Loading...
bza-agenda-nov-28-2023 REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Board of Zoning Appeals meetings are being conducted in a hybrid format with in-person and remote options for attending, participating, and commenting. The public can make statements in person at this meeting during the public comment sections. Remote Attendance/Comment Options: Members of the public may attend this meeting by streaming via Webex, or by calling 1-415-655-0001 and entering access code 2467 935 0948. Members of the public wishing to address the Board remotely have two options: • Via web stream - Stream via Webex and use the ‘raise hand’ feature during public comment. • Via phone - Call 1-415-655-0001, enter meeting code 2467 935 0948, and password 1234. Press *3 to raise your hand during public comment sections. 1. Call to Order & Land Acknowledgement 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Address: 208 Meander Road Applicant: Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMHC) Request: § 113-88, Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District, Subd. (e)(1)(a) Principal Structure Front Setback: 6.1 feet off the required 35 feet to a total distance of 28.9 feet from the front property line for a new home. 4. Council Updates 5. Adjournment November 28, 2023 – 7 pm City Council Chambers Hybrid Meeting 1 Date: November 28, 2023 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Myles Campbell, Planner Subject: 208 Meander Road Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMHC), Applicant Introduction GMHC, the applicant, is seeking a variance from the City Code to construct a new home within the front yard setback. The applicant is seeking the following: Original Variance Request City Code Requirement The applicant is requesting a variance of 6.1’ off the required 35’ to a total distance of 28.9’ from the front property line for a new home. § 113-88, Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District, Subd. (e)(1)(a) Principal Structure Front Setback Front Setback. The required minimum front setback shall be 35 feet from any front lot line along a street right-of-way line. Decks and open front porches, with no screens, may be built to within 30 feet of a front lot line along a street right-of-way line. This requirement shall not reduce the building envelope on any corner lot to less than 27 feet in width. Background 208 Meander Road is an undeveloped parcel of land, originally platted for development as a single-family home in 1939 as part of the Tralee addition. The City acquired the property through tax forfeiture in 1973, and since then it has been zoned for open space. In the summer of 2023, The Planning Commission and City Council held public hearings on the topic of rezoning the property to allow for a single-family home, as part of the larger Home Ownership Program for Equity (HOPE). 208 Meander is a 13,604 sq.ft. Bounded by Meander Road to the west, single-family homes to the north and south and railroad ROW to the east. The lot is of an irregular shape with a curved front lot 2 line that follows the curve of Meander Road. Topography is relatively flat across the lot, and the bulk of the north portion is wooded with a mix of deciduous trees. The applicant, Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMHC) was selected as a development partner through a Request for Qualifications to build a new home. They are seeking a variance to reduce the required front setback to have a building footprint that includes an attached garage. This request was originally heard at the October Board of Zoning Appeals meeting, at which time the Board requested that the applicant provide alternate building footprints and for staff to consult with the City Forester on the mature trees closest to the home. City Forester Comments The City Forester had an opportunity both to review revised alternatives submitted by the applicant as well as to walk the site. He noted that the three closest trees to the building would be a willow tree to the rear of the home (labeled a 48” locust on the original plan), as well as a 15” walnut and 18” oak, both to the west. The willow and oak would be considered “significant” trees under the City’s tree and landscaping ordinance, and therefore require replacement if removed. In terms of minimum recommended spacing from the critical root zone, the Forester recommended that the home and any construction activity be located 15 feet from the walnut tree, and 18 feet from the oak. The willow in his estimation will be more challenging to save due to it leaning towards the future location of the home, and in it being a softwood tree species that tends to suffer from woodrot in its trunk. As will be discussed below, the two alternatives with a reduction in the rear setback would leave 15 feet to the walnut, but the original request would be just shy of that at 14.4 feet. Summary of Requests The applicant has provided 3 options for the building footprint: • The original location with a 6.1’ reduction in front setback • A reduction in the rear setback of 6.5’ and shifting the original design back on the lot to meet the front setback • A reduction in the rear setback of 7.7, but angling the structure so less of the footprint falls within the rear setback itself In staff’s view, each of these options meets the intent of code and the Comprehensive Plan goals highlighted at the previous meeting, but each does have pros and cons associated with it. 3 Option A Pros - Maintains ~50 feet of distance to the back of curb - Preserves some backyard space before lot begins to drop in topography Cons - Still closest to the ROW of the options - Less than 15’ to the walnut tree - Does not guarantee the willow would not be impacted even with the full rear setback Option B Pros - Full tree protection for oak and walnut trees - Further back from ROW in response to neighbor and BZA concerns Cons - Of the three options, this puts the largest sq.ft. of the building footprint outside of setbacks - Less backyard space to the rear of the home Option C Pros - Full tree protection for oak and walnut trees - Further back from ROW in response to neighbor and BZA concerns Cons - Of the two rear yard options, this results in the shortest setback at its closest point (overall less of the building however) - Less backyard space to the rear of the home 4 Analysis For a full analysis on the request, see the attached copy of the October BZA Memo, as the circumstances regarding the property are largely unchanged with the two new proposals. • The home design remains the same and of a reasonable scale with the neighborhood • The offset ROW taking up 20-25’ of the front yard creates challenges with building, and mature trees to the north side of the property are maintained by the plan • In all cases, while a change from the vacant parcel today, staff does not think a single-family home would be out of place in this neighborhood Recommendations Given the information on critical root zones for the mature oak and walnut trees, Staff recommends approval of a variance for either Option B or C, which preserve a 15’ buffer around those trees. Option B: A variance of 6.5’ off the required 25’ to a total distance of 18.5’ from the rear property line for a new home. Option C: A variance of 7.7’ off the required 25’ to a total distance of 17.3’ from the rear property line for a new home. Points of Consideration for “Practical Difficulty” Test Met Not Met Property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner x Problem due to circumstances unique to the property and not caused by the landowner X If granted, would not alter the essential character of the locality X Are other reasonable options available? Detached garage   1      Date:  October 24, 2023  To:  Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals  From:  Myles Campbell, Planner  Subject:  208 Meander Road  Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMHC), Applicant    Introduction  GMHC, the applicant, is seeking a variance from the City Code to allow an addition to the rear  of their home. The applicants are seeking the following variance from City Code:   Variance Request City Code Requirement  The applicant is  requesting a variance  of 6.1’ off the  required 35’ to a  total distance of  28.9’ from the front  property line for a  new home.  § 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (e)(1)(a) Principal  Structure Front Setback  Front Setback. The required minimum front setback shall be 35 feet from any  front lot line along a street right‐of‐way line. Decks and open front porches,  with no screens, may be built to within 30 feet of a front lot line along a street  right‐of‐way line. This requirement shall not reduce the building envelope on  any corner lot to less than 27 feet in width.    Background  208 Meander Road is an undeveloped parcel of land, originally  platted for development as a single‐family home in 1939 as  part of the Tralee addition. The City acquired the property  through tax forfeiture in 1973, and since then it has been  zoned for open space. In the summer of 2023, The Planning  Commission and City Council held public hearings on the topic  of rezoning the property to allow for a single‐family home, as  part of the larger Home Ownership Program for Equity (HOPE).    208 Meander is a 13,604 sq.ft. Bounded by Meander Road to  the west, single‐family homes to the north and south and  railroad ROW to the east. The lot is of an irregular shape with a  curved front lot line that follows the curve of Meander Road.  2    Topography is relatively flat across the lot, and the bulk of the north portion is wooded with a mix of  deciduous trees.     The applicant, Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMHC) was selected as a development  partner through a Request for Qualifications to build a new home. They are seeking a variance to  reduce the required front setback to have a building footprint that includes an attached garage.       Summary of Requests  Chapter 113‐88 of zoning code handles the Single‐Family Residential zoning district. Under  Subd. (e)(1)(a) Principal Structure Front Setback the required setback from the front property  line is established as 35 feet, or 30 feet for an open porch or deck. At the public hearings for  rezoning the property, the need for a potential variance was discussed at length. Staff at the  time noted that the lot’s shape and large amount of ROW along Meander Rd would support a  possible front setback variance. That said an alternative raised was to have a detached garage  further north on the lot and using the deeper southern portion of the property for the home  footprint.     GMHC has submitted a plan for a single‐family home with an attached garage, which would be  28.9’ at its closest point to the front property line. As noted above, the ROW along Meander is  offset, putting the closest point slightly over 50’ back from the curb.         35’ Setback  28.9’ Setback  Property Line  Curb    3      Analysis  In reviewing this application, staff has maintained the points of examination to the  considerations outlined in Minnesota State Statute 462.357 – that the requested variance is in  harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Chapter, that it is consistent with  the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and that a property exhibit “practical difficulties” in order for a  variance to be granted.     Staff finds that the variance is generally in line with both the purpose of the Zoning Code and  the Single‐Family Zoning District chapter, in that it does not change the intent of the lot to serve  as a single residential property.     Staff also finds the request reasonable in light of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which has  among its goals,    Support the production of new, high‐quality, affordable housing in the City   Support long‐term affordability of single‐family homes through home ownership  programs and the community land trust model    In order to constitute practical difficulties:    1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner.  The reduction in front setback allows for an attached garage for the home, and the  reduction still leaves over 50’ to the curb from the home at its closest point. Staff does  find this request reasonable.    2. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that is  not caused by the landowner.  The lot has an irregular shape that leaves a narrow building footprint, and an offset  ROW further eats into the lot’s front yard. In addition, while a detached garage north of  the home is a potential option, it would likely require the removal of a number of  existing mature trees. Staff believes the site exhibits unique circumstances.    3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality.  Multiple homes along Meander, Cutacross Rd and Paisley Ln have reduced front  setbacks of less than 30 feet. Staff believes that the requested variances will not alter  the essential character of the neighborhood and city.    Additionally, staff assesses whether other options are available to meet the applicant’s needs  without requiring a variance, or whether the proposal requests the smallest variance necessary  to meet the applicant’s needs.    Alternatives to the proposed variance would be either to reduce the overall building  footprint, or to pursue a detached garage to the north of the home (detached accessory  structures having less significant sed/rear setbacks)    4    Recommendations  Staff recommends approval of a variance of 6.1’ off the required 35’ to a total distance of 28.9’  from the front property line for a home.    Points of Consideration for “Practical Difficulty” Test Met Not Met  Property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner x   Problem due to circumstances unique to the property and not  caused by the landowner  X   If granted, would not alter the essential character of the locality X   Are other reasonable options available?  Detached garage