for 3 ft. off of the required 15 ft. to a distance of 12 ft. at its closest
point to the side yard (north) property line to the April Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.
III. Other Business
Zimmerman discussed with the Board the option of providing, in the staff reports, a
recommendation for or against variance requests. The consensus of the Board was that
they would like more background information, but they do not want to dissuade applicants
from applying for variances so they do not think a staff recommendation in necessary.
IV. Adjournment
The me �ng was adjourned at 8:01 pm.
� %;���
;� � �� � �
, C�� . � `
George M xwell, Chair Li Wittman, Administrative Assistant