11-22-16 BZA MinutesMinutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
November 22, 2016
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday,
November 22, 2016, at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota.
Vice Chair Maxwell called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Members Maxwell, Orenstein, and Planning Commission
Representative Blum. Also present were Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner,
Planning Intern Chloe McGuire Brigl, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Members
Nelson and Perich were absent.
I. Approval of Minutes — October 25, 2016, Regular Meeting
MOVED by Orenstein, seconded by Maxwell and motion carried 2 to 1 to approve the
October 25, 2016, minutes as submitted. Commissioner Blum abstained.
11. The Petition(s) are:
1350 Boone Avenue North (continued item)
Adrian Moy, Applicant
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11
(D) Side Wall Articulation
• Any wall longer than 32 feet in length must be articulated, with a shift of at least
2 feet in depth for at least 8 feet in length. The applicant is requesting a variance
from this regulation to build a second story addition with side walls 38'-1" in
length with no articulation.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a second story addition.
MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Orenstein and motion carried unanimously to table
the variance request.
1136 Welcome Circle
Nick & Pam Witucki, Applicants
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd.
11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements
• 9 ft. off of the required 30 ft. to a distance of 21 ft. at its closest point to the
front yard (north) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a deck.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
November 22, 2016
Page 2
McGuire Brigl referred to a survey of the property and explained the applicants' request
to construct a deck in their front yard. She stated that a deck in a front yard can be
located 30 ft. from the front yard property line and that that the applicant is proposing to
construct the deck 21 ft. from the front property line.
McGuire Brigl referred to the applicant's stated unique circumstances which include:
the front steps to the home need to be replaced, the home is on a hill with a tuck under
garage, they want a tiered deck for a safer approach to allow them to watch their
children in the front yard, and the proposed deck will be low and won't obstruct views.
Maxwell asked about the buildable area on this lot. McGuire Brigl showed the Board the
buildable area where a deck could be built without the need for a variance. She added
that the buildable area in the front yard is limited because the house is right at the 35 -
foot setback line.
Maxwell asked about the height of the proposed deck. McGuire Brigl said the height
varies because it is a tiered deck, but the first tier would be at grade.
Maxwell asked if a variance would be needed for a patio. Goellner said a patio would
not need a variance but the grade would have to be raised in order to construct a patio.
McGuire Brigl added that a 25 square -foot landing and stairs would be allowed in the
front setback area without a variance.
Nick Witucki, Applicant, explained that the first tier of the deck would be 5 ft. x 10 ft. in
size and the second tier would be 11 ft. x 15 ft. in size. He added that the deck would
be located in an area that is already landscaped and would not go beyond that. Maxwell
asked Witucki why they couldn't build a deck in the back yard. Pam Witucki, Applicant,
stated that there is already a slab in the back yard. Mr. Witucki stated that three areas
come together in the front so they want to make the front area safer. Mrs. Witucki
added that the front yard is a hill so they can't really do much with it and they would like
to have a deck in the front yard in order to watch their kids.
Maxwell reiterated that if they installed a patio or pavers instead of a deck they would
not need a variance. Mr. Witucki questioned how pavers would be different than a deck.
Blum asked the applicants to describe the grade of the property. Mr. Witucki referred to
the photos of the property and explained the grade of the hill in the front yard. He
reiterated that the proposed deck won't exceed the existing landscaped area. Blum
asked about the grade of the side yards. Witucki said the side yards are flat. Mr.
Witucki stated that the rear yard slants down toward the rear yard property line.
Maxwell opened the public hearing.
Jenny Dennis, 1133 Welcome Circle, said the applicants are wonderful neighbors and
that the proposed deck would contribute to the feeling of community and neighborhood.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
November 22, 2016
Page 3
She stated that the subject property is really a corner lot, there is a safety concern with
the traffic, and allowing the proposed deck would contribute to her feeling of safety.
Jerry Savage, 1132 Welcome Circle, said he has no objections to the proposed deck.
He stated that there would still be plenty of room from the deck to the property line, it
won't interfere with his property, and he is sure other neighbors feel the same way. He
said he would be in favor of granting a variance to allow the applicants to build their
deck.
Gabriela Eisenberg, 1119 Welcome Avenue North, said she agrees with Mr. Savage's
comments. She added that the applicants are great neighbors and will keep the area
beautiful and safe.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Maxwell closed the public
hearing.
Orenstein said this is an unfortunate situation. He said he understands why the
applicants want the proposed deck, but it doesn't meet the criteria the Board uses when
considering variances. He said the Board is typically more lenient with proposals in rear
or side yards, but it is harder to grant a variance in the front yard. Blum agreed and
stated that there are other substantial areas on this property to build a deck. He added
that the Board is bound by state statute and doesn't have the discretion to grant a
variance in this case.
Maxwell said he is sympathetic but usually variances are granted for proposals when
there are no other options or an applicant is trying to meet other provisions in the
Zoning Code. He said he understands the applicants' concerns and desire to watch
their kids when they are in the front yard, but they could build a patio in the front without
a variance.
MOVED by Orenstein, seconded by Blum and motion carried unanimously to deny the
requested variance.
6300 Olson Memorial Highway
Golden Valley Investors, LLC, Applicant
Request: Waiver from Section 11.36, Industrial Zoning District, Subd. 6(A)
Yard Requirements
• City Code requires the front setback (35 feet) to be maintained as a
landscaped green area. An existing bike trail along Douglas has been
constructed and the remaining landscaped area is approximately 20 feet in
width.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
November 22, 2016
Page 4
McGuire Brigl explained that the Zoning Code requires the entire front yard setback
area (35 feet) to be maintained as landscaped green area. She stated that the City
obtained additional right-of-way for the Luce Line Trail and for the Douglas Drive
reconstruction project which made the existing front yard landscaping area on this
property become non-conforming. She added that when the City, County, or State
creates or worsens a non-conforming setback, the property owner is entitled as a
matter of right to obtain a variance so the Board must grant this variance request.
Maxwell opened the public the hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to
comment, Maxwell closed the public hearing.
MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Orenstein and motion carried unanimously to
approve the requested variance.
III. Other Business
No other business was discussed.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:36 pm.
`� YV��
orge axwell, Chai Li a Wittman, Administrative Assistant