A special meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Thursday, March 15, 2007 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Boudreau-Landis called the meeting to order at 7 pm.

Those present were Members, Boudreau-Landis, Morrissey, Nederveld, Sell and Planning Commission Representative McCarty. Also present were Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman.

I.         Approval of Minutes – January 23, 2007

MOVED by Morrissey, seconded by Sell and motion carried unanimously to approve the January 23, 2007 minutes as submitted.

II.        The Petitions are:

           2355 Regent Avenue North (07-02-02)
           Scott & Helen Moser, Applicants 

Request:       Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements

 ·        5 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 10 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line.

Purpose:      To allow for the construction of new 4-season porch/sunroom addition.

Grimes explained that the applicants are requesting a variance from the side yard setback requirements in order to construct a porch/sunroom addition on the rear of the existing garage. He referred to a survey of the property and noted that the home was originally placed closer to the south property line than indicated on the proposed sketch submitted with the building permit for the house.

Helen Moser, Applicant, stated that the proposed porch would have an entry from the existing dining room area. She explained that she was unaware that the porch should be placed 15 feet away from the south property line because the existing garage along the same property line is located only 6 feet away. She stated that they have been planning for this addition since they purchased the home and that they have already invested approximately $30,000 in this project.

Sell asked the applicant how long she has lived in this home. Moser said 5 years. Sell recalled that the house was placed further to the south on the lot originally because the northern part of the lot is wet and it would have been difficult to build any further to the north. Grimes referred to an older proposed survey and noted that the house was originally supposed to be built further to the north and agreed with Sell that perhaps it was the drainage issues on the lot that forced the original builder to locate the home further to the south.

Boudreau-Landis noted the existing location of the A/C unit and asked if it would have to be relocated as a result of this addition. Moser said it will have to be relocated to the back corner of the garage. She explained that they’ve also buried their utility lines and had a tree removed in anticipation of building the proposed porch addition. McCarty explained that the Board can not look at work that has already been put into a project as a hardship. Moser reiterated that they didn’t think the proposed addition would be a problem because it will be located further away from the property line than the existing garage.

Boudreau-Landis opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Boudreau-Landis closed the public hearing.

Morrissey stated that she doesn’t have an issue supporting this variance request given the location of the existing house on the lot and the fact that this proposed addition will be further away from the south property line than the existing garage.

Nederveld stated that even though he doesn’t think building a sunroom addition constitutes a hardship he would support this project because of the way the house was originally placed on the lot. He added that it would be consistent with other variance requests the Board has supported.

Sell agreed and added that there is no other logical place to build the proposed addition. He stated that he is also inclined to support the variance request because the proposed addition will be located further away from the property line than the existing garage and there is a terrain issue on this lot.

MOVED by Sell, seconded by Nederveld and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request for 5 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 10 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line to allow for the construction of new 4-season porch/sunroom addition.

817 North Tyrol Trail (07-02-03)
Eric William Flom, Applicant

Request:       Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements

 ·        8 ft. off the required 16 ft. to a distance of 8 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line.

Purpose:      To allow for the construction of new master bedroom addition.

Grimes referred to a survey of the property and explained that the applicants would like to build a fairly substantial master bedroom addition on the front of their existing home. They would however meet the front yard setback requirements. He stated that there is a quite a bit of topography on the lot and that the proposed addition would follow the same plane as the north side of the existing home. He added that the property has received a variance in the past which allowed for a porch addition and brought the existing home into conformity.

Morrissey asked the variance granted previously was to this same applicant/homeowner. Grimes said yes.

Nancy Nelson Flom, Applicant, stated that she believes the hardship is the elevation and irregular shape of the lot and that there is really no other flat space on the lot to build an addition. She said that currently the house has three tiny bedrooms and it does not meet today’s standards.

Jeff Nicholson, Architect for the project, explained that this is a severely sloping site with a 32 foot difference in elevation from front to back. He added that there have also been drainage problems in the past and that the spot being proposed for the addition is really the most conducive.

Boudreau-Landis referred to the house being over 40 feet in depth once the addition is added. Grimes stated that is why the proposed addition needs to be 16 feet away from the property line in this case instead of the normal 15 feet. Grimes asked the applicant about the façade along the north property line. Nicholson explained that they are adding a gable along the north side of the proposed addition to break up that façade. He added that the house to the north sits up higher and it is heavily wooded in that area so it will be hard for people to even to see the proposed addition once it’s built.

Boudreau-Landis opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Boudreau-Landis closed the public hearing.

Boudreau-Landis said he views this variance request as being similar to the previous variance request they approved. He said the addition wouldn’t come any closer to the property line than the existing house and it would meet the front yard setback requirements so he would be inclined to support this variance request.

Nederveld agreed and said there really is no other place on the lot to build the proposed addition and that supporting this request would be consistent with other variance requests they’ve approved. He added that the home to the north is set back 35 feet and it’s a heavily wooded lot so the addition will be difficult to see.

Sell noted that the shape of lot also makes it difficult to build any type of addition. He agreed that it will be difficult to even see the proposed addition and the homes on this street aren’t in line with each other so it won’t look out of place. He added that he thinks the value of the homes in this area should be maintained and he is willing to support the project.

MOVED by Boudreau-Landis, seconded by Sell and motion carried unanimously to approve the request for 8 ft. off the required 16 ft. to a distance of 8 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line to allow for the construction of new master bedroom addition.

III.        Other Business

No other business was discussed.

 IV.      Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 pm.