Loading...
08 27 24 BZA Packet 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 185 8024. 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 185 8024, and password 1234. Press *3 to raise your hand during public comment sections. 1. Call to Order & Land Acknowledgement 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Approval of Minutes May 28, 2024 4. Staff Introduction Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner 5. Address: 1320 Fairlawn Way Applicant: Mitchel Nelson Request: Request for two variances to allow accessory structures a 10-foot front yard setback along Wayzata Boulevard. 6. Council Updates 7. Adjournment August 27, 2024 – 7 pm City Council Chambers Hybrid Meeting CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY BZA MEETING MINUTES Tuesday, May 28, 2024 – 7 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 1. CALL TO ORDER • Chair Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. & read the Land Acknowledgement a. Members Present: Nelson, Orenstein, Corrado, Commissioner Cohen b. Members Absent: Parkes c. Student Member, Status: Vacant d. Staff Members Present: Darren Groth, Assistant Community Development Director Kendra Lindahl, City Planning Consultant e. Council Liaison Present: Councilmember Denise La Mere-Anderson 2. CONSENT AGENDA: Corrado motioned to approve the consent agenda. Orenstein seconded. Commission voted 4-0 to approve. • Chair Nelson gave an overview of the Board of Zoning Appeals process and requirements for approval, alternatives, and consistency. She further informed all participants that the process is staff will present the request followed by a Q and A with the board, then the applicant is invited to speak followed by a Q and A with the board, then the public hearing is opened for the public to comment, the public hearing is closed after public comments are received, then the board deliberates and votes on the request. In addition, Chair Nelson informed applicants that if their request is denied, they can appeal to City Council. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Setback Variance, 1320 Fairlawn Way (PID 3002924420095) At 7: 05 p.m., Lindahl started the presentation to share the details and summarize the staff report of the request. She noted that this is an after-the-fact variance request for an accessory structure in the front yard for a 152.25 sq. ft. (10.5 feet by 14.5 feet) sauna that was constructed without a permit. The variance would reduce the required front yard setback from 35 feet to 5.7 feet and allow the accessory structure in the front yard closer to the lot line than the pr incipal structure, which is not currently allowed. The property is a corner lot, having two front yards. Lindahl mentioned the 10-foot Drainage and Utility (D&U) easement (DUE) along Wayzata Blvd. At the end of her presentation, Lindahl recommended that the Board should review the applicant’s request and the three flndings needed to grant a variance and that they have three options: 1. Move to approve variance request for a setback of 10-foot setback from Wayzata Blvd with four conditions as outlined in staff report. 2. Move to deny variance for the flndings outlined in the staff report that the variance standards have not been met and require that the sauna be moved to comply with the setback requirements. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY BZA MEETING MINUTES Tuesday, May 28, 2024 – 7 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 3. Move to approve variance request, as requested by the applicant, for a setback of 5.7 feet for the accessory structure from the side front yard property line, where 35 feet is required, based on the flnding that the variance standards have been met as outlined in the Staff Report Staff does not recommend this option. Chair Nelson then asked if the board had any questions for Lindahl. Board Member Orenstein asked if Wayzata is a side yard. Lindahl noted that is what the applicant asked for to have a 5 -foot setback. Orenstein asked if the existing fence needed a permit and Lindahl noted that a permit is required. Nelson asked if a 6-foot fence is allowed on an arterial. Lindahl responded that a 6 -foot fence is allowed, but that Wayzata is not classifled as an arterial. Orenstein asked how tall the fence along Fairlawn is and Lindahl stated it is a 6-foot fence. Orenstein asked if the patio meets the required setback. Lindahl noted that fiatwork does not require a permit nor has a zoning setback. Orenstein asked if the sauna required an electrical permit. Lindahl noted that one is required, but none were pulled. Nelson asked if this request was for all items or just the sauna. Lindahl indicated that she spoke with the City Attorney’s Office (CAO) to ask about the other violations on the property and that the CAO limited this request to just the sauna because that was the only item noticed on the agenda. Board Member Corrado asked if the sauna being near any drainage was more of a concern. Lindahl stated that it is not any more of a concern. Corrado asked how the City found out about this violation and Lindahl noted that she was not sure. Orenstein asked if the shed in the northwest corner of the property was being considered. Lindahl reiterated that while the shed was also in violation because no permit was obtained and it also does not meet setbacks, the consideration for tonight is only the sauna. At 7:19 p.m., the Applicant, Mitchel Nelson, was invited to speak. He stated that he had nothing to add and was surprised to learn that Wayzata is a front yard. He also indicated that he replaced the old wood fence with a vinyl fence and checked with his neighbors about the location. He chose this spot to avoid visibility to others and disturbing neighbors. Chair Nelson asked if he hired a fence contractor and Mitch Nelson responded yes. She asked if he hired a contractor for the sauna and Mitch Nelson responded no. Orenstein asked if the 6-foot fence facing Fairlawn was put up by a contractor and Mitch Nelson said yes and that the contractor said it was okay. Planning Commissioner Cohen shared that he has a unique perspective because he lives on Fairlawn. He indicated that the fence seemed tall in his opinion and that he had to go through the BZA process 20 years ago and encouraged all applicants to meet with the City before doing any work. Corrado asked if the applicant could speak to the hardships of placi ng the sauna at the required 35-foot setback. Mitch Nelson stated that the neighbors liked this placement and if it were to move, it would alter the community. Orenstein asked if the sauna were moved, where would he move it and Mitch Nelson said he would have to check with his neighbors. Orenstein asked if the neighbors could even see it and Mitch Nelson indicated that the homeowners south, west, and across Fairlawn all support this location. Lindahl mentioned that the 6 -foot fence facing Fairlawn was mostly okay because the majority is not in front of the house. Chair Nelson stated that Wayzata Boulevard does not seem like a front yard, but the structures still cannot be in a DUE. Mitch Nelson asked the size of the DUE and Lindahl stated that it was 10 feet, and he has a 4.3-foot encroachment. Commissioner Cohen asked where the sauna could be located and Lindahl showed the location map in her presentation and explained in detail. Chair Nelson asked if the sauna needed to move regardless of the front yard issue and Lindahl indicated that yes, it would CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY BZA MEETING MINUTES Tuesday, May 28, 2024 – 7 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 have to be moved out of the DUE. Corrado asked how far along was the construction and Mitch Nelson stated that when the City stopped him it was not flnished but was now complete. Mitch Nelson said that the Planning Department in an email said it was okay for him to move forward. Orenstein asked to see the email and Mitch Nelson said he would flnd it. At 7:32 p.m., Chair Nelson opened the public hearing. There were no audience members present to speak. At 7:32 p.m., Chair Nelson closed the public hearing. Orenstein then asked what they were voting on. Lindahl noted that the request was to allow a 5.7 -foot setback in a front yard. Orenstein noted that he cannot see approving the request. Corrado stated same. Commissioner Cohen agreed that it would be hard to approve. Chair Nelson indicated that if Mitch Nelson had come before them prior to doing the work, then she could maybe say yes, but it would still have to be located outside of the DUE. Orenstein asked if the sauna was the only request and Lindahl reiterated yes. Orenstein asked if they approved, would they only be deciding on the variance request. Chair Nelson stated that the sauna would still have to be moved out of the DUE. Orenstein said no fence and Lindahl repeated that the fence and other shed violations are not part of the consideration. Corrado stated that bringing the fence into compliance could also impact the neighbors. Commissioner Cohen stated that there is an appeal process and Lindahl verifled everyone that a denial can be appealed to City Council. Orenstein moved to deny the variance request. Corrado seconded. The board voted unanimously to deny. Chair Nelson told Mitch Nelson that he could go to City Council and that going forward, she could treat Wayzata Boulevard as a side yard for his fence and would not approve a 6-foot fence on Fairlawn. Corrado noted that he was sympathetic to the applicant because he also has a property with two front yards, but that he was making decisions for the City. Orenstein noted that he was sworn to uphold an oath and that while the Board has some discretion, this is not one of them. Chair Nelson said she was sorry it was built, but you [Mitch Nelson] can go to City Council and going forward you should talk with staff before starting a project. b. File No. 24-001: Deck Variance, 6630 Glenwood Ave (PID 3211821440046) At 7:39 p.m., Lindahl started the presentation and shared details of the variance and summarized the staff report of the request. At 7:43 p.m., the Board began asking questions of staff. Orenstein asked the reasoning for the stair conflguration and Lindahl mentioned that the applicant, Chris Kuyava, was present to answer. Orenstein asked about stair alternatives and Lindahl highlighted the options shown in her presentation. At 7:45 p.m., the applicant was invited to speak. Kuyava mentioned that his front yard does not match the angle of the street frontage and stated that he was confused on the stairs encroaching on the setback. Lindahl offered an interpretation of the code. Orenstein asked if the applicant was only opposed to moving the steps. Kuyava indicated that he wants to maximize his back yard and any alternatives would look strange. Chair Nelson asked if he had any plans drawn up for the deck. Kuyava stated that he did not have plans yet, but he was an engineer and could read code to draw his options for this deck. Chair Nelson asked if he had a walk-out and Kuyava said yes. Corrado asked if he considered reducing the size of the deck to accommodate the stairs. Kuyava stated that if the northeast point were only 7.5 feet from the side yard, the deck would not flt a dining table and the 9-foot request is still cutting it close. Chair Nelson asked for the dimensions of the deck and Lindahl highlighted them in her presentation. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY BZA MEETING MINUTES Tuesday, May 28, 2024 – 7 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 At 7:51 p.m., Chair Nelson opened the public hearing. Two neighbors were in the audience and shouted that they are in support because they have a fence and shrubs blocking their view and they don’t use that portion of their yard. At 7:52, Chair Nelson closed the public hearing. Orenstein noted that this request meets all the criteria for approval. Chair Nelson noted that the wetland behind the home makes some of the back yard unusable and this seems like a normal deck. Corrado noted that requests to flnd a usable way to enjoy a deck of this size is consistent with prior actions. Commissioner Cohen stated that the unique lot circumstances meant that the applicant has no alternatives. Corrado moved to approve the variance request. Commissioner Cohen seconded. The board voted unanimously to approve. c. File No. 24-0007: Fence Variance, 900 Ottawa Ave North (PID# 1902924240013) Corrado shared with the board that due to prior interactions with the applicant, he would recuse himself from deliberating and voting on this item. At 7: 56p.m., Lindahl started the presentation and shared details of the variance and summarized the staff report of the request. At 8 p.m., the Board began asking questions of staff. Chair Nelson asked to see the 6-foot fence location. Lindahl clarifled that the 6 -foot fence would be along the trail and partially along Ottawa Ave. Orenstein asked for the wording of the request because he did not want to make an ad hoc approval. Chair Nelson also asked for the wording of the variance request because it was not stated in the agenda. Lindahl read the request from the staff report. Orenstein stated that he was not sure how many feet the fence would go along Ottawa. At 8:03 p.m., the applicant, Stacy Anderson, was invited to speak. She noted that the request was for 12 feet of 6-foot fence along Ottawa because this area serves as a loading zone for people visiting Sweeney Lake and the fence at this corner would help block the impact. Chair Nelson shared that she understood why this was being requested, but that the Board does not typically allow a 6-foot fence in the front yard. Anderson invited the board members to come visit the site. Chair Nelson indicated that she had been there before. Anderson stated that her husband has always lived in this neighborhood, and this is the worst it has ever been. She stated that this is a unique property, and she has been working with the City for a long time to get something done. Orenstein asked if she could place a 4 -foot fence along Ottawa. Anderson said yes, but the taller fence was better to block the impacts of people throwing stuff in her yard and would be less accessible for people wanting to come into her yard. Chair Nelson stated that Anderson made a good point. At 8:07 p.m., Chair Nelson opened the public hearing. The applicant from the flrst case, Mitchel Nelson, was still in the audience and shouted that he knew this site was difficult because he is a real estate agent and has tried to buy and sell properties in this neighborhood and attested that it is a unique site. At 8:08, Chair Nelson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Cohen stated that the board has a precedent of not allowing fences taller than four feet in front yards, but he was in Minneapolis when they made exceptions to their code along hidden beach. Cohen shared that he is constantly disappointed by how rude people can be and that he is sympathetic to the request because the applicant cannot plant trees to solve the problem and the extra two feet might be the best solution, but the precedent is important. Orenstein asked if Cohen was in favor. Cohen said he was willing to support the 6-foot fence for a 12-foot length along Ottawa. Orenstein asked the applicant if that was the request. Anderson noted that Ottawa was included in her request. Orenstein noted that the request meets all the approval criteria, but said he thinks the 4-foot CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY BZA MEETING MINUTES Tuesday, May 28, 2024 – 7 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 precedent is important. Chair Nelson stated that she supports the 6 -foot fence along the Luce Line Trail and that many times she comes in with her mind made up but can sometimes be persuaded and Commissioner Cohen may have done that because the situation was not caused by the applicant along Luce Line; however, Ottawa would be self-imposed. Anderson stated that they do have trees planted along Ottawa. Chair Nelson stated that she found Mitchel Nelson’s comments interesting. Orenstein stated that the board can approve, deny, or modify the request and that he was in favor of the 6-foot fence along Luce Line and a 4-foot fence on Ottawa. Chair Nelson agreed. Anderson stated that a 4-foot fence was pointless. Orenstein stated that was her choice. Chair Nelson asked if she would do the fence if only four feet and Anderson said no because the impact is people going to the beach and not bikers. Chair Nelson asked if beachgoers park there and Anderson said yes. Orenstein asked if she could plant more trees along Ottawa and Anderson stated that there are three large trees there now. Chair Nelson stated that others had asked for a 6- foot fence in their front yard and were denied, so she was sympathetic, but has not approved a 6 - foot fence before. Commissioner Cohen also stated that he was sympathetic to the concerns, and he pulled up a street view of the property. Cohen indicated that he supports the 6 -foot fence everywhere, but he was okay if the rest of the board supports a 4 -foot fence. Chair Nelson told the applicant that she could go to City Council if the request was denied and asked Orenstein if he felt the same way. Orenstein noted that he understands the request and reasoning, but since a 4 -foot fence is an option, he was opposed to allowing a 6-foot fence along Ottawa. Chair Nelson moved to approve the requested 6-foot fence along the Luce Line Trail and to deny the request to continue the 6-foot fence along Ottawa Avenue North. Orenstein seconded the motion. The board voted unanimously to approve the requested 6 -foot fence along the Luce Line Trail and deny the request to continue the 6-foot fence along Ottawa Avenue North. Chair Nelson told the applicant that she understands, and that City Council may see it differently. Anderson stated that living there was horrible. Chair Nelson reiterated that City Council may see it differently. Corrado shared his experience with the pro perty and that the 6-foot fence for just a 12- foot stretch along Ottawa would seem to make a difference and that he thought the hardship is there. Chair Nelson stated that Commissioner Cohen made the same comments and that she hoped that the applicant would go to City Council. Orenstein agreed. 4. NO NEW BUSINESS 5. COUNCIL LIASION REPORT At 8:20 p.m., Councilmember La Mere-Anderson noted that she had a lot of updates and events to share. She shared the following updates: 1. New Commissioner Orientation was rescheduled to June 6, 2024, and commissioners needed to register by June 2. 2. The Golden Valley Pride Festival will be Saturday, June 8, 2024, at Brookview Park. 3. An upcoming discussion regarding Building & Retaining An Equitable City Workforce & Supplier Pool will be held on Thursday, June 13 from 6:30 –8 p.m. at Brookview Golden Valley, Bassett Creek Room North. 4. Market in the Valley opens this summer on June 16. 5. City Council passed a proclamation recognizing June as Pride Month. 6. May 19-25 was Public Works week. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY BZA MEETING MINUTES Tuesday, May 28, 2024 – 7 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 7. The last City Council meeting included a public hearing for an application to the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) for job creation by Baxter Health Care, which was a CUP previously heard by the commission. 8. The City’s Pavement Management Plan (PMP) is mostly complete and her neighborhood near Zane Avenue and Lindsey Street will begin construction soon. 9. Highway 55 West will be closed at Hwy 169 to Revere on May 28 and closed for two weeks with traffic detoured onto Hwy 169 S to I-394. 10. The City is working on water mains around Duluth Lane to replace hydrants and valves through August, but no road closures are anticipated. Chair Nelson asked about lead pipes in Golden Valley. Councilmember La Mere-Anderson noted that she read about that in the City News and that people can get their pipes tested. Chair Nelson asked who pays for the testing and Councilmember La Mere-Anderson said she would have to look that up. Commissioner Cohen asked about the work session update on the new flre station. Councilmember La Mere-Anderson noted there was a spirited dialogue regarding the east side station. She stated there is a need to upgrade the building due to equity and safety concerns. She further stated that City Council instructed staff to look at four locations only and limited residential displacement, but staff could look at commercial sites and Schaper Park. The work session uncovered limitations to all four locations and staff is going to come back to City Council with additional options. Corrado asked if there were any conversations in the City regarding the use of AI. Councilmember La Mere-Anderson stated that was a great question and she would have to get back to you on whether it could be used. 6. STAFF COMMENTS: NONE 7. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS NONE 8. ADJOURNMENT: Chair Nelson adjourned the meeting at 8:31 p.m. Approved by: Attest By: Chair Darren Groth, AICP, CPM Community Development Asst. Director MEMORANDUM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT v Date: August 27, 2024 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) From: Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner Subject: Request for Variances to Golden Valley Zoning Code SUMMARY OF REQUEST Mitchel Nelson, the property owner, is seeking two variances from the City Code. The variances would allow accessory structures on his property to be in the front yard along Wayzata Boulevard with a setback of 10 feet. RECOMMENDED MOTION • “I move to approve the variance request to reduce the front yard setback of accessory structures along Wayzata Boulevard from 35 feet to 10 feet and to approve the variance request to allow accessory structures to be closer to the front setback line along Wayzata Boulevard than a principal structure, subject to the findings and conditions in the August 27, 2024, staff report presented to the BZA by Senior Planner Jacquelyn Kramer.” MEETING DATES Board of Zoning Appeals : Tuesday, August 27, 2024 CASE INFORMATION Applicant: Mitchel Nelson Property Owner: Mitchel Nelson Site Acreage: 0.43 acres Application: Property Variances to Location and Setbacks SUBJECT PROPERTY General Location: 1320 Fairlawn Way Parcel ID Number(s): 3002924420095 Future Land Use: Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation as Low Density Zoning: Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District Existing Use: Single-Family Residential (SFR) Adjacent Properties: North – Right-of-Way, Wayzata Boulevard, and I-394 South – Designated LOW, zoned R-1, developed with SFR East – Designated LOW, zoned R-1, developed with SFR West – Designated LOW, zoned R-1, developed with SFR v MEMORANDUM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT v SITE IMAGE 2022 aerial photo (Hennepin County) BACKGROUND The property sits on a corner lot. The house does not face Wayzata Boulevard and has no vehicular access points onto it. The City designates Wayzata Boulevard as a major collector street. A six-foot tall fence encloses the side yard along Wayzata. A heavily planted and wooded barrier along the north property line blocks views from Wayzata Boulevard. North of Wayzata Boulevard is a sound wall adjacent to I-394. The applicant previously sought a single after -the-fact variance to reduce the front yard setback for a sauna (defined as an accessory structure) from 35 feet to 5.7 feet. The 152.25 sq. ft. (10.5 feet by 14.5 feet) sauna was constructed without a permit. In 2023, former city staff reached out to the homeowner to stop the work unless a variance was applied for and granted. The applicant applied for a variance for the sauna, but the request was denied at the May 28, 2024, BZA meeting with the following three (3) conditions. MEMORANDUM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT v 1. The applicant must either: a. remove the 6-foot-high fence or b. apply for an after-the-fact variance. 2. The applicant must apply for a ROW permit for the fence. 3. The applicant must either: a. move the shed in the NW corner into the rear yard in compliance with setback requirements and out of the drainage and utility easement or b. apply for an after-the-face variance to have the shed in the front yard. The applicant did not appeal the BZA decision during the 30-day appeal. During the application review, Staff discovered that a fence had been installed without a zoning permit or right-of-way permit for encroachment in a drainage and utility easement and a second accessory structure was constructed without a zoning permit or the required setback variance. In the May 28, 2024, report staff erroneously stated that a variance would be required for the fence. However, City Code Section 113-152 Subd. d(2) allows a fence not exceeding six feet in height in the front yard of all properties “adjoining the frontage road of a principal arterial, freeway, or expressway; as designated by the City .” In this location, Wayzata Boulevard is a frontage road for I-394 a principal arterial road. The applicant applied for an after-the-fact zoning permit for the existing fence and a right -of-way permit to allow the fence in the drainage and utility easement. The permits are currently under review. PRESENT APPLICATIONS This application is different than the sauna request reviewed in May 2024. This application includes two separate, after-the-fact, variance requests: 1. Variance 1 – A request to reduce the required front setback of an accessory structure on Wayzata Boulevard from 35 feet to 10 feet. Relevant code sections: a. 113-1. Definitions. “Lot line, front. The front lot line shall be the boundary of a lot which is along an existing or dedicated street. In the case of a corner lot, any lot line along an existing or dedicated street shall be considered a front lot line.” b. 113-88(f)(1)b “Front Setback. Accessory structures shall be located no less than 35 feet from the front lot line.” c. 113-88(f)(1)c “Side and Rear Setbacks. Accessory structures shall be located no less than five feet from a side or rear lot line.” MEMORANDUM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT v 2. Variance 2 – A request to allow an accessory structure located in the front yard along Wayzata Boulevard to be closer to the front setback than the principal building. a. Relevant code section: 113-88(f)(1)a “A detached accessory structure shall be located completely to the rear of the principal structure unless it is built with frost footings. In that case, an accessory structure may be built no closer to the front setback than the principal structure.” If approved, these variances would apply to all existing and future accessory structures on this property in the yard along Wayzata Boulevard. To comply with the requested variances, the applicant would relocate the existing sauna and existing shed out of the drainage and utility easement, so they are both 10 feet off the property line adjacent to Wayzata Boulevard. If the variance requests are denied, the applicant would be required to remove the accessory structures or relocate them to comply with existing setbacks, as shown in figure 2. Figure 2- Site plan. The red area is the front yards based on city code. Without variances, accessory structures cannot be built in the red area. The green area is the rear yard where accessory structures may be placed. MEMORANDUM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT v PLANNING ANALYSIS In reviewing these applications, staff reviewed the requests against the standards in Section 113-27(c) of the Code, which provides the variance standards in compliance with Minnesota State Statute Section 462.357. The burden of proof is on the applicant to show that the requests are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Each variance application must be reviewed based on the unique circumstance of the application. For that reason, no variance sets a precedent because no two circumstances are identical. However, if the city finds itself granting numerous similar variances , the City could consider amendments to the city code. Staff considered the following requirements in Section 113-27(c) when evaluating the variance requests: 1. A variance may only be granted when the petitioner for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with this chapter. The term "practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means the applic ant shows compliance with the following: a. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner. The property is located on a corner lot with two front yards, as defined by Section 113-1. of the city code. Wayzata Boulevard is directly north of the property and is a major collector street; new vehicular access points would not be allowed off Wayzata Boulevard. The home faces Fairlawn Way and does not have any direct access points to Wayzata Boulevard. The applicant argues that it is reasonable to treat the yard along Wayzata Boulevard as a side yard for the purposes of calculating setbacks and accessory structure requirements. However, the city code does not allow the option to treat a front yard as side yard when determining the allowed locations of accessory structures. Currently the city code has different standards for determining front and side yards on a corner lot depending on the type of structure. Section 113-152(c)(1)a limits fences in the front yard of properties in residential zoning districts to four feet in height; however Section 113-152 Subd. d(2) allows a fence not exceeding six feet in height in the front yard of all properties “adjoining the frontage road of a principal arterial, freeway, or expressway; as designated by the City.” MEMORANDUM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT v Section 113-(e)(1)d allows the shorter of two corner yards to be considered a side yard when calculating setbacks for principal structures. Section 113.88(f)(1) governs setbacks for accessory structures and does not call out specific setbacks for corner lots; therefore only accessory structures must follow the 35 foot front yard setback for yards adjacent to streets. Accessory structures have a five foot setback in side and rear yards. The Board could find that, on this particular property, it is reasonable to treat the yard along Wayzata Boulevard as a side yard and the requested variances for accessory structures in the yard adjacent to Wayzata Boulevard would allow reasonable use of the property. Alternatively, the Board could find that the variances are not needed to allow reasonable use of the property. The applicant could relocate the sheds to conform with all accessory structure setbacks. Staff finds that allowing 1. a reduction in the front yard setback along Wayzata Boulevard for accessory structures; and 2. allowing accessory structures to be closer to the front setback than the principal structure, are reasonable given that: Wayzata Boulevard is a restricted access street ; the proposed 10-foot setback would keep accessory structures out of the drainage and utility easement; and the proposed 10-foot setback is greater than the minimum five- foot setback for accessory structures in the side and rear yard. b. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that is not caused by the landowner. The site was a corner lot with an existing house when the applicant purchased the property. The applicant argues that the yard on Wayzata Boulevard should be considered a side yard because vehicular access from the property to Wayzata would not be allowed. Wayzata Boulevard acts as a frontage road and has no visibility from the other side of the street as it is above the highway and interstate interchange. The applicant installed a six- foot-high fence with substantial landscaping that prevents visibility of the front yard to Wayzata Boulevard. (The after-the-fact permits for the fence have been submitted and are under review at the time this report was written.) The Board could find that there are unique circumstances to the property that are not caused by the landowner. Specifically, the property is a corner lot with an unusually small rear yard due to the placement of the house. The yard in the variance request is adjacent to a limited access frontage road. However, staff notes that many lots in this area have frontage on two streets . The Board could find that simply having two front yards is not a unique hardship, and the MEMORANDUM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT v circumstances were created by the applicant doing work without the required permits. Staff finds that the variance requests are due to unique circumstances on the property that were not caused by the landowner. c. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality . The applicant states that the structures are not very visible to neighbors or from the street due to the heavily wooded area between their property and Wayzata Boulevard and the fence along the property line. The architectural style of the structures is consistent with the existing home. Other properties along Wayzata Boulevard have accessory structures in similar locations to the applicants. Staff finds that variance, if granted, would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 2. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The variance request is due to the physical characteristics of the lot. The property is a corner lot with an existing house next to a limited access frontage road. Staff finds that the practical difficulties in the variance requests are not solely due to economic considerations. 3. The Board of Zoning Appeals may not grant a variance that would allow any use that is not allowed under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The property is located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) zoning district. Currently the property is used as a single-family residence, and no changes in use are proposed as part of the variance applications. The variance requests apply to accessory structures, which are allowed in the R-1 zoning district. Staff finds the variance will not permit a use not allowed in the zoning district where the property is located. The Development Review Committee, which includes staff from planning, fire, building, public works, engineering, and environmental resources, has reviewed these variance applications. Building division staff pointed out that if the sauna structure has power or water, the applicant would need to apply for permits for both of those things and any other applicable building permits based on the use and design of the accessory structure. No other comments have been received. MEMORANDUM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT v PUBLIC NOTIFICATIONS Notice was sent to all adjacent property owners as outlined in City Code Section 113-27(d)(2). At the time of this staff report, no comments were received from adjacent property owners. RECOMMENDATIONS The Board must review and act on each variance separately. The options for each variance are presented below. VARIANCE 1: The Board should review the applicant’s request, and the findings needed to grant a variance. The Board has two options: 1. Move to approve the variance request to reduce the required front setback of an accessory structure on Wayzata Boulevard from 35 feet to 10 feet, based on the finding that the variance standards have been met as outlined in the staff report, subject to the following two conditions: a. The applicant must apply for an after-the-fact zoning permit for both accessory structures. The application must include an updated survey showing the exact locations and dimensions of the structures. b. Prior to relocating the structures and resuming construction, the applicant must apply for and receive any applicable plumbing, electrical, or other permits for the accessory structures. OR 2. Move to deny the variance request to reduce the required front setback of an accessory structure on Wayzata Boulevard from 35 feet to 10 feet based on the finding that the variance standards have not been met, as outlined in the staff report. a. The accessory structures must be removed or relocated to comply with setbacks , as shown in Figure 2 and the Front Yard Exhibit attached to the end of this report. b. Prior to relocating the structures, the applicant must apply for a zoning permit and any associated permits to complete the structures. Staff recommend approval of the variance request to reduce the required front setback of accessory structures on Wayzata Boulevard from 35 feet to 10 feet. MEMORANDUM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT v VARIANCE 2: The Board should review the applicant’s request and the three findings needed to grant a variance. The Board has two options: 1. Move to approve the variance request to allow an accessory structure to be closer to the front setback line along Wayzata Boulevard than a principal structure, based on the finding that the variance standards have been met as outlined in the Staff Report, subject to the following conditions: a. The applicant must apply for an after-the-fact zoning permit for both accessory structures. The application must include an updated survey showing the exact locations and dimensions of the structures. b. Prior to relocating the structures and resuming construction, they must apply for and receive any applicable plumbing, electrical, or other permits for the accessory structures. OR 2. Move to deny the variance request to allow an accessory structure to be closer to the front setback line along Wayzata Boulevard than a principal structure, based on the finding that the variance standards have not been met, as outlined in the Staff Report. a. The accessory structures must be removed or relocated to comply with setbacks, as shown in Figure 2 and the Front Yard Exhibit attached to the end of this report. b. Prior to relocating the structures, the applicant must apply for a zoning permit and any associated permits to complete the structures. Staff recommend approval of the variance request to allow an accessory structure to be closer to the front setback line along Wayzata Boulevard than a principal structure. NEXT STEPS If the Board approves the variance applications, the applicant will submit all applicable zoning and building permits. The applicant will be required to move both accessory structures out of the drainage and utility easement. If the Board denies the variance application, the applicant may appeal the decision to the City Council per the process described in Section 113-27(d)(4). If the applicant does not appeal the Board’s decision, or if City Council upholds the Board’s decision, the applicant will be required to apply for all applicable zoning and building permits and relocate the structures to comply with existing setbacks. MEMORANDUM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT v ATTACHED EXHIBITS 1. Location Map 2. Applicant’s narrative 3. Survey 4. Front Yard Exhibit STAFF CONTACT INFORMATION Prepared by: Reviewed and edited by: Jacquelyn Kramer Darren Groth, AICP, CPM Senior Planner Assistant Comm. Dev. Director Jkramer@goldenvalleymn.gov dgroth@goldenvalleymn.gov Provide a detailed description of the variance(s) being requested: Chapter 113 Article 1. - In General - Lot Line, Front: The front lot line shall be the boundary of a lot which is along an existing or dedicated street. In the case of a corner lot, any lot line along an existing or dedicated street shall be considered a front lot line. Requested Variance: Seeking an As-Built Variance for 2 accessory structures. The structures were built with the understanding that Wayzata BLVD was a side yard, (5’ setback requirement) upon notification from city staff it was discovered that we have 2 front yards. We are seeking a Variance to move the structures just outside of the Utility and drainage easements. Treating the lot line along Wayzata Blvd FROM: Front lot line ➔ To: Side lot line. The front of the primary residence faces Fairlawn way and no curb cuts are present along Wayzata BLVD. Section 113-88 (f) (1) Accessory Structures. Accessory structures in the R-1 Zoning District shall be governed by the following requirements: (1) Location and Setback Requirements. The following location regulations and setbacks shall be required for accessory structures in the R-1 Zoning District: a) Location. A detached accessory structure shall be located completely to the rear of the principal structure, unless it is built with frost footings. In that case, an accessory structure may be built no closer to the front setback than the principal structure. Sturcture will be built on 12” diamater 4’ deep frost footings, with rebar placed within the frost footings. Sits behind the principle structure and more than 35’ from front lot line. b) Front Setback. Accessory structures shall be located no less than 35 feet from the front lot line c) Side and Rear Setbacks. Accessory structures shall be located no less than five feet from a side or rear lot line. The Structure will be more than five feet from the side lot line (Wayzata BLVD) and outside of the drainage and utility easement. Provide a detailed description of need for a variance from the Zoning Code, including description of building(s), description of proposed addition(s), and description of proposed alteration(s) to property: The Variance will allow us to build both a 10x14 accessory unit and a 10x16 Accessory unit a minimal distance without impacting any mature trees on the lot. The final location will be just outside of the Drainage and Utility Easement. Explain the need for your variance request and how it will result in a reasonable use of the property. Allowing the lot line along Wayzata BLVD to be treated as a side lot line will be consistent with other properties along Wayzata BLVD, and will pose the least impact to other adjacent properties. The location picked for the accessory unit is heavily wooded during most of the year when trees are leafed out. See google streetview images below of tree coverage. No trees were removed as part of building the Accessory Structure – previous trees near locations were damaged by salt, fungus and wind. Wazata BLVD and Fairlawn heading West. 1320 Fairlawn straight on. Heading North on Fairlawn 1320 Fairlawn from Wayzata Heading East on Wayzata BLVD The following homes with a side yard abutting Wayzata BLVD also have accessory structures that would meet similar properties. 1. Wayzata BLVD for this property and in this instance is not being treated as a front yard; this is evidenced by the fact that access to the property off of Wayzata BLVD would NOT be allowed. 1. The Wayzata BLVD bikeway feasibility project stated that travel along Wayzata BLVD occurs at high rates of speed and is estimated to reach 5,300 ADT. This level of traffic is beyond that of Glenwood Ave + Westwood intersection 4300 ADT which was granted a variance for an accessory structure in the front yard. 2. Wayzata BLVD is the only road in Golden Valley which has Metro Transit buses (route 9) running every 15 minutes past the corner lot. 2. Numerous other properties have had approved variances for both Fences and Accessory structures in their Wayzata BLVD front yards. We acquired MNDOT turnback land in good faith and continued to maintain it 1. 345 Natchez ave S (immediately to the west) ▪ Fence along wayzata blvd (6' and wayzata treated as the side yard) ▪ Fence along Natchez Ave S (6' and does not meet setback) 2. 1400 Natchez Ave S (Also one street to the west) ▪ Fence along wayzata blvd (6' and wayzata treated as the side yard.) ▪ This Fence at its closest point is directly adjacent to the sidewalk. ▪ Fence along Natchez Ave S (6' and does not meet setback) ▪ Accessory Structure between Primary Residence and Natchez 3. 1425 Ottawa Ave S (further West) ▪ More than 6' Fence built directly adjacent to the sidewalk. ▪ 2 sheds between the primary structure and Wayzata blvd. 4. 1300 France ▪ Shed immediately adjacent to the sidewalk on Wayzata blvd ~ 2' setback 5. 4315 Tyrol Crest ▪ 6' fence at corner of June and Wayzata blvd 6. 1300 Tryol Trail ▪ 6' Fence along Wayzata + June 7. 1301 Tryol Trail ▪ 6' Fence along Wayzata, Fence at closest point is immediately adjacent to the sidewalk. What is unique about your property and how do you feel that it necessitates a variance? We are a corner lot off Wayzata BLVD which serves as an arterial street and frontage road for trunk highway 394. Corner lots off busy frontage roads are unique because there are no neighbors across Wayzata BLVD, just a sound wall. There is not a back door to our home and the only exit to the home is on the side facing Wayzata BLVD. All historical patios and existing accessory structures have been to the north and west of the principal structure. Explain how the need for a variance is based on circumstances that are not a result of a landowner action. The side door has been in place prior to us acquiring the property as well as the frontage road. Explain how, if granted, the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of your neighborhood and Golden Valley as a whole. The Proposed variance will not disrupt the neighborhood at it is the least visible location from neighboring properties. The structures fit in with the neighborhood. It further cements Wayzata BLVD as a frontage road and not a residential street which is the intended use as designated by Golden Valley and MNDOT. The City requests that you consider all available project options permitted by the Zoning Code before requesting a variance. The Board of Zoning Appeals will discuss alternative options to seeking a variance with you at the public hearing. Please describe alternate ways to do your project that do not require variances from the Zoning Code. It is possible the Accessory structures could move to other parts of the property, but not without significant impact to the property as existing today and not without meaningfully changing the function of the property. If the Accessory structures were to be placed on other parts of the property, those locations would be closer to adjacent properties as well impact the yard’s usable space (this open space leveraged for other family activities such as trampoline, playground, etc. was the reason we went through a long process to purchase this additional land from MNDOT). Other locations in the yard wouldn’t mitigate the sound from 394 and Wayzata BLVD which is another key concern. Our home has served as the gathering place for numerous families in the community (and beyond) and is laid out in a way that is suitable for that. In addition to these impacts, we have faced tremendous challenges getting trees and shrubs to grow along the fence line on Wayzata BLVD from the poor soil quality and issues remaining from the dumping ground prior to purchasing this property. These structures have helped significantly with these issues and impacts to our home and community – noise and visibility impacts from Wayzata Blvd and 394. Buildable Area Non-buildable Area (Front Yard)