01-22-19 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
January 22, 2019
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday,
January 22, 2019, at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valiey Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Vice
Chair Orenstein called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Members Orenstein, Perich, Snope, and Planning Commission
Representative Angell. Also present were Senior Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and
Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Member Nelson was absent.
I. Approval of Minutes— September 25, 2018, Regular Meeting
MOVED by Perich, seconded by Snope and motion carried unanimously to approve the
September 25, 2018, minutes as submitted.
II. The Petition(s) are:
1300 Toledo Avenue North
Anders Lee, Applicant
Request: Waiver from Section 113-88, Single Family Zoning District, Subd.
(f�(1)(c)(2) Side Yard Setback Requirements
• 5.2 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 7.3 ft. at its closest point to the side
yard (north) properiy line.
Purpose: To allow for a home addition
Request: Waiver from Section 113-88, Single Famil� Zoning District, Subd. (fi�(4)
Side Wall Articulation Requirements
• 14 in. off of the required 24 in. of required articulation for a side wall (north) for
an articulation that is 10 in. in depth to allow for the construction of a home
addition.
Coellner referred to a map and photo of the property and explained the applicant's proposal
to construct an addition that would include an exercise studio, bathroom, and sauna on the
first floor and an expanded closet and laundry on the second floor.
Goellner stated that the required side yard setback for this property is 12.5 feet. She
explained that a variance was granted in 2015 to allow for a garage expansion to be built 6.5
feet from the north property line and that this current proposal would allow the proposed
addition to be built 7.3 feet from the north property line.
Goellner referred to the second variance request and explained that the Zoning Code
requires any wall longer than 32 feet in length to be articulated with a shift of at least 2 feet in
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
January 22, 2019
Page 2
depth, for at least 8 feet in length. She referred to the applicant's proposal and stated that
they are proposing an articulation of 10 inches in depth instead of the required two feet.
Goellner stated that the applicant has said the unique circumstances in this case include the
fact that the proposed addition is modestly sized and complimentary to the existing
architecture, the visibility of the addition will be limited, the buildable area is limited due to a
significant slope in the back yard, and they are trying to preserve trees.
Goellner referred to some additional photos of the property and renderings of the proposed
addition and explained that staff s analysis is that additional living space is a reasonable use
of the property and that the proposed addition fits in with the surrounding architecture and
character of the neighborhood. She added that the buildable area to the rear of the home is
limited by topography, and that the proposed addition will not be located any closer to the
north property line than the expanded garage currently is.
Goellner stated that staff is recommending denial of the requested variance from the side
yard setback requirement. However, staff is recommending approval of a modified variance
request of 4 feet off the required 12.5 feet to a distance of 8.5 feet from the side yard (north)
property line which would also incorporate the required 2-foot articulation and eliminate the
need for that variance request.
Orenstein asked if the modified variance would make the project feasible. Goellner said yes,
she thinks the modified variance would still allow for an adequate sized addition.
Perich asked if the proposed addition could be made 2 feet shorter which would not require
articulation. Goellner said that could be another option.
Thomas Lee, General Contractor, said they are trying to make the proposed addition fit in
with the current design of the house. He stated that the applicant is a professional athlete
and he needs to work out and train in his house. He noted that the size of the addition,
particularly the studio, is critical because of the size of the equipment. He stated that they've
made the proposed bathroom space smaller, and that they can't build a separate structure in
the back yard because of the steep topography. He added that the addition will be difFcult to
see because of the proposed dormer above, and the fence below and that the neighbors to
north have no objection to the proposal.
Orenstein asked Lee what he thinks about the modified variance suggested by staff. Lee
said they want to keep the depth of the proposed addition. Snope noted that if the side wall
of the addition were articulated it could go out further to the rear of the lot. Lee said they
don't want the addition to stick out further than it would have to.
Orenstein asked Lee what other options they have considered and why they wouldn't work.
Lee reiterated that the topography of the lot would make it difficult to build another structure.
He explained the construction of the proposed addition and stated that the project would be
a lot more expensive because of the doors and the load bearing beams if they brought the
side wall in, further away from the north property line.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
January 22, 2019
Page 3
Perich asked when the applicant purchased the home. Lee said it was purchased two years
ago.
Orenstein opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Orenstein closed the public hearing.
Snope said he was concerned at first about the proposed project because it is making the
footprint considerably larger. He stated that the applicant has done a nice job of being
respectful and fitting in with the architecture of the home. He added that the proposed
addition won't affect the view from the front of the home and noted that the roof line is broken
up with the second floor, so the side of the house won't just be a "mammoth"wall. He said he
feels okay about the distance of the proposed addition to the side yard (north) property line.
Perich said he thinks the proposal is reasonable, the topography is challenging, and the
applicant is trying to incorporate the spirit of the articulation requirement with the architecture,
but he is concerned about setting a precedent. He added that he has no problems with the
side yard variance requested. Angell agreed and said he has no problems with the side yard
variance, but the lack of articulation and precedent setting also concerns him.
Orenstein said there has been an attempt at articulation and he is supportive of both
variance requests and the entire proposal.
Snope asked Goellner if there is a wall height requirement in regard to articulation. Goellner
said no. Snope asked if the second story wall has articulation. Goellner said yes. She also
explained that each variance request stands on its own so setting precedent, while important
should not be the sole reason to deny a variance request.
MOVED by Perich, seconded by Angell and motion carried unanimously to approve the
following variance requests:
• 5.2 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 7.3 ft. at its closest point to the side yard
(north) property line.
• 14 in. off of the required 24 in. of required articulation for a side wall (north) for an
articulation that is 10 in. in depth.
III. Other Business
Goellner reminded the Board Members of the upcoming joint board/commission meeting.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:36 pm.
.�,��
:...F f
_ ' "%`" ,f� f
.�..:�� .,` /¢� � � "�.
✓ P �r J
�. • �, . . ��;.�..�-�--- ..6.....,.
ic ard Orenstein, Chair Lisa ittman, Administrative Assistant
4