Loading...
BZA Packet 04-22-2025 April 22, 2025 — 7:00 PM Council Chambers Hybrid Meeting 1.Call to Order, Land Acknowledgement, and Attendance Attendance by presence, not roll call 2.Consent Agenda All matters listed under item 2 are considered routine in nature and will be enacted by one motion. Individual discussion of these items is not planned. A member, however, may remove any item to discuss as an item for separate consideration under New Business. 2.A.Approval of Agenda 2.B.Meeting Minutes - February 25, 2025 3.Public Hearings 3.A.2120 Unity Avenue 4.Council Liaison Report 5.Staff and Board Member Updates 6.Adjourn BZA 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 and address the Board remotely by: Streaming via Microsoft Teams (meeting ID 225 267 076 862 and passcode USdEgu) Calling 1-872-256-4160 and entering phone conference ID 801 290 16#. City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting April 22, 2025 — 7:00 PM 1 MEETING MINUTES 1. Call to Order and Land Acknowledgement • Chair Nelson called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. & read the Land Acknowledgement. a. Members Present: Nelson, Parkes, Commissioner Cohen b. Student Member: Vacant c. Staff Members Present: Chloe McGuire, Deputy Community Development Director Steven Okey, Associate Planner d. Council Liaison: Councilor Rosenquist 2. Consent Agenda • Cohen made motion to approve. • Parkes seconded. • Voted unanimously for approval. 3. Public Hearings 3a. 6701 Plymouth Avenue North Applicant: Matte Cooke, on behalf of Sumba Properties, LLC Request: Request for a variance a to reduce the minimum front setback along Hampshire Avenue North from 35 feet to five feet. • Okey presented the staff report. • Nelson asked what is the sized of the new lot. • Okey stated it will be 7,146 square feet. • Nelson noted we have a lot of corner lots in Golden Valley but this one has some unique characteristics. She then asked what the other lot setbacks will be. • Okey stated the front setback is 35’, the rear setback is 25’ and the side will be 5’ based on the lot is less than 50’ wide and so the side setback is 10% not to go less than 5’. • Cohen asked if the driveway access that runs along the south side of the 6701 lot is toing to be a shared driveway between the two lots (6701 & 6709). • Okey explained it is only an access for 6709 Plymouth and that 6701 Plymouth will have an access on to Plymouth Avenue and noted that 6709 cannot have an access on Plymouth due to the fact that the existing home is too close to the street. He also noted this will be an easement agreement. • Nelson asked the applicant to speak. • Applicant Matt Cooke spoke: o He stated he didn’t have much to add to the presentation but noted that there will be a curb cut on Plymouth Avenue for the new home at 6701 Plymouth Avenue. He also noted that there will be a curb cut on Hampshire Avenue to allow for the access easement for 6709 Plymouth. February 25, 2025 – 7 pm City Hall: Council Chamber Hybrid Meeting: Teams/Phone 2 City of Golden Valley BZA Meeting Minutes February 25, 2025 – 7 pm 2 • Nelson asked what size home is being proposed. • Cooke stated it is approximately a 2,000 square foot single story home, that it isn’t an oversized home for the lot. • Nelson asked if he owned the properties. • Cooke stated he is representing the owners who own both lots, 6709 & 6701 Plymouth. He also reiterated an easement would be granted on 6701 for the access to 6709. • Nelson opened the public hearing. • Paul Patton of 6601 Plymouth Avenue asked what the five foot setback is measured from. • Okey stated it is from the property line which is not necessarily the curb and that there is a right of way that extends inward from the curb. • Gary Bergquist of 6621 Plymouth Avenue spoke and expressed his concern about the home being too close to the street and that there is a great deal of traffic at the corner. He is concerned about the safety of adding a home here with the speeding he has witnessed as a resident. He also expressed how close the high-power lines are to the property and that they could come down on the home and that the new home would result in a loss of the greenspace and trees. • Nelson asked if there was anyone online who wished to speak. • McGuire Confirmed no one was online who wished to speak. • Nelson closed the public hearing. • Cohen asked what requirements there are for the loss of trees on the lot. • Okey explained the mitigation that is required when there is a removal of more than 15% of the trees on the lot. • Nelson asked if there were any other questions or comments. • Parkes noted the concerns regarding traffic safety is something that the Board has been asked to weigh in on but that they defer to the City to address these. • Okey stated on a project of this size we wouldn’t have required a traffic study. He then noted they measured the distance the home would be setback from Hampshire Avenue and that it is 20’ and this includes the 15’ right of way from the curb. • Cohen commented a City Goal is to increase housing and that building a single-family house on a lot like this fits those goals. He noted he understands the concerns regarding the traffic and speed but that it is perhaps something that Public Works may be able to address through traffic calming measures. • Parkes agreed with Cohen and that she was inclined to accept the City’s recommendation to approve the variance. • Nelson noted the issues with corner lots and the two setbacks. She stated that this lot is unique because it is narrow and to be buildable the variance is required. She noted the concerns of the public about the loss of green space but that she thinks the home will improve the essential characteristics of the neighborhood. She stated she would be in favor of approving the variance and that we have to put in the condition for the easement. • Parkes asked if the condition is already in the motion. • Okey noted it is in the motion. • Nelson asked for a motion. • Parkes motioned • Cohen seconded 3 City of Golden Valley BZA Meeting Minutes February 25, 2025 – 7 pm 3 • Vote was taken and approved unanimously. • Okey noted the condition was not stated in the motion. • Parkes added it to the motion. • Second vote was taken and approved unanimously. 3b. 6601 Plymouth Avenue North Applicant: Paul Patton and Barbara Pierson Request: Request for a variance to reduce the structure setback from the ordinary high-water mark for General Development Waters (Bassett Creek) in order to expand an existing deck into a three-season porch. • Okey presented the staff report. • Cohen asked if this deck is closer to the creek than the neighboring properties. • Okey stated some of the images provided by the applicant showed the neighboring properties to the east that are close to the creek and that the deck on 6601 is further back from the creek. • Parkes asked if the engineering conditions in the staff report are something they provide but that it is not an endorsement of this variance request. • Okey clarified it is a list of conditions that may be suggested and some or all may be imposed. He also noted that some of them come from the Department of Natural Resources. • Nelson asked the applicant to speak. • Applicant Paul Patton spoke: o He stated he cares a lot about the creek and that he intends to more than offset the ecological impact by reducing adjacent patio areas and by replacing lawn with native and pollinator plants and also adding a rain garden. o He stated he is building within the footprint of the existing deck and that he has modified his design from the original variance request from 2022 so that it only will require a four foot variance. o He questioned why a wetland is considered a unique problem not created by the landlord but a creek is not. o He stated his main point is that the design preference not caused by the landowner is somewhat subjective. o He stated if the variance isn’t approved and he has to build within the footprint of the existing deck it will make the screened in porch essentially a hallway with very little space for furniture or usable space. If he were allowed to build with the additional four feet it would create a more usable space and it would not make that much of a difference in how it affects the enjoyment of the creek. o The applicant provided a presentation and used the photos to show the views of the home from the creek to show that the deck and proposed screen porch does not degrade the natural characteristics of the creek or detract from the experience. o He stated it would not visually impact the shoreline area by just adding the four foot extension on the deck. o He stated this request complies with the spirit and purpose of the shoreland overlay and through no fault of his it will not comply with a few specific details and that is the reason for the variance. 4 City of Golden Valley BZA Meeting Minutes February 25, 2025 – 7 pm 4 • Nelson stated the applicant’s presentation was very well prepared. She asked the applicant if what they are saying is that the footprint of the screened porch would not intrude more than the deck. • Patton stated it would not intrude more than the deck. He stated he would be connecting two corners of the deck to create a larger space for the screened porch. • Parkes asked if by connecting the two corners of the deck wasn’t it indeed increasing the intrusion into the shoreland area. • Patton did concede it wouldn’t be complying with the exact footprint of the existing deck because of the additional square footage that he is proposing. • Parkes noted that we do look at square footage when reviewing encroachments. • Patton noted the existing deck when built in 1990 was fully compliant with the Ordinary High Water Mark at that time under the previous high water standards. • Okey asked a clarifying question of the applicant regarding the staircase coming down from the deck and if it was as shown in his presentations or shifted out as per the plans submitted with the variance application. • Patton confirmed the staircase would have to be rotated out to accommodate head room when using the stairs as shown in the submitted plans. • Okey noted the moving of the staircase out would indeed be a part of the encroachment into the shoreland setback. • Patton asked about the steps allowance that is given for the front of a house and if that allowance would be applied here. • Okey noted that it is a standard applied to the front of homes and would need to check to see if the allowance would be allowed here. • Nelson asked if they were to approve the variance for the four foot encroachment would the stairs be covered. • McGuire stated it could be approved with language regarding the plans submitted by the applicant and that would be sufficient. • Nelson opened up the public hearing. • Mary Ann Bergquist of 6621 Plymouth spoke and stated she has enjoyed what their neighbors at 6601 Plymouth have done with their property and that they have always taken care of their yard and is in support of them having their variance granted. • Gary Bergquist of 6621 Plymouth Avenue spoke and stated he felt what the applicants are asking for is not a big deal, only being a request for four feet encroachment and that the variance should be granted. • Nelson asked if there was anyone online who wished to testify. • Aliya White of 6515 Plymouth Avenue spoke and stated she is their neighbor directly to the east. She noted her home is relatively close and the deck at the applicant’s property is much further back. She is supportive of the applicants having their variance request approved. • Nelson closed the public hearing and opened it up for deliberation. • Cohen stated he has had experience previously with shoreland districts and the DNR puts those in place for good reasons. He stated despite the detailed applicant presentation he is troubled by the incremental encroachments that may be approved via variances and the cumulative ecological affects that will have. He noted Bassett Creek has been severely degraded over the years. 5 City of Golden Valley BZA Meeting Minutes February 25, 2025 – 7 pm 5 • Parkes agreed with Commissioner Cohen and stated they have heard a lot of good points about human impact and perspectives but it isn’t just the experience of humans that we need to consider, we need to consider the ecological impacts as well. • Nelson stated she understands what both Parkes and Cohen are saying but personally feels the four foot request is not increasing the impact in her opinion because the deck already extends that far into the shoreland setback. • Parkes noted the area of the porch denoted by the green triangle is indeed an extension into the shoreland setback. • Nelson stated that Parkes was correct but she still is not troubled by it. • Parkes stated she is sympathetic to the applicant’s request but if we grant variances for items like this then the exception becomes the rule. • Nelson asked for a motion. • Cohen made motion to deny the variance request. • Parkes seconded. • Nelson called for a vote. • Cohen and Parkes voted Aye, Nelson Voted No. • Motion to deny passed two to one. • Nelson let the applicants know they have the option to appeal the decision to the City Council. 4. Commissioner Updates: Councilor Rosenquist • Rosenquist updated the board on the City Council’s strategic visioning and touched on many of the goals. 5. Staff Comments a. Virtual option for testimony. • McGuire discussed the option of removing the standing virtual option and asked if there were concerns with removing this going forward. • Nelson stated she did not have any issues with removing it and asked Commissioner Cohen what did the Planning Commission decide to do. • Cohen stated they strongly felt that they needed to keep the virtual option for every meeting. b. Boards and Commission Recruitment. • McGuire discussed the City Manager’s Office request for quotes from the Board and Commission members on why they serve and how it affects the City and its residents. The request is coming as they are beginning recruitment for boards and commissions. 6. Adjourn • Chair Nelson adjourned the meeting at 8:20pm. 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Community Development 763-512-2345 / 763-512-2344 (fax) Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting April 22, 2025 Agenda Item 3.A. 2120 Unity Avenue Prepared By Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner Summary Brad Schmertman, on behalf of the property owner, requests a variance to City Code Section 113- 88(e)(c)1 to reduce the side yard setback of the principal structure from 15 feet to 12 feet. If granted, the variance would allow the construction of an additional stall on the existing attached one-stall garage. Section 113-88(e)(c)1: Side yard setbacks are determined by the lot width at the minimum required front setback line. The distance between a structure and the side lot lines shall be governed by the following requirements: In the case of lots having a width of 100 feet or greater, the side setbacks for any portion of a structure 15 feet or less in height shall be 15 feet. Recommended Action Staff recommends the Board move to approve the variance request for a three-foot reduction to the side yard setback based on the finding that the variance standards have been met as outlined in the staff report. Recommended motion language: “I move to approve the variance request to reduce the side yard setback from 15 feet to 12 feet, subject to the findings in the April 22, 2025, staff report.” Public Notification 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. Staff Contact Information Prepared by: Jacquelyn Kramer Senior Planner jkramer@goldenvalleymn.gov 7 Reviewed by: Chloe McGuire Deputy Community Development Director cmcguire@goldenvalleymn.gov Supporting Documents Staff Report - 2120 Unity Avenue Resolution - 2120 Unity Avenue Site Plans - 2120 Unity Avenue 8 Date: April 22, 2025 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) From: Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner Subject: Request for Variance to Golden Valley City Code – 2120 Unity Avenue North Subject Property Parcel ID Number: 1802924230050 Applicant: Brad Schmertman, Schmertman Construction LLC Property Owner: Zach Hegman Site Size: 0.29 acres, 12,500 square feet Future Land Use: Low Density Residential Zoning District: R-1 Single Family Residential Existing Use: Single family home with attached one-stall garage Adjacent Properties: Single family homes Site Image 9 The property contains a two-story, four bedroom home built in 1971. There is an attached one- stall garage on the north side of the house. The site is accessed on the west side of the property along Unity Avenue. Planning Analysis In reviewing this application, staff reviewed the request 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 request is 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 applicant shows compliance with the following: a. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner. The existing principal use of the site is a single family home. Sec. 113-88(f)(5)a requires new single family homes in the R-1 district with lots 50 feet or greater in width to have two-stall garages or space on the site plan for future two-stall garages. The existing home at 2120 Unity could not be constructed under current code requirements. The applicant proposes to expand the garage to two stalls. Staff finds this a reasonable use in the R-1 zoning district. b. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that is not caused by the landowner. The location and design of the existing 1971 house causes the landowner’s problem. Specifically, the home was constructed with a single-stall garage without leaving sufficient setback space for future expansion into a two-car garage as required by the current zoning code. The current landowner did not construct the house. c. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. Every house on the block has, at a minimum, a two-stall attached garage. The variance would maintain a 12-foot setback between the proposed garage expansion and the western property line. The neighboring house to the west is set back approximately 24 feet from the side property line. 10 2. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The practical difficulty is due to the location and layout of the existing house, rather than any economic considerations related to expanding the existing garage. 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. Parking and storage of vehicles is an allowed accessory use in the R-1 zoning district. 4. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter and when the variances are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds that the variance is in line with the purpose of the R-1 district, which is “to provide for detached single-family dwelling units at a low density along with directly related and complementary uses.” 5. Finally, when reviewing a variance, the City must first determine whether or not there is a practical difficulty and, if so, is the requested variance the minimum action necessary to eliminate the practical difficulty? It is possible the applicant could build a tandem garage with two car stacking. However, this would eliminate a significant portion of the backyard. No other property on the block has a garage with a tandem layout. Staff finds the minimum action necessary to eliminate the practical difficulty would be to grant the variance. Staff Recommendation The Board should review the applicants’ request and the findings needed to grant a variance. Staff recommends the Board move to approve the variance request for a three-foot reduction to the side yard setback based on the finding that the variance standards have been met as outlined in the staff report. Recommended motion language: “I move to approve the variance request to reduce the side yard setback from 15 feet to 12 feet, subject to the findings in the April 22, 2025, staff report.” Next Steps If the Board approves the variance request: the applicant will finalize construction plans and apply for building permits. If the Board denies the variance request: 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 need to revise their plans to comply with the current setbacks on the property before applying for building permits. 11 RESOLUTION NO. BZA-25-001 A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCE AT 2120 UNITY AVENUE NORTH WHEREAS, Brad Schmertman, on behalf of the property owner, requests a variance to reduce the side yard setback for a principal structure in the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District in order to expand an attached garage from one stall to two stalls; and WHEREAS, the proposed variance is situated upon lands in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as: Lot 2, Block 2, Lilac Heights Addition WHEREAS, on April 22, 2025, the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals held a public hearing on the application; and WHEREAS, based on the testimony, evidence presented, and files and records, the Board of Zoning Appeals determined that the requested variance meets the requirements of City Code Section 113- 27(c) necessary to be met for the Board to grant variances, and makes the following findings: 1. City Code Section 113-88(e)(c)1 requires lots having a width of 100 feet or greater maintain a distance of 15 feet between a structure and the side lot line. 2. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. The existing principal use of the site is single family home. Sec. 113-88(f)(5)a requires new single family homes in the R-1 district with lots 50 feet or greater to have two-stall garages or space on the site plan for future two-stall garages. The existing home at 2120 Unity could not be constructed under current code requirements. The applicant proposes to expand the garage to two stalls. 3. The landowner’s problem is due to circumstances unique to the property that is not caused by the landowner. The location and design of the existing 1971 house causes the landowner’s problem. Specifically, the home was constructed with a single-stall garage without leaving sufficient setback space for future expansion into a two-car garage as required by the current zoning code. The current landowner did not construct the house. 4. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Every house on the block has, at a minimum, a two-stall attached garage. The variance would maintain a 12- foot setback between the proposed garage expansion and the western property line. The neighboring house to the west is set back approximately 24 feet from the side property line. 5. The practical difficulty is due to the location and layout of the existing house, rather than any economic considerations related to expanding the existing garage. 6. 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. Parking and storage of vehicles is an allowed accessory use in the R-1 zoning district. 7. The variance request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City Code and the Comprehensive Plan. The variance request is in line with the purpose of the R-1 12 district, which is “to provide for detached single-family dwelling units at a low density along with directly related and complementary uses.” NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA, that this Board adopts Resolution No. BZA-25-001 approving the variance request to reduce the side yard setback from 15 feet to 12 feet at 2120 Unity Avenue North based on the findings stated above. Adopted by the Board of Zoning Appeals this 22nd day of April, 2025. _____________________ Nancy Nelson, Chair ATTEST: _____________________________ Jacquelyn Kramer, Staff Liaison 13 14 15