Loading...
03-27-12 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals March 27, 2012 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held an Tuesday, March 27, 2012 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Nelson called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Members Boudreau-Landis, Maxwell and Nelson, and Planning Commission Representatives McCarty and Waldhauser. Also present were City Planner Joe Hogeboam and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes — February 28, 2012 Regular Meeting MOVED by Boudreau-Landis, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to approve the February 28, 2012 minutes as submitted. Waldhauser abstained from voting II. The Petition(s) are: Rhode Island LLC. Applicant (12-03-03) Lots 6, 7, 8 and 9, Block 3 and Lots 7, 8 and 9, Block 4, Cottage Grove Addition: Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1), Subd. 11(A)(3)(d) Wall Articulation Requirements • City Code requires any wall longer than 32 feet in length to be articulated. The applicant is asking far a variance from this requirement. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1), Subd. 11(A)(3)(c) Side Yard Setback Requirements • City Gode requires an increase in side yard setback area for houses over 15 feet in height. The applicant is asking for a variance from this requirement. Lot 10, Block 3 and Lot 10 Block 4, Cottage Grove Addition: Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1), Subd. 11(A)(3)(d) Wall Articulation Requirements • City Code requires any wall longer than 32 feet in length to be articulated. The applicant is asking for a variance from this requirement. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1), Subd. 11(A)(3)(c) Side Yard Setback Requirements Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals March 27, 2012 Page 2 • City Code requires an increase in side yard setback area for houses over 15 feet in height. The applicant is asking for a variance from this requirement. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1), Subd. 11(A)(1) FrontYard Setback Requirements • City Code requires structures to be located 35 feet away from a front yard property line. The applicant is proposing to build the houses 25 feet from the front yard property line along Harold Avenue. Hogeboom gave a brief history of the land use in this area. He explained that the General Land Use Plan Map adopted as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan in 2008 designated this area for high density housing. After further study, it was decided by the City Council that this area wasn't appropriate for high density housing so the General Land Use Plan Map was amended back to low density hausing which allows for Single Family (R1) or Two-Family (R2) zoning. Hogeboom referred to a site plan and explained that there are currently four homes sitting on nine existing lots of record so a developer has the right to construct homes on these lots even though the City's current requirements would not allow lots of this size today. McCarty asked if the developer would need Planning Commission and City Council approval if they decided to reconfigure the lats. Hogeboom said yes. Nelson asked about the side yard setback requirements if the house is 15 feet in height or less. Hogeboom stated that the north side yard setback would be 10% of the lot width and the south side yard setback would be 20% of the lot width. Nelson asked if there are any requirements regarding the depth of a lot. Hogeboom said there are no requirements regarding the depth of a lot, but the front of a lot has to measure 80 feet in width, or 100 feet in width if it is a corner lot. Nelson noted that the homes are bank-owned, active listings and asked if the applicant owns the properties yet. Curt Fretham, Applicant, stated that they are scheduled to close on the properties this week. Waldhauser asked if canditions can be added to a variance approval. Hogeboom said the Board can make changes to the requested variances but adding conditions is not recammended. Fretham referred to the 2008 amendments to the Zoning Code that required articulation and increased side yard setbacks for houses taller than 15 feet. He said he feels that those amendments didn't take into consideration narrower lots like these. He said he Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals March 27, 2Q12 Page 3 thinks the intent of the amendments was to prevent McMansions, but the variances he's seeking are consistent amongst all of the lo#s so no one house will stick out. He showed the Board illustrations of homes they built in Edina which would be similar to the ones he is proposing for these narrow lots. He referred to the variance regarding articulation requirements and explained the reason he asking for that variance is to allow for 2-stall attached garages rather than detached garages. He said he feels having attached garages would be more in character with the neighborhood and the community. Nelson asked about the size and price range of the proposed homes. Fretham said the homes would be in the $350,000 to $400,000 price range and be approximately 2,200 to 2,500 square feet, with 3 or 4 bedrooms and 2.5 to 3 bathrooms. McCarty asked about the square footage of the existing homes. Fretham said he didn't know the size of the existing homes. Waldhauser asked how long the back wall of the proposed new homes would be. Fretham said they would be approximatety 40 feet in length. He added that he understands the articulation requirements, but in this case articulating the backs of the homes would take away the articulation on the fronts of the homes. Waldhauser asked Fretham if he is determining the design of the homes or if the individual homeowners will determine the design. Fretham said the design could change slightly from the pictures he showed and homeowners will be able to choose some of the design features. Nelson asked if a buyer wanted to have more square footage if the depth of the house, not the width would be increased. Frethem said yes, in that case the depth of the house would be increased. Nelson asked if they have to buiid this many houses to make the prvject econamically feasible. Fretham said he is buying these properties regardless of how many houses can be built and that he will build something on the properties. Waldhauser asked if the properties could be developed with twin homes. Hogeboom said if twin homes were proposed the properties would need to be rezoned to R2. He added thaf he thinks what the applicant is proposing, with the requested variances, will look better than if he constructed homes that conform to the Zoning Code requirements. Maxwell noted that detached garages may work on these lots. Hogeboom said he wasn't sure if detached garages would work because driveways are required to be three feet away from the side yard property lines. McCarty said he would be inclined to grant variances for the driveways. He noted that there could also be attached garages on the backs of the homes. Fretham said garages on the backs of#he homes would take a large portion of the back yards. Nelson said she agrees that detached garages would have a negative impact to the existing homes in the area. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals March 27, 2012 Page 4 Waldhauser stated that if the Board were willing to bend on the side yard setback requirements then the applicant may be able to meet the articulation requirements. Hogeboom said he thinks the applicant intends to articulate the walls where possible, it would just allow him to have more flexibility if he gets a variance from that requirement. Fretham suggested possibly allowing the articulation to encroach into the setback area, but his preference would be to have straight lines. McCarty asked Fretham what research is indicating that this is a good area for this type of development when there are houses sitting there vacant now. Fretham said his first- hand experience with similar types of infill development has been successful. Hogeboam added that the homes aren't vacant because people don't want ta buy homes in this area; they are vacant because they were foreclosed. Waldhauser asked Fretham if it would work for him if a potential buyer wanted to build a smaller home. Fretham said yes. McCarty asked Fretham how many of his other projects have been next to major highways. Fretham said several of his develapments have been near busy roads. He gave examples of project he's done in other cities and noted that these kinds of issues are part of the nature af doing infill developments. Waldhauser noted that there would be some buffer from Highway 55 because the lots to the north have a home or a pond between them and the Highway. Waldhauser asked how the grading on the site would be done. Fretham said the homes will probably not be walk-outs and he is proposing to do a grading plan for the entire site. He said that it appears that there are a lot of nice trees on these properties but there really aren't. There are diseased elm trees that need to be removed. He said he doesn't think he'll be interfering with #he nicer, mature trees. McCarty asked Fretham how he defines the character of Golden Valley. Fretham stated that many neighborhoods have a lot of different housing stock and that is their character and other neighborhoods are defined by the size of lots rather than the houses. Waldhauser stated that a new character will be created with this new neighborhood. Hogeboom added the neighbors and the City Council have defined the character of this area as single family homes. Nelson asked Fretham to address the unique circumstances of these properties that were not created by the landowner. Fretham stated that they already exist as 50-faot wide lots and the amendments to the Zoning Code in 2008 changed what kinds of houses could be built on these properties. McCarty noted that there are several areas in Golden Valley with narraw lots. They just have more design involved. Fretham agreed and said that many houses designed on narrow lots have flat roofs but he really doesn't want to build that type of house in this area. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zaning Appeals March 27, 2012 Page 5 Waldhauser asked if the homes on the corner lots will be taller. Fretham said they will not be taller but they will have different roof lines. Nelson opened the public hearing. Larry Kueny, 7303 Ridgeway Road, said he totally supporks this proposal because the neighbors fought hard to get rid of a senior housing development that was being considered for this area. Hearing and seeing no one else wishing to comment, Nelsan closed the public hearing. Waldhauser said she thinks for lots that already exist this proposal is a good fit. Maxwell said he is suppartive of the proposal as well. Nelson referred to the state statute regarding the granting of variances and said she feels this proposal is in harmony with the intent of the Zoning Gode and the Comprehensive Plan, it is a reasonable use of the property, it will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood and the sizes of the existing lots were not created by the landowner. McCarty stated that the Board typically gets a specific request for a specific variance. This proposal is more like a blanket variance or a carte blanche variance for the area. Fretham said he is trying not to make nine separate variance applications. Maxwell suggested that the language in the approval state that no wall cauld be longer than 48 feet without articulating. Fretham noted that he is not asking for variances from the side yard setback requirements. He is asking for a variance from the requirement regarding the increased side yard setback area once the house is taller than15 feet. McCarty said he thinks the varied roof lines help break up the facade even if the walls don't articulate. Boudreau-Landis agreed and said he feels articulation can be addressed in other ways such as landscaping. Nelson added that this is also going to be a new neighbarhaod so the houses won't be built right next to an existing house. Waldhauser questioned if the Board should put a limit on the length of the walls. Maxwell suggested limiting the length of the walls to 50 feet before they need to be articulated. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request to allow walls to be 50 feet in length without articulating for the houses on Lots 6, 7, 8 and 9, Block 3 and Lots 7, 8 and 9, Block 4. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Ma�cwell and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request waiving the requirement regarding side yard setbacks increasing if the house is taller than 15 feet for the houses on Lots 6, 7, 8 and 9, Block 3 and Lots 7, 8 and 9, Block 4 (The houses shall still meet the side yard setback requirements). Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals March 27, 2012 Page 6 Maxwell asked about the length of the back wall of the homes on the two corner lots. Fretham stated that the walls on the north side of the homes are proposed to be 70 feet long with no articulation. He stated that he could move the houses forward slightly in order to have more room to articulate the backs of the homes but he would then have ta amend his variance request to allow the front of homes to be 23 feet away from the front yard property line along Harold Ave. rather than 25 feet as requested. He said another idea would be to articulate the walls by 1 foot, rather than the required 2 feet which would require the articulation to go into the side yard setback area. Waldhauser stated that the rear of the homes on the corner lots will hardly be visible. McCarty suggested that the roof lines be broken up or a dormer be added to break up the long facade along the backs of the homes. Hogeboom stated that the notification ta the neighboring properties indicated that the front yard variance request was for 25 feet along Harold so he didn't think it would be fair to change the request at this point. McCarty said he is not interested in allowing a larger front yard variance and he would rather that the facade along the backs of the houses be broken up visually. Hogeboom said staff can work with the applicant to help him meet the guidelines regarding what type of structure can or can't be located in a setback area. Nelson asked which lot the model home will be built on. Fretham said Lot 8. Wa►dhauser asked if the homes on the corner lots are located right at the rear yard setback line or if they could be longer than shown on the plans. Fretham stated that there may be enough room to add a third garage stall but that could be articulated. Maxwell stated that the Board could grant a variance for an unarticulated wall to be 70 feet in length and ask that the applicant work with staff on ways to break up the facade of the back wall by using bay windows or cantilevers, etc. McCarty said he thinks the Board's hands are tied because they dan't know the exact design or dimensions af any of the proposed houses. Waldhauser said the Board cauld restrict the length of the walls to 50 feet before they are required to articulate for the corner houses like they did for the other houses. Maxwell stated that the corner lots are oriented a different way than the other lots. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Boudreau-Landis and motion carried 4 ta 1 to approve the variance request to allow no articulation of the walls for the houses on Lot 10, Block 3 and Lot 10, Block 4. Waldhauser voted no. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals March 27, 2012 Page 7 to approve the variance request waiving the requirement regarding side yard setbacks increasing if the house is taller than 15 feet for the homes on Lot 10, Block 3 and Lot 10, Block 4 (The houses shall still meet the side yard setback requirements). MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to the variance request to allow the houses on Lot 10, Block 3 and Lot 10, Block 4 to be built 25 feet from the front yard property line along Harold Avenue. III. Other Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 pm. Nancy J. Nelson, Chair Joseph S. ogeboom, Staff Liaison