02-24-15 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
February 24, 2015
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday,
February 24, 2015, at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Vice
Chair Perich called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm.
Those present were Members Maxwetl (arrived at 7:12), Nelson, Orenstein, Perich and
Planning Commission Representative Blum. Also present were Associate Planner/Grant
Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman.
I. Approval of Minutes — January 27, 2015 Regular Meeting
MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Orenstein and motion carried unanimously to approve
the January 27, 2015, minutes as submitted.
II. The Petition(s) are:
13XX Flag Avenue
Richard Schneider, Applicant
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd.
11(A)(1) FrontYard Setback Requirements
• 22.4 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 12.6 ft. at its closest point to
the front yard (north) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of new house.
Goellner referred to a site plan of the property and stated that the Applicant is proposing to
build a new home on the existing vacant lot. She explained that the Applicant is requesting a
variance from the front setback requirements due to the steep slope on the west side of the
property, a large drainage and utility easement on the east side of the property, and the
unique shape of the front yard causing the need for a long driveway.
Nelson asked if the existing duplex to the west has a Flag Avenue address or a Plymouth
Avenue address. Goellner said it has a Plymouth Avenue address.
Blum asked if the peak of the slope is located between the subject property and the duplex
to the west. Goellner said yes and explained that there is about a 24-foot difference in
elevation from the proposed house to the existing duplex.
Orenstein asked if the owners of the duplex have expressed any objections. Goellner said
no.
Perich asked if the guidelines were different when the subdivision creating this lot was
approved. Goellner explained that during the subdivision process the Applicant showed a
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
February 24, 2015
Page 2
home on their plans that met the setback requirements. She added that the easement on the
east side of the property wasn't as large at that time.
Maxwell asked if the proposed location of the house is really the only buildable spot.
Goellner said it may be possible to build the house in a different location but the costs might
be insurmountable.
Maxwell asked if the current landowner did the original subdivision. Goellner said no. Nelson
asked if the owner of the duplex did the original subdivision. Goellner said yes, the person
who owned the duplex at the time was the Applicant for the Subdivision.
Blum asked if the slope is a natural or created hill. Goellner said it is a naturally occurring hill.
Dick Schneider, Applicant, referred to the site plans and stated that there is approximately 60
feet from the buildable area to Flag Avenue. He said that the spirit of the front setback
requirement has to do with the distance from the curb. He said that if he builds his home
where he is proposing it will save trees, shorten the driveway, and place the home further
away from the existing duplex.
Perich asked about the portion of the driveway that will not be located on the property.
Schneider said it will be located on the unbuildable property to the north out to Flag Avenue.
Maxwell asked if trees would need to be removed in order to meet the setback requirements.
Schneider said yes, 8 to 10 trees would have to be removed.
Nelson asked the Applicant if he knew where the buildable portion of the lot was located
when he purchased the property. Schneider stated that the owner at the time didn't know
how the house would fit within the building envelope. He stated that he is proposing a
modest house in the location that will work best.
Maxwell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Maxwell closed the public hearing.
Nelson said she is sensitive to front yard setbacks, but she realizes the proposed new house
won't have much impact. She stated that if the proposed house met the setback
requirements it would have a bigger impact on the duplex to the west. She added that this
landowner did not create the issue.
Perich agreed and said the proposal makes a lot of sense and is reasonable for this area.
Blum said he is in favor of the request and thinks the Board has addressed the factors they
need to when considering variances. He said the variance is in harmony with the purposes
and intent of the ordinances, the variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the
proposal puts the property to use in a reasonable manner, there are unique circumstances to
the property that were not created by the landowner, and the variance will not alter the
essential character of the locality. The Board agreed.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
February 24, 2015
Page 3
MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Perich and motion carried unanimously to approve the
variance request for 22.4 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 12.6 ft. at its
closest point to the front yard (north) property line to allow for the construction of new
house.
1300 Toledo Avenue North
Beth Trautman (Cottaqe Home Designs), Applicant
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd.
11(A)(3) Side Yard Setback Requirements
• 5.5 ft. off of the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 6 ft. at its closest point to the
side yard (north) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage addition.
Goellner referred to a survey of the property and explained the Applicant's request to
construct a garage addition. She noted that the applicant is also proposing an addition
to the rear of the house but that won't require variances. She explained that the
Applicant has stated that the unique circumstances with this property are that the house
was built with a one-stall garage, the lot is long and deep but not very wide, and placing
a new garage near the rear of the home will create a longer driveway.
Nelson asked about the size of the proposed new garage. Goellner said it will be 22 ft. x
22 ft. in size. Nelson asked if the Applicant is proposed to expand to the existing
breezeway. Goellner said the Applicant is proposing to rebuild, but not expand the
breezeway.
Paul Stepnes, Cottage Home Designs, Applicant, said he found the original house
plans in the attic which showed a two-stall garage. If the house had been built the way
the plans indicated, they wouldn't need a variance today. He stated that they are
proposing a modest garage that will keep within the design and feel of the house.
Beth Trautman, Cottage Home Designs, Applicant, stated that they are proposing to
reduce the size of the existing breezeway. She added that they are trying to restare the
home and modernize it. She referred to the survey of the property and stated that there
is a large tree behind the existing garage so they don't want to move the garage further
back on the property. Stepnes added that there is also a ponding area in the back yard.
Maxwell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Maxwell closed the public hearing.
Nelson stated that the Board usually tries to accommodate two-stall garages. She said
if the proposed garage were placed anywhere else on the property it would be more
impactful. She stated that the proposal is reasonable, it is in harmony with the purposes
and intent of the ordinances, it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and the
proposal is reasonable. She added that the unique circumstances in this case are how
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
February 24, 2015
Page 4
the house was originally placed on the lot, and the fact that there is only a one-stall
garage currently on the property.
Orenstein asked about the photos submitted by the Applicant. Stepnes explained that
the photos he submitted are examples of other homes in the area with a similar garage
to what they are proposing.
Perich noted that if the Applicant built a new garage fu�ther back on the lot it would
have a longer driveway which would not fit in as well with the neighborhood.
MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Perich and motion carried unanimously to approve the
variance request for 5.5 ft. off of the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 6 ft. at its closest
point to the side yard (north) property line to allow for the construction of a garage
addition.
III. Other Business
No other business was discussed.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 pm.
,��i
�
George Maxwell, Chair Lisa ittman, Administrative Assistant