Loading...
04-28-15 BZA AgendaBoard of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, April 28, 2015 7 pm 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers I. Approval of Minutes — February 24, 2015 Regular Meeting II. The Petition(s) are: 6400 Hampshire Place Donald Weld Jr, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements • 8 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 27 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a two -stall garage. 125 Meadow Lane North LeeAnn Bell & Paul Romslo, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3) Side Yard Setback Requirements • 14.2 ft. off of the required 21.5 ft. to a distance of 7.3 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage addition. 1341 Orkla Drive Jay Johnson and Britt Bakke, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3) Side Yard Setback Requirements • 8.5 ft. off of the required 15 ft. to a distance of 6.5 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a deck III. Other Business Election of Officers IV. Adjournment Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals February 24, 2015 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, February 24, 2015, at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Vice Chair Perich called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm. Those present were Members Maxwell (arrived at 7:12), Nelson, Orenstein, Perich and Planning Commission Representative Blum. Also present were Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes — January 27, 2015 Regular Meeting MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Orenstein and motion carried unanimously to approve the January 27, 2015, minutes as submitted. II. The Petition(s) are: 13XX Flag Avenue Richard Schneider, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements • 22.4 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 12.6 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of new house Goellner referred to a site plan of the property and stated that the Applicant is proposing to build a new homeon the existing vacant lot. She explained that the Applicant is requesting a variance from the front setback requirements due to the steep slope on the west side of the property, a large drainage and utility easement on the east side of the property, and the unique shape of the front yard causing the need for a long driveway. Nelson asked if the existing duplex to the west has a Flag Avenue address or a Plymouth Avenue address. Goellner said it has a Plymouth Avenue address. Blum asked if the peak of the slope is located between the subject property and the duplex to the west. Goellner said yes and explained that there is about a 24 -foot difference in elevation from the proposed house to the existing duplex. Orenstein asked if the owners of the duplex have expressed any objections. Goellner said no. Perich asked if the guidelines were different when the subdivision creating this lot was approved. Goellner explained that during the subdivision process the Applicant showed a Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals February 24, 2015 Page 2 home on their plans that met the setback requirements. She added that the easement on the east side of the property wasn't as large at that time. Maxwell asked if the proposed location of the house is really the only buildable spot. Goellner said it may be possible to build the house in a different location but the costs might be insurmountable. Maxwell asked if the current landowner did the original subdivision. Goellner said no. Nelson asked if the owner of the duplex did the original subdivision. Goellner said yes, the person who owned the duplex at the time was the Applicant for the Subdivision. Blum asked if the slope is a natural or created hill. Goellner said it is a naturally occurring hill. Dick Schneider, Applicant, referred to the site plans and stated that there is approximately 60 feet from the buildable area to Flag Avenue. He said that the spirit of the front setback requirement has to do with the distance from the curb. He said that if he builds his home where he is proposing it will save trees, shorten the driveway, and place the home further away from the existing duplex. Perich asked about the portion of the driveway that will not be located on the property. Schneider said it will be located on the unbuildable property to the north out to Flag Avenue. Maxwell asked if trees would need to be removed in order to meet the setback requirements. Schneider said yes, 8 to 10 trees would have to be removed. Nelson asked the Applicant if he knew where the 'buildable portion of the lot was located when he purchased the property. Schneider stated that the owner at the time didn't know how the house would fit within the building envelope. He stated that he is proposing a modest house in the location that will work best. Maxwell opened the public hearing, Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Maxwell closed the public hearing. Nelson said she is sensitive to front yard setbacks, but she realizes the proposed new house won't have much impact. She stated that if the proposed house met the setback requirements it would have a bigger impact on the duplex to the west. She added that this landowner did' not create the issue. Perich agreed and said the proposal makes a lot of sense and is reasonable for this area. Blum said he is in favor of the request and thinks the Board has addressed the factors they need to when considering variances. He said the variance is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinances, the variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the proposal puts the property to use in a reasonable manner, there are unique circumstances to the property that were not created by the landowner, and the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The Board agreed. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals February 24, 2015 Page 3 MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Perich and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request for 22.4 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 12.6 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (north) property line to allow for the construction of new house. 1300 Toledo Avenue North Beth Trautman (Cottage Home Designs), Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3) Side Yard Setback Requirements • 5.5 ft. off of the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 6 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage addition. Goellner referred to a survey of the property and explained the Applicant's request to construct a garage addition. She noted that the applicant is also proposing an addition to the rear of the house but that won't require variances. She explained that the Applicant has stated that the unique circumstances with this property are that the house was built with a one -stall garage, the lot is long and deep but not very wide, and placing a new garage near the rear of the home will create a longer driveway. Nelson asked about the size of the proposed new garage. Goellner said it will be 22 ft. x 22 ft. in size. Nelson asked if the Applicant is proposed to expand to the existing breezeway. Goellner said the Applicant is proposing to rebuild, but not expand the breezeway. Paul Stepnes, Cottage Home Designs, Applicant, said he found the original house plans in the attic which showed a two -stall garage. If the house had been built the way the plans indicated, they wouldn't need a variance today. He stated that they are proposing a modest garage that will keep within the design and feel of the house. Beth Trautman, Cottage Home Designs, Applicant, stated that they are proposing to reduce the size of the existing breezeway. She added that they are trying to restore the home and modernize it. She referred to the survey of the property and stated that there is a large tree behind the existing garage so they don't want to move the garage further back on; the property. Stepnes added that there is also a ponding area in the back yard. Maxwell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Maxwell closed the public hearing. Nelson stated that the Board usually tries to accommodate two -stall garages. She said if the proposed garage were placed anywhere else on the property it would be more impactful. She stated that the proposal is reasonable, it is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinances, it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and the proposal is reasonable. She added that the unique circumstances in this case are how Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals February 24, 2015 Page 4 the house was originally placed on the lot, and the fact that there is only a one -stall garage currently on the property. Orenstein asked about the photos submitted by the Applicant. Stepnes explained that the photos he submitted are examples of other homes in the area with a similar garage to what they are proposing. Perich noted that if the Applicant built a new garage further back on the lot it would have a longer driveway which would not fit in as well with the neighborhood. MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Perich and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request for 5.5 ft. off of the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 6 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line to allow for the construction of a garage addition. III. Other Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 pm. George Maxwell, Chair Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant Date: April 28, 2015 MEMORANDUM Physical Development Department 763-593-8095 / 763-593-8109 (fax) To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Subject: 6400 Hampshire Place Donald Weld Jr., Applicant Donald Weld Jr., owner of the property at 6400 Hampshire Place, is seeking a variance from the City Code for the construction an attached two -stall garage on east end of his home. The project requires a variance of 8.0 feet off the required front yard setback of 35 feet to a distance of 27.0 feet from the front yard (southwest) property line along Hampshire Place. Since this is a corner lot, the property must meet front yard setback requirements for the yard facing Hampshire Place and the yard facing Douglas Drive. The proposal meets the required side yard and rear yard setback requirements. There is not a garage currently located on this property. Although a two -stall garage could be built on the property without a variance, the applicant would like to angle the garage to mitigate traffic noise from Douglas Drive and to preserve an oak tree in the front yard. The applicant also noted that the angle of the proposed garage would provide more architectural appeal to the long rambler home. With the Douglas Drive reconstruction taking place from April 2016 through October 2017, a cul- de-sac will be built in front of this property to discontinue access to Douglas Drive from Hampshire Place (see attached). The applicant noted that the angle of the proposed garage matches the angle of the cul-de-sac. This property was granted a variance for the same proposal in 2008, but the garage has not yet been constructed. The variance expired on October 1, 2009. While not shown on the current plans, the application states that the garage will be attached to the existing screened porch, creating a breezeway between the two for more storage space. The porch and breezeway are shown on the 2008 site plan. The proposal requires variances from the following sections of City Code: Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd, 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements: The minimum front yard (southwest) setback requirement is 35 feet. The Applicant is requesting a variance of 8.0 feet off of the required 35 feet to a distance of 27.0 feet at its closest point to the front yard (southwest) property line. Staff Recommendation: In reviewing this application, staff has maintained the points of examination to the considerations outlined in Minnesota State Statute 462.357, requiring that a property exhibit "practical difficulties" in order for a variance to be granted. To constitute practical difficulties, the property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner, the landowners` problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property not caused by the landowner, and that the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. City staff finds that the construction of a two -car garage is a reasonable use for this property. However, staff finds that compromising the front yard setback in order to build it is not reasonable. The angle of the proposed garage would compromise the essential character of the locality. Even though the oak tree in the front yard is an important asset to preserve, staff does not find that the applicant has exhausted all options to build within the setback requirements. Staff understands the importance of mitigating the impacts of noise and sights from Douglas Drive, but does not believe that this proposal is the only option for mitigation and that other options within the setback requirements could fulfill this need. Staff recommends denial of the request for a variance of 8.0 feet off of the required 35 feet to a distance of 27.0 feet at its closest point to the front yard (southwest) property line. 7-7 6530 6411 6405 6325 6313 20 1506 6424 6422 6510 6,132 6500 701 6440 6535 6430 1680 H an�psh/r 6527 675 1625 1670 1620 655 1619 1650 1615 1616 645 1640 --- 1607 1610 700 6620 1 I 6610 6534 6518 1605 1535 11 505 6621 66016 53935255515 1535 153 6 6600 6528 6500 662 6621 6:11 0 435 65330"5255517 1435 "'0 172 4 _ c _ O � 1710 :r Subject Property 74642 0 08640.4 N 6415 6405 \\\ 6325 6305 1600 6411 6405 6325 6313 6305 as 1506 6424 6422 6410 6,132 6,320 1605 • 1,312 1536 6439 6411 6405 6325 6313 6305 as 1506 6424 6408 6400 6326 6316 6300 1436 ) 6425 I 6401 ( 6331 16319 6307435 -7- 6150 6150 6140f� of !/ C', o, 9 6121 P 6145 6121 1421 1431 1441 Z D N O0 1600 312103 11 203 30 202102 101 r301 201 Z1,1�o9 �n9 1500 111 102' 201 1206 101 30=.104 320103 3 0 2 01 1 02 1 101 1450-7r.1 06 1400 3 j CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY 87.57 p° 7s J p��` v%��,9� 15 0 15 30 92.06 �o�Q '7 Q��s SCALE IN FEET �O�h ^ 796\ f s� o� 0 S6' �0 ��Q'Q c�r . s5. 94.80 �Q-N'A /�� 95.41 '� r 7 79 8 '�30 �9 .64 EXIST , 00.04 HOUSE 96.92 LOT/ A \ / � \ 384 •.`� ---33.00 – --I °d^7� �h • 99.64 �h��• a 89p 100.96% 100.24/10.22 99.71 �`�' ��- Q- 02.2 �'1, 35.00–� 5.48 CB Ac), 100.35 � ' c� o (A N _ 100.58 �� F�Fy 9SA of CJ y N 01 O .O SOM /,Q W o ' Ns90 ,1°000 N�\ •101.58 _ 0 �P 100.14 233 FT / \I - - 0 / 7 7 cS y-7� 4p 0� �, h I O I DESCRIPTION \SyR �i Z Lot 1, Block 3, Arnold J. Anderson's 1st /"� Z O Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. /� 96.43 W � s.se L=59.6 = ..� LEGEND \� R=28.20 -33.00- 0 DENOTES FOUND IRON MONUMENT ,� L =121'09'00" 96.55 0 DENOTES SET 5/8" IRON PIPE MARKED R.L.S. NO. 25313 9.27 A DENOTES SET PK NAIL 0 POWERPOLE NOTE: — OHE — OVERHEAD ELECTRICBASIS OF BEARING SYSTEM : ALL BEARINGS ARE IN ElDENOTES CATCH BASIN CO Py ARNOLD EIP IRSON'S 1THE SOT ADDITION UTH LINE OF HENNNEPIN COUNTY, LOT 1, BLOCK 3, C C.O. DENOTES CLEAN OUT E- – – DENOTES DRAINAGE MINNESOTA, WHICH IS ASSUMED TO BE N59 23'31"W CERTIFICATION NOTES: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY WAS 1. This drawing does not purport to show all utilities. No field PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT verification was made except from visible evidence. Call SUPERVISION, AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED Gopher State One before digging. LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE 2. No title work was furnished for the preparation of this survey OF MINNESOTA. to verify the legal description or the existence of any easements or encumbrances. Q — DATED: 8 l`S� 3. No specific soils investigation has been completed on this Lot MARK Ir GEFFERS, R.L.S. NO. 25,31Y by the Surveyor. L. d surveying Engine Wig, DWG- WELD.DWG FOR : DRAWN BY.' MDG DONALD WELD JR. orheo-L—d ceaet—U.. uet.'W pl—i"g Tee°'°g DATE 08/12/2008 6400 HAMPSHIRE PLACE c --M.. nee la -«' GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA .04 g .tee. �. ACCT. No.: N5412 / N8430 North Wd. l 66057 Talephen. 607.816.09!! •mw: pec.lmlte 5.7.645.2U2merkg�mhi-of.«m FILE NO. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY /.1 ,00.35 ► � , 9206 �Nll� EXIST HOUSE A% 1. Block 3, Anwld J. Andasods ist jwn, H ninepin County, h iencsots. LEGEND \ • DENOTES F RON I Q DENOTES SET /8�' IRO MARKED R.L. NO.. 2 A DENOTES SET PK yN 0 POWERPOLE -- OHE —OVERHEAD ELEC�C� 0 DENOTES CATCH BASIN 0 C.O. DENOTES CLEAN OUT F - - DENOTES DRAINAGE CERTIFICATION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION, AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. .:*� DATED: MARK D."GEFFERS, R.L.S. NO. 2531 MR : DONALD WELD JR. 6400 HAMPSHIRE PLACE GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA &M_ " ..A++.. C yo• � tie • 94.80 � ��/ �/�. \ ro� WTI ,p �� � • 99.54 C 1 a. .22 M t' '99.71 •1 BL 3� 35.00- j" hy� � O o w `' 11 ` N (T ►� 'moi'' `. L=59.6 R=28.20 =121" 15 0 15 30 SCALE IN FEET - 33.00- - J NOTE: BASIS OF BEARING SYSTEM : ALL BEARINGS ARE IN RELATWNSW THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 1. BLOCK 3, ARNOLD J. SON'S IST ADDITION. HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTJI. qi IS ASSUMED TO BE N59'23'31 "W NOTES:. 1. This drawing does n t purport to show all utilities. No field verification was triode except from visible evidence. Call Gopher State One betwe digging. 2. No We work was furnished for the preparation of this survey to verify the legal description or the existence of any easements or encumbrances. 3. No specific sols investigation has been completed on this Lot by the Surveyor. ow- WELD.DWG rr.,a fJIP w Br MDG tJ r : 00/12/2008' ACCT. NR : N5412 / N8430 IRE Na . city Of1\ golden alley Zoning Code Variance Application 1. Street address: (0400 OAMPSH►RE PLALE 2. Applicant Information: Name: DONALD M WELD JR- Address: R Address: 524'1 (1a4P-D AvENKE Sou.-rk MINNEAPOOS, MN 554101 Email Address: DONvo LI) wELDANDS-ONS. C.oM Phone Number: b 12. 22 I. 4 -11 3. Provide a detailed description of the variance(s) being requested: Ile J ,drmGk �/Y ry Ji J -C U �� s e. 3 L � r7 � a � J � c � , o� v.� � � yC+ � 4 L. 4. Provide a detailed description of need for a variance from the Zoning Code, including: • Description of building(s) • Description of proposed addition(s) • Description of proposed alteration(s) to property /r Cr4 �: r. < zt,. � �c�l.. z vt �g �.-® a., m��� TJ1•�aYz f�J t� 5. Minnesota State Statute 462.357 requires that a property exhibit "practical difficulties" in order for a variance to be considered. Practical Difficulties: • result in a use that is reasonable. • are based on a problem that is unique to the property. • are not caused by the landowner. • do not alter the essential character of the locality. To demonstrate how your request will comply with Minnesota State Statute 462.357, please respond to the following questions: Explain the need for your variance request and how it will result in a reasonable use of the �-- property. l i4 J.4C.74rC,a//� 4 pu/>n� qq°-•®T i —T —! /w✓� H4/+� A P'!L lro �, � - 4�"C�!/ �Cc' vrh / Csn'9e i �^ Q �d IT c1 197 , — f A * — . 1 /_ rq / N ! g )- �' < / •-� �ry r. ,} 6 7 1+c lfTs F+C: ✓-4r 0 Iadtse d- uJsi..4 l siq/+��n�+S o F )00a�/�s What is unique about your property and how do you feel that it necessitates a variance? $ e -e p 6c -e- cln 5we p- -? imp t -c -e Cjrtn}e %I �Ae SO &IC ✓t-4veS ✓` -) �S'k��cay+e e t, zoo I Explain how the need for a variance is based on circumstances that are not a result of a landowner action. n l/0�9�'`s P arm S/f✓r1��ncj �iu� �✓e t7 d je G� CS r CCI ✓ �a Y ✓ _ Explain how, if granted, the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of your neighborhood and Golden Valley as a whole. -1-77 Oe /S c�ya,n�e i P/7 1V" yfee y IC ��r•,�• s a s e,e t f-� y., 6 f r. v, e w 9 5 .-4 }�. WA f4 � J �F c ✓/ Cie S a C- 6. The City requests that you consider all available project options that are permitted by the Zoning Code prior to requesting a variance. The Board of Zoning Appeals will discuss alternative options to seeking variance with you at the public hearing. Please describe alternate ways to do your project that do not require variances to the Zoning Code. C-<m�� ��r•,�• s a s /s Qnc% -cc:�2` tial Moes �7, c IV ,y - J0 C 7. Please submit a current survey of your property. You must indicate the proposed addition, including new proposed building and structure setbacks, on the survey. A copy of Golden Valley's survey requirements is available upon request. Please note that this application is considered incomplete without the submittal of a current property survey. 8. Please submit at least one current color photograph of the area affected by the proposed variance. You may attach a printed photograph to this application, or you may email a digital image to planning@goldenvalleymn.gov. You may submit additional photographs as needed. To the best of my knowledge the statements found in this application are true and correct. I also understand that unless construction of the action applicable to this variance request, if granted, is not taken within one year, the variance expires. I have considered all options afforded to me through the City's Zoning Code, and feel that there is no alternate way to achieve my objective except to seek a variance to zoning rules and regulations. I give permission for Golden Valley staff, as well as members of the Board of Zoning Appeals, to enter my property prior to the public hearing to inspect the area affected by this requ st. Sigr6Kure of Applicant If the applicant is not the owner of all property involved in this application, please name the owner of this property: Print Name of owner Signature of owner $200 Application Fee Attached (for Single Family Residential) $300 Application Fee Attached (for all other Zoning Districts) Please note: The City of Golden Valley will send notice of your variance request to all adjoining property owners as well as owners of properties directly across streets or alleys. Your neighbors have the right to address the Board of Zoning Appeals at your public hearing. You are advised to personally contact your neighbors and explain your project to them prior to the public hearing. w h r +� t ` a Y 4 � t ! k ` a Y ff A 41a � " x :a oor Hw y • r IVJ�. AY s lr p s +w ff A � " x :a K • ... , r. 0 125 f+ r r. f II�1M+/1'f�Mt�?fttN�ri i••t Ht=... �,} �'' i Duluth Street 2m n, - - -� n� 16 AO p R CO <_ 1 r � - m As o �..h/�e X •a itP' "� +r s ♦: "" ice.,,, dsa°. city of Project Layout CSAH 102 (Douglas Drive) S.P. 128-091-004 v valley City of Golden Valley, Minnesota z L=27.96' R=1138.40' 40' 1 , WLOT CHBroN45' 4TX—\,o 5.00'D & U EASEMENT CHD=27.96 L=17.87' R=1382.40' 00 b=0'44'26" !"3 PARCEL 28 Q CHB=N44' 50' 18"W CHD=17.87 14,223 SQFT V) ur9 „ TEMPORARY EASEMENT o 41 L=28.81' R=45.00' A=36'40'40" 00 !to 33.00' I S89'5T21"E s CHB=S71' 42' 19"W tO00 EXISTING P ; CHD=28.32 20.00'i R.O.W. H PROPOSED ROAD 24.54' 3 0 44.54' N89'57'21"W v Z IMPROVEMENTS fO W P 0 SS6 z ; Ix y WA- C 0 wC L_413j0� O p CHB�`4 PROPOSED ROAD 600c IMPROVEMENTS PERMANENT EASEMENT I� ' EAST LINE J SECTION 29 1. ENCUMBERED 90 SQFT 2 UNENCUMBERED 2,713 SOFT 3. TOTAL PERMANENT EASEMENT OWNER: 2,803 SOFT DONALD WELL, JR. AND CYNTHIA WELD 1. ENCUMBERED 140 SOFT PID: 2. UNENCUMBERED 927 SOFT ° s 30 29-118-21-41-0019 3. TOTAL TEMPORARY EASEMENT 1,067 SOFT ADDRESS: 6400 HAMPSHIRE PLACE NOTE: PARCEL AREA OBTAINED FROM HENNEPIN GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427 COUNTY RECORDS. 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300 Parcel 28 Sketch city Of Minnea .%wwMNb.V554�1r61 W � Douglas Drive Improvements olden "°° Golden Valley, Minnesota July 17, 2014 Project No: 1701-110 c Valle)- E"AEMMG Notice of Final Order October 2, 2008 Number: 08-09-14 Petitioner(s): Don Weld Address: 6400 Hampshire Place Golden Valley, MN 55427 At a regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals held on September 25, 2008 your petition for the following variance was approved. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements • 5 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 30 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage. Attached you will find an unofficial copy of the minutes of the Board. Board of Zoning Appeals Staff Liaison If waivers are not acted upon within one year from date of approval in accordance with statutes, the waivers have expired. Date: September 11, 2008 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Subject: 6400 Hampshire Place North Thomas Renovations, Applicant AI Wil 0I f d r Planning 763-593-80951763-593-8109 (fax) Kayle Vick, general manager of Thomas Renovations, is requesting a variance to City Code for the construction of an attached garage at 6400 Hampshire Place North. The proposed garage would extend into the south front yard setback area. No prior variances were obtained for this property. The proposed garage is the last of several improvements and renovations taking place at 6400 Hampshire Place North. Currently, there is no garage on the property. Although a two -stall garage would be able to be built within setback boundaries, the applicant wishes to angle the garage to the southeast, bringing it into the south front yard setback area. This design is desired by the applicant in order to mitigate traffic noise from Douglas Drive, as well as to preserve an existing oak tree on the property. The proposed project requires a variance from the following section of City Code: • Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements A 35 foot side yard setback is required for properties located in the Single Family R1 Residential Zoning District. The applicant is requesting 8 feet off of the required 35 feet to a distance of 27 feet from the closest point of the proposed garage to the front (south) yard property line. The Douglas Drive Corridor is currently the focus a planning study. The study has indicated a decline in maintenance of homes directly adjacent to the roadway. This proposal serves to improve a property along Douglas Drive by limiting visual and sound impacts of the roadway for not only this home, but the surrounding area to the west. Improvement of Golden Valley's single family housing stock along county highways, particularly Douglas Drive, is highly encouraged. This plan is consistent with the desire for improvements along Douglas Drive, and is supported by the Planning Department. Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 25, 2008 egular meeting of the Golden Valle 'Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Thursday, Sep ber 25, 2008 at City Hall, 780Q.olden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair ailed the meeting to order t 7 pm.""" Those present AmLMembers Kisch, Representative McCar so preser Administrative Assistant Lisa were 1. Approval of Njwfts — Augult 26, 2008 MOVED byKiisch, seconded by Segibaum and motion the Aw4st 26 minutes as submitted: II. The Petitions are: 64 #atx�pahire f?tats ala Kayle Vick. Thomas Reny Request: Waiver from Requiremen . 8 toe frot Purpose: To:al,(ow Hogeboom stat" Currently, # ere is noted tha`'' The ream he and anglih H000m s Doubt._ Drive proposer wjl.lk along Doug; Viand Planning Commission Joe Hogeboomqq approve SAI& 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback 35 ft. to a distance of 27 ft. at its closest point ith) property line. construction of a garage. that t ,apprit is requesting a variance to construct a garage. a e on the property. He referred to a survey of the property and rv4tgarage is placed on an angle or askew to the property lines. rplacement according to the applicant is that this is a corner lot rage as proposed will help mitigate the traffic noise from Douglas Drive. t this variance request is supported by staff and discussed the 'idor study currently underway. He added that placing the garage as help shield the view from the house to any potential future sidewalk Drive. McCarty asked if there is already an existing sidewalk along Douglas Drive. Hogeboom said yes but explained that it will probably need to be widened in the future in order to meet ADA requirements. Segelbaum asked if the fact that this property is a comer lot is considered to be a hardship. Hogeboom stated that there is also some vegetation that the applicant is trying to preserve but the main hardship noted is the noise from traffic along Douglas Drive. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 25, 2008 Page 2 Segelbaum asked if there is any information published yet regarding the Douglas Drive corridor study. Hogeboom stated that the Douglas Drive corridor study began in July of 2008 and there is nothing published yet, but staff is expecting there to be recommendations made by January of 2009. McCarty commended the home owner for improving this property. He said he understands the reasons for proposing to construct the, garage at an angle but he is concerned because there is enough room on this property to do this project without the need for a variance. He suggested building a garage that would be in line with the fro. tie house or even pushed back slightly toward the rear property line. Don Weld, owner of the property, explained that there is not proposed garage back on the lot because there is a slope in McCarty noted that the proposed garage is also wider than a *cad" car age. Weld stated that there are also large trees that would have to be removed i i't build the garage at an angle. He added that he also doesn't want to b ld tl gara` in Zine with the house because the house and garage would then rxirrttely:{80 feet in length and it would look like a hotel. Segelbaum questioned if building the proposed gaat anAngle would really create a sound barrier. Weld said that angling the garage Wrea " �, privacy and will help with the noise issues. Fes: Segelbaum questioned where the mew drwaywould be located. Weld referred to the survey of the property and poinded tit where the driveway would be located. McCarty reiterated that t arag, ould be built in line with the house or even pulled slightly forward right to the , . t " ` back hne and the applicant would get the same sound mitigation. Weld disoused theg.cation of a doorway that would connect the house to the proposed new garage He state at they have considered alternate locations for the in garage but the ,y they arki'poging it is what they really prefer and is what they think will work best. Nelson id i. I a, e to the applicant's noted hardships. She said she thinks the property will bethetically better and more valuable with an attached garage angled away from ©rt�3%,51!,Drive: Kisch 100 pW if the angle of the proposed garage could be minimized slightly which would requl a lesser variance. He questioned if the proposed angle is really optimal for mitigating sound or if the angle is more for visual impact. Weld noted that there is only one tree on the entire corner and does not want to remove it. McCarty said he likes the proposed design but he is having difficulty finding a true hardship. He stated that planting trees and bushes would absorb sound .better than any garage. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 25, 2008 Page 3 Sell questioned why the proposed garage is 30 feet in width and suggested it be made 28 feet in width instead. Weld said he would like to have a little bit of room on the sides of the garage for storage. Sell asked the applicant if the rear yard is wet. Weld said he has not any problems with water. Segelbaum asked the applicant what he thinks the disadvantages would be, to building the garage in line with the house rather than at an angle. Weld said that a tre wai have to be removed and building the garage in line with the house would look t`1e bse the house and garage would be almost 80 feet in length. A a' Nelson asked Hogeboom to discuss why staff is supporting this ance equtst f `. Hogeboorn stated that one reason staff is supporting this reques��b use they multi- family units and rental homes along Douglas Drive are increasing i : repaig*le explained that this property was previously considered a non-corlia "j home so creating a separation from Douglas Drive with this proposarage wou > be a major ed.,g improvement on a long term basis. Sell suggested allowing the proposed garage to b ngled OR as a compromise allowing a variance of 5 feet off the required 35 feet instead. o a requ ted 8 feet off the 35 feet. He stated that allowing 5 feet off the front: yard ruir ould be similar to the setback requirements for a front porch addition Fte said t -e agreed with the applicant that adding a garage in line with the house woZ0611N,,fee in leng`fltmd it would look too long. He added that constructing a detachara tothe side of the house would look like a separate building so he thinks aiiopg j i,imalier,` angled, attached garage would be a good compromise. x ' Nelson agreed with Sell and �adtd that bebause it is a corner lot on Douglas Drive and it would not impact any uses '& nd it, she is in support of a variance to allow the garage to be built. Segelbaum stateda,hat iif; a other houses in the area are in alignment and this proposed garage corrrte rd then it does impact the neighboring houses. Hogeboo tat *4 that in preliminary conversations with Hennepin County they have ind�#ed th ey _ puld like to close off access to Douglas Drive from several residential stre p h With tVs m "mind, Hampshire Place could potentially one day become a cul-de- sac 4 McCarty stated that it is hard to see around this corner now and that if this proposed garage is built it might make visibility worse. Sell stated that if trees were planted on this corner as suggested, it would add to the visibility issues too. Sell opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to comment, Sell closed the public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 25, 2008 Page 4 McCarty said he would like to support this proposal but he is not seeing the hardship with the property because the applicant can still build a really nice garage without needing variances. Kisch stated that he is having a hard time approving this request based on the Douglas Drive corridor study, when that study isn't done yet. He said given the uniqueness of the site and the slope he can see a benefit to angling the garage slightly, but he thinks that angle can be minimized. He said he would support a variance of 5 feet or less and added that he realizes trees aren't a hardship but anytime they can be saved it is ,; ,and he would like to see a compromise in this case. ., Segelbaum said he is in favor of people improving their properties ."f he is ;. vmg h difficulties finding a hardship in this case. He asked if reducing t_ffequ to r ce to allow 5 feet off of the required 35 feet would mean that the a is t av angle the garage less or make it narrower. Sell stated that he would 4.. ve: l`o do ons r the other or maybe both if the variance request is reduced. Kisch reed d st3 t at the overall impact would be lessened if a smaller variance is approv "'R a, Segelbaum asked for help in defining the hardship.. Kisch dI ussedAhe slope off the back of the property and the amount of shoring that wood need tobe done if the garage were to be moved further back on the property. W16 ed thatTthe slope off the back of this property makes building a garage probl4o. MOVED by Nelson, seconded by �.#M Ondl 5 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a dist0rnce o `30 property line to allow for the c tructiorn of a voted no. �.: 1300 Kelly nest: 5) 6 d 3 to 2 to approve a variance for its closest.point to the front yard (south) ge. Members McCarty and Segelbaum air from SectionJ)' 21, Subd. 11{A)(3)(a) Sid Back .. .ements • 3 ft. o equired5 ft. to a ce of 12 ft. at its closest point to the side (ea pr ne. To allow for the Hogeboom explained the ap °s-requo noted by the applicant4s opography a survey of the prope d noted that the e the area of the osed deck which is cre because of dog in the property line staf Sell ed about the dimensions of the prc emMained that the deck will have two -tiers. (replacement) of a new deck. to rep his existing deck. The hardship odd shape lot. Hogeboom referred to a t property lina e in approximately 15 feet in ng the need for a ce. He added that supporting this varian west. sed new deck. Brent Behn; A t, e first level is 8 feet deep and 12 edt wide Date: April 28, 2015 MEMORANDUM Physical Development Department 763-593-8095 / 763-593-8109 (fax) To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Subject: 125 Meadow Lane North LeeAnn Bell and Paul Romslo, Applicants LeeAnn Bell and Paul Romslo, owners of the property at 125 Meadow Lane North, are seeking a variance from the City Code to add a third stall to a two -stall attached garage. The applicant is seeking a variance of 14.2 feet off the required side yard setback of 21.5 feet to a distance of 7.3 feet from the side yard (south) property line. The applicant is also seeking a variance to build an attached garage greater than 1,000 square feet in size. The property currently has a two -stall garage that is approximately 575 square feet (22 feet wide and 28 feet deep). The proposed addition would increase the size of the garage to approximately 999 square feet for the three -stall garage. The proposed third stall garage would increase the width of the garage by 11 feet to the south (side yard) and 4 feet to the east (front yard). It meets the front yard setback requirement. The new stall would be built to match the gables of the existing garage. The driveway currently extends to the area where the proposed third stall would be located. If a variance from the side yard setback requirement is granted, the distance between the home at 125 Meadow Lane and the neighboring home to the south, 105 Meadow Lane, would be approximately 29.8 feet at the closest point. The neighboring home is located approximately 22.5 feet from the property line. The home at 105 Meadow Lane has a two -stall garage. The applicants note that the property is unique in that the home was built with a two -stall garage near the south end of the lot, requiring a variance to the side yard setback in order to build an attached third stall. They also noted that the garage is narrow and difficult to maneuver within and it is difficult to store items in. This addition would meet their needs as a family. There is not a reasonable location for an additional detached garage on the lot. If it were located behind the home, the driveway would need to extend around the south end of the home to the rear yard. This would significantly alter the character of the locality. The Building Official noted that a detached garage, as well as an attached garage, would need to be built on pilings due to poor soil conditions. The home is also built on pilings. To understand how this variance could affect the character of the locality, the applicants provided a list of nearby homes with three -stall garages. While 200 Sunnyridge Lane, 120 Meadow Lane, 221 Meadow Lane, and 4260 Glenwood Avenue have three -stall garages, no variances were necessary in order to build them. The applicants also noted two homes with side yard setbacks comparable to the setback they are requesting. However, the properties at 513 Meadow Lane and 521 Meadow Lane have smaller setback requirements because the lots are smaller in width than the applicant's lot. The proposal requires variances from the following sections of City Code: Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3) Side Yard Setback Requirements: The minimum side yard (south) setback requirement is 21.5 feet. The Applicant is requesting a variance of 14.2 feet off of the required 21.5 feet to a distance of 7.3 feet at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Staff Recommendation: In reviewing this application, staff has maintained the points of examination to the considerations outlined in Minnesota State Statute 462.357, requiring that a property exhibit "practical difficulties" in order for a variance to be granted. To constitute practical difficulties, the property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner, the landowners' problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property not caused by the landowner, and that the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. City staff finds that a third -stall addition to a two -stall garage is a reasonable use for this property. However, staff finds that compromising the side yard setback requirement to the extent requested is not reasonable. The extent of this change in a side yard setback would compromise the essential character of the locality. Even though the landowner did not take any action that caused this issue to arise, staff finds that a two -stall garage on this lot is sufficient and that the current driveway allows the space for an additional car to park on the lot. Staff understands the safety concerns and personal needs of the applicants, but must focus this analysis on how the addition will affect the locality. Staff recommends denial of the request for a variance of 14.2 feet off the required side yard setback of 21.5 feet to a distance of 7.3 feet from the side yard (south) property line. 235 300 250 4215 245 t 227 -� 222 4125 240 235 234 39 212ry 219227 �A 220 221 200 215 220 221 200 209 211 -``� 11, 166 207 Subject Property _ 130 127 205 203 202 :212 124 165 01 yri �9e 120 _ Ci, 185 Zt 204 206 2 115 112 143 200 100 --- 101100 t5 4140 4120 a 120 125 4007 40 � - 413525 4020 4010 4008 - 1 24 105 40( 22 4125 614" Ronnc.� 20 C11 /— 4240 4025 4015 4011 4270 .. 4115 17 4013 _ 8 9 4000 12 6 - 4300 4260 4263 4253 4250 40204012 3940 3920 3 15 4409 4333 4313 4309 4301 0 q 8 9 3 -T- �. S 4115 4243 17- 16 7 Y a 17 city 0 golden alley Zoning Code Variance Application 1. Street address: 12,5 Lgznc.. Nor -{- 2. Applicant Information: Name: LeeA7n 9<,l -L.. -I— 4:�WL J`Y15�6 Address: 12-67 NIe"y,,r LAflf,- 1'1'0'� Email Address: Locanh 8c� hd{rrwi GVM Phone Number: (.(,0(2-) SOS" 27q cf 3. Provide a detailed description of the variance(s) being requested: -Please See c �6 ck%.r(-( -For Gws w, r -h a I_I 4. Provide a detailed description of need for a variance from the Zoning Code, including: • Description of building(s) • Description of proposed addition(s) • Description of proposed alteration(s) to property 5. Minnesota State Statute 462.357 requires that a property exhibit "practical difficulties" in order for a variance to be considered. Practical Difficulties: • result in a use that is reasonable. • are based on a problem that is unique to the property. • are not caused by the landowner. • do not alter the essential character of the locality. To demonstrate how your request will comply with Minnesota State Statute 462.357, please respond to the following questions: Explain the need for your variance request and how it will result in a reasonable use of the property. What is unique about your property and how do you feel that it necessitates a variance? Explain how the need for a variance is based on circumstances that are not a result of a landowner action. Explain how, if granted, the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of your neighborhood and Golden Valley as a whole. 6. The City requests that you consider all available project options that are permitted by the Zoning Code prior to requesting a variance. The Board of Zoning Appeals will discuss alternative options to seeking variance with you at the public hearing. Please describe alternate ways to do your project that do not require variances to the Zoning Code. 7. Please submit a current survey of your property. You must indicate the proposed addition, including new proposed building and structure setbacks, on the survey. A copy of Golden Valley's survey requirements is available upon request. Please note that this application is considered incomplete without the submittal of a current property survey. 8. Please submit at least one current color photograph of the area affected by the proposed variance. You may attach a printed photograph to this application, or you may email a digital image to planning goldenvalleymn..ov. You may submit additional photographs as needed. To the best of my knowledge the statements found in this application are true and correct. I also understand that unless construction of the action applicable to this variance request, if granted, is not taken within one year, the variance expires. I have considered all options afforded to me through the City's Zoning Code, and feel that there is no alternate way to achieve my objective except to seek a variance to zoning rules and regulations. I give permission for Golden Valley staff, as well as members of the Board of Zoning Appeals, to enter my property prior to the public hearing to inspect the area affected by this request. Sign ure of Applicant If the applicant is not the owner of all property involved in this application, please name the owner of this property: -FAcn/-- (oOMSI o Print Name of owner Signature of owner $200 Application Fee Attached (for Single Family Residential) $300 Application Fee Attached (for all other Zoning Districts) Please note: The City of Golden Valley will send notice of your variance request to all adjoining property owners as well as owners of properties directly across streets or alleys. Your neighbors have the right to address the Board of Zoning Appeals at your public hearing. You are advised to personally contact your neighbors and explain your project to them prior to the public hearing. 125 MEADOW LANE NORTH VARIANCE REQUEST 3. We are requesting a variance for the south side setback in order to build a three - car garage. The current survey shows that the garage is 18.3-18.7 feet from the property line and the current set back is 15 feet. We are requesting a variance to build a third stall resulting in a requested variance of the setback to down to 7.3-7.7 feet. 4. We currently have a two car attached garage which is located to the south of the residence. We would like to build an expanded three car garage for various reasons. First, there are three adults living on the property (one parent lives with us) and we have three vehicles which we would like to park inside. Unfortunately, within a few weeks of moving in, we had a family member's vehicle broken into while parked in the driveway overnight. The third garage stall would allow us to park all of the vehicles in the garage. Second, the current garage is barely wide enough to permit the opening of car doors given the snow blower, bikes, lawn mower etc. that need to be stored. The new garage would add a third stall to the south of the existing garage as well as deepen the garage by moving the front of the garage forward 4 feet in order to line up with the front of the main residence (the forward expansion does not require a variance). 5. The variance is necessary because of the soil conditions of the property. Due to unstable soil, the house and existing attached garage were built on pilings. According to conversations with the Building Official, Jerry Frevel, per building code, any attached garage on the property would be required to be built on pilings (or whatever the current engineering requirements would be). A non-attached garage would not have those engineering requirements and could be structurally unstable over the long term. Thus, it is in the best interest of long-term use of the property to build an attached garage. The location of the house on the lot, the conditions of the soil and the available locations for an attached garage were fixed before we purchased the residence in the summer of 2014. The house itself is to the north of the current garage, preventing expansion in that direction. To the rear, there is an existing three -season porch with windows on three sides, and a gas heater which vents at the rear of the garage. As a result, the garage cannot be expanded to the rear. The garage cannot be expanded forward because the depth necessary for a third car stall would violate the setback 0 requirements for the front of the property and would not function given the shape of the existing driveway. LeeAnn has personally visited with the Building Official and Planning Manager, Jason Zimmerman, as well has had multiple telephone conversations with the Planning office to discuss the project before making this request. With regard to impact on the character of the neighborhood and Golden Valley, a three car garage is not out of proportion to the size of the house (appx. 3,600 square feet). A three car garage is also consistent with other houses in the immediate vicinity that have at least a three car garage, including the two houses directly across the street (200 Sunnyridge Ln, 120 Meadow Ln N) and other houses on the street (e.g. 221 Meadow Ln N) and two new builds just a block away (1 Meadow Lane N and 4251 Glenwood Av. — 4 car). Additionally, a smaller setback is not inconsistent with the properties in the area. On Meadow Lane, there are properties that appear to have setbacks smaller than 15 feet (e.g. 513 and 521 Meadow Ln N and well as the house between them). Furthermore, the side of the property where the variance is requested is the location where our garage meets the neighbor's garage, and thus, it is less disruptive to the overall feel of the neighborhood. On the North side, the house is setback almost 70 feet from the property line, thus, the character of the neighborhood will not be altered by having a smaller setback on the South side because the North side maintains a large open area. Thus, given all these considerations a three car garage it is not only a reasonable use of the property, it is consistent with other properties in the area and a variance in the setback on just one side of the residence will not alter the character of the locality. 6. As explained above, given the location of the house on the lot, there is no option to build an attached garage to accommodate 3 car widths without a zoning variance given the location of the house on the property and the other limits of the lot. Despite the serious concern of stability issues addressed above, we have considered where we could build a detached garage despite the soil conditions. As a preliminary matter the lot has no rear access, so there is no option to build a detached garage in the rear of the lot accessed by an alley. Because there is no rear access to the lot, as well as the presence of a city storm drain and a swing set in the back yard, the only possible location for a detached garage would be directly behind the current garage (it is rN not clear that it would actually fit in the space given the issues set forth below). This would result in placing a garage in the sight lines of the Southside neighbors' deck and the windows of the existing three season porch, which would be esthetically unappealing. A detached garage in this location would also result in what would appear to be a long line of garage wall along the south side of the property (although there would be a break in the wall, it would have the visual effect of appearing continuous), which is also esthetically unappealing and not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood (as evidenced by the zoning requirement that no walls to the side of the property shall be more than 32 consecutive feet long). Furthermore, the grade behind the current attached garage slopes downward and there is a 3-4 foot high retaining wall directly behind the current garage running the length of the garage. Because a detached garage would need to be built where the grade is changing significantly, it will require modifying the slope of the yard to accommodate a flat foundation for a detached garage which could further exacerbate the soil issues noted by the Building Inspector. It would also require expanding the paved square footage of the property in order to accommodate a long extension to the existing driveway past the current garage and up to and including the foundation for the new garage. Given all of these facts, building a separate detached garage is simply not viable and not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. 3 Z W O �0 O CO Z Q Q - LL- Q O I- z C7 o W o .-QOO� W Q >� Q w i- W F- W U)~ C) W o= z Q Q I-Q_jX I f W JLLJ O J>LLI Z W ~¢ W W a_ �' I- Q> W LLI O W O~ZOO Q LA o � o ¢ zoo-I-� CD - O � 0 I- O Z o T< - Z co Q Q LL W� o D O zo o =� Z CD � j Q L- Ow W WOWooWo °_' 00 — z V O W W W w oQ z o W pig W cn Z W U J= C7 O W wQcn(nF--Z Z O � o W Z W< W -S WCOof<X� o w W OZ =o N W a U O (.D O- OJ �omWU� QI 00 �� v o LJJ II II it II II II II II �� Olzz JN N mUw QrWO� I II cnQ =Q II Q o ZYJQz of O 00') Q �W U (I) > Un S� 00 = J W W W o= m O 0 O W W ��Q � ��f O U, J ��O �F-z (nW I LL' } O M f W`. O x �wor-)�ow w:2 Q j N ------------------------------ I I � [11 I I N N � I I Z rn ° �a �--------------� z I I I I I I X I --------------------- — I I _ I I I \ I I I I I I I ------- ------I----------- ------------------ I 6o I o� I A I I I I I I I I I I I I I � I _ I I I I I I I PREPARED FOR- DATE REVISIONS 03 -II -15 JOB BELL RES I DENGE DRN IY SYLVESTRE 0 LEANNEBELL �1°' DESIGN RF"<,oF .,NG 125 MEADOW LANE NORTH im No www.SylvestreConstruction.com GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA 55422 FILENAP� 7708 Fifth Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55423 GAD.AI- 2015 612-861-0188 BELL -I MN. LICENSE x/1428 aV, N rn PRED EPARFOR BELL RE51 PENCE LEANNE BELL 125 MEADOW LANE NORTH GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA 55422 DATE 03 -II -15 REV1510A15 SYLVESTRE ii F 5, (; r & R F .1 O O F.1. , N G Dm Iy J.1aRa be www.SyvestreConstruction.com 7708 Fifth Avenue south Minneapolis, Minnesota 55423 612ICENSE 188 MN. LICENSE #1428 FILENAME GAD.10B5 2015 Ap _I m xy U)U a �o Cl oa ON D V N m v o ° m Aa m ➢off m r m { Z m O � > d FT O NNA �AJ mmhl N D 6m D Z rnA 1 rn I I 1 1 I I 1 � I °zoo I I 1 � 1 I � cn I 1� c nFIR RE ' I i' I 4 00 �i � 1 DATE REVISIONS FWE-PARM FSI 09 -II -15 o BELL RESIDENCE DIRIN BY SYLVESTRE oH pWrz DESIGN h REMODELING LEANNE BELL .as NO 125 MEADOW LANE NORTH www.SylvestreConstruction.com GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA 55422 FILENAME7708 Fifth Avenue south Minneapolis, Minnesota 55423 61 2-861-0188 � GAD.JOB6 2015 LICENSE #1428 WILL MN. -I I 1 1 m�rrnn IT N I m rl1 Fj z 1 1 UI N I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 1� 1 !� I� 1 1 I I /L _ ' ---- / ------ \ (Np 1 I I � II D I I MEADOW LANE 161.15' 7HL] PREPARED FOR. BELL RES I DENGE LEANNE BELL 125 MEADOW LANE NORTH GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNE50TA 55422 DATE �--11.15 REV1510N5 SYLVESTRE °o°°a DESIGN h REMODELING I a1°"� `1OB NO m wwSouthest Min n Minneapolis, 7708 Fifth Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55423 88 612—ENSE 14 MN. LICENSE #1428 PI��I� GND.IOBS 2015 BELL -1 - 11 F 4 iC r w M »t ' 11 F 4 Date: April 28, 2015 MEMORANDUM Physical Development Department 763-593-8095 / 763-593-8109 (fax) To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Subject: 1341 Orkla Drive Jay Johnson and Britt Bakke, Applicant Jay Johnson and Britt Bakke, owners of the property at 1341 Orkla Drive, are seeking a variance from the City Code to build a deck on their single-family home. The applicants are seeking a variance of 8.5 feet off the required side yard setback of 15 feet to a distance of 6.5 feet from the side yard (south) property line. The home was built in 2014 and two variances were granted for this property in February 2014. The first variance allowed the home to be built 27.9 feet from the front yard (north) property line, which is 7.1 feet into the front yard setback requirement of 35 feet. The second variance allowed the home to be built 12.5 feet from the side yard (south) property line, which is 2.5 feet off the side yard setback requirement of 15 feet. The property currently does not have a deck. The proposed deck would be 16 feet long extending from the home and it would be 22 feet wide at its widest point. The proposed deck would meet front yard and rear yard setback requirements on this corner lot. A front yard setback of 35 feet is required along Knoll Street and the proposed deck would be 45 feet from the property line. A rear yard setback of 25 feet is required to the west and the proposed deck would be 46 feet. The deck is proposed in this location to avoid building over a window well. In avoiding the window well and building within the setback requirements, the applicant is limited to a 16 foot wide deck. However, the deck could be widened beyond 16 feet farther away from the window well. It is possible for the applicant to extend the size of the deck to the west in order to build within the setback requirements. However, the applicant believes that this option is less attractive and does not meet their needs. The applicant is proposing that the deck extend 6 feet into the side yard setback requirement in order to build a 22 foot wide deck at its widest point. The applicant does not prefer to build a deck that extends farther than 16 feet from the home to the west into the rear yard because they do not believe it would look attractive, fit as well with the neighborhood, or meet their needs as well. They state that extending the deck to the west would look odd since the home was not built with the traditional front, side, and rear yard orientations. The applicant states that the property is unique because it is a corner lot with two front yard setbacks in which the front door of the home was not built on the "true" front yard. The "true" front yard is the front yard with the smaller width, which is along Orkla Drive. Instead, the front door of the home is on Knoll Street, so what is traditionally the rear yard is actually the side yard in this case. Because of this, a deck cannot be built into their side yard. With a variance of 2.5 feet off the 15 foot side yard setback, the home was built up to the setback requirement of 12.5 feet from the side yard (south) property line, which does not allow the deck to be built in a wrap- around style around the home. The property is long and narrow, so the deck size is limited to 16 feet in order to avoid the window well. The proposal requires variances from the following sections of City Code: Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd, 11(A)(3) Side Yard Setback Requirements: The minimum side yard (south) setback requirement is 15 feet. The Applicant is requesting a variance of 8.5 feet off of the required 15 feet to a distance of 6.5 feet at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Staff Recommendation: In reviewing this application, staff has maintained the points of examination to the considerations outlined in Minnesota State Statute 462.357, requiring that a property exhibit "practical difficulties" in order for a variance to be granted. To constitute practical difficulties, the property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner, the landowners' problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property not caused by the landowner, and that the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. City staff finds that a deck is a reasonable use for this property. However, staff finds that a reasonably sized deck (16 feet wide and 16 feet long) can built without a variance. There is more room within the buildable area that the applicant would prefer not to use, but could utilize if necessary. The builder of the home received a variance in 2015 to build the home 12.5 feet from the side yard (south) property line, so extending the deck into this setback dramatically changes the original side yard setback of 15 feet to 6.5 feet. The extent of this change in a side yard setback would compromise the essential character of the locality. Staff recommends denial of the request for a variance of 8.5 feet off the required side yard setback of 15 feet to a distance of 6.5 feet from the side yard (south) property line. - Parcel 8030 1518 152' - 1515 Neighborhood f o 1512 1 519 7845 780" 1437 813E 14:7 c 1501 1541 Street 1430 14:1 151 3 1 536 1533 1425 .... -Cibj 1424 yi.�. °' 1`' 1500 1507 152`_• 1520 . 1419 7-119 1y/e,, rr -. 1517 _. -County 141E , 7400 1509 - a, Welsey Park 1411: i4t Subject Property - 7800 7.1,. 14"A : , 1440 Ti 1447 1400 1 1434 1430 1431 1342 1425 .. 1-•41 y, ,. $135 1339 - 1420 1425 1341 1348 1336 7413 • :. 1336 1333 1408 1409 1335 1338 — 1330 1401 _. 1330 1327 1329 1332 7324 1325 1321 - 1320 1321 1318 1319 1315 7 320 7$21781 1320 1312 1313 1309 1314 1306 1 ' - 1300;7820781: 1 ': ,.__. 1300 8026 8008 8000 1300 7900 -� LYPMAJ7- AVEN1,11 :. �•T + 1220 1223 ,1 6125 8115 8101 8025 8015 1215 ' 1 1 X20 5 jlenre m Cocrt; —.� Pu1Ms P er•ec; 1. Street address: i3 city oft golden alley Zoning Code Variance Application it Orktc,,Oe�te-,, CoUq(�-V46 55-q2- 2. Applicant Information: Name: :3-a./ To + 9 C M BeAe ;. Address: 13 1 Or V, 0' D6 C-�6k1evx Vo ey o MW SS7g z7 Email Address: 12rec"tS'%0fx se,) ('Ja('QLxp• cc Phone Number: ��' I - 2-1 S08 7 3. Provide a detailed description of the variance(s) being requested: .le- wG"4 L i<.c *0 c_ e__ AOO c k-- C'r\ +' —T .�L" -t- ,,•coY\ 0r IClo•._D6C:, nevi- " z,-,r\incA CcAe- Wot-. A revLM r -e— oar Ae-Ck +o +�Q- scam..- Aos4nCO- CILs GamC kc-S�V_T C'p' + q 5 aA t 0+ 1 t VLP (5 6 ilO_C�) - 12,5 +. e WC.sA 4. Provide a detailed description of need for a variance from the Zoning Code, including: • Description of building(s) • Description of proposed addition(s) • Description of proposed alteration(s) to property ii� 1 (' W e. Lve- a- 2 s�ry ka n� w `T t� - c, " o O� o r O.' �e C.- W o,, -A e-�eok ib - 4- +b W e-5+ x4 inxi44 6e 12- -� \ y i aY\(, at V 5. Minnesota State Statute 462.357 requires that a property exhibit "practical difficulties" in order for a variance to be considered. Practical Difficulties: • result in a use that is reasonable. • are based on a problem that is unique to the property. • are not caused by the landowner. • do not alter the essential character of the locality. To demonstrate how your request will comply with Minnesota State Statute 462.357, please respond to the following questions: Explain the need for your variance request and how it will result in a reasonable use of the property. We. WCW0, i eo, mr,- kac e, lk 4, 1.4-W . -f-? ,r e:.Lt -� nQ o%A r T O 1,0-, "e0,;CI4i Explain how, if granted, the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of your neighborhood and Golden Valley as a whole. �i�MerLS�� S -50 V" Ji- v<sA xWtxu-\- &o -c «se,,�kn 12�.tr1 0. C'W\lo IkI—{- 4�C-ctINEN l 6. The City requests that you consider all available project options that are permitted by the Zoning Code prior to requesting a variance. The Board of Zoning Appeals will discuss alternative options to seeking variance with you at the public hearing. Please describe alternate ways to do your project PP that do not require variances to the Zoning Code. j j �1 S 1'Go t O -J 2X v `G� \ ✓� kb '�" ►" �y' . , W-,- COLA- l(7� rV� O� C� = OL -C 0 —ck CJ U aCyy 1k `� V k T\' `4 look —S I+ c -L� %,Q— �� T 'k -,S' \.'4 kx A�e � 1 & n c e— c;A C ckoo1rees' I� o c �,n� w� 1� r�c�� Aww1 r�� 1: izz Dn, e 7. Please submit a current survey o your property. You must indicate the proposed addition, including new proposed building and structure setbacks, on the survey. A copy of Golden Valley's survey requirements is available upon request. Please note that this application is considered incomplete without the submittal of a current property survey. 8. Please submit at least one current color photograph of the area affected by the proposed variance. You may attach a printed photograph to this application, or you may email a digital image to planning@goldenvaIleymn.gov. You may submit additional photographs as needed. To the best of my knowledge the statements found in this application are true and correct. I also understand that unless construction of the action applicable to this variance request, if granted, is not taken within one year, the variance expires. I have considered all options afforded to me through the City's Zoning Code, and feel that there is no alternate way to achieve my objective except to seek a variance to zoning rules and regulations. I give permission for Golden Valley staff, as well as members of the Board of Zoning Appeals, to enter my property prior to the public hearing to inspect the area affected by this request. If the applicant is not the owner of all property involved in this application, please name the owner of this property: Print Name of owner Signature of owner $200 Application Fee Attached (for Single Family Residential) $300 Application Fee Attached (for all other Zoning Districts) Please note: The City of Golden Valley will send notice of your variance request to all adjoining property owners as well as owners of properties directly across streets or alleys. Your neighbors have the right to address the Board of Zoning Appeals at your public hearing. You are advised to personally contact your neighbors and explain your project to them prior to the public hearing. W'� il � OIAJ I vj�,4 � �IOz/L!/ Q��-- /� 90L 3dV75(1NV1 —d--7-1,U d i J S a N V 1 walrb= mss ru'3nnsrarra — — HIMS 9AV NOiNW 48LV! 3dYJ7d1 VApa v /\I-<=�-iCQ —i — 4 c�J.O Surveyor's Certificate SURVEY FOR : Norton Homes DESCRIBED AS :Lots 1, Block 9, GOLDEN OAKS SECOND ADDITION, City of Golden Valley, Hennepin County, Minnesota and reserving easements of record. PREVIOUS IMPERV. SQ. FOOTAGE = 483 ---------------- KNOLL ST___._.__ E Proposed H- L 0 T SQ. FO 0 TA GE = 12,651 IMPERV. SQ. FOOTAGE = 3,279 IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE = 25.9% House = 2,123 sq.ft. Sidewalk = 135 sq.ft. Driveway = 1,021 sq.ft. PROPOSED ELEVATIONS Top of Foundation = 908.0 Garage Floor = 907.6 Basement Floor = 900.0 Aprox. Sewer Service = Verify Proposed Elev. = 0 Existing Elev. _ Drainage Directions = Denotes Offset Stake = • HEDLUND PLANNING ENGINEERING SURVEYING 2005 Pin Oak Drive Eagan, MN 55122 Phone: (651) 405-6600 Fax: (651) 405-6606 SCALE: 1 inch = 30 feet BENCHMARK, ® 905.43 )3_2 Rock Const. Ent. "T ne O San MH Int of Orkla Dr. & Knoll St. Rim= 905.43 Inv= 893.5 MIN. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS Front —35 House Side —12.5 Rear—38.64Garage Side -12.5 JOB NO: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION 14R-037 OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY AS SURVEYED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND DOES NOT PURPORT TO BOOK: PAGE: SHOW IMPROVEMENTS OR ENCROACHMENTS, EXCEPT AS HOWN. DATE _9 / 18/ 14 CAD FILE: D. LINDGREN, LAND vEYO0 R NESOTA LICENSE NUMBER 4376 Norton 14 1 i 4 r 'k i z x` x 'k i ri I 41 r � ` L i` t fre, 4" T AY a 1� Wr; Michael Glover 1348 Orkla Drive Golden Valley, MN 55427 612.801.5974 April 22, 2015 City of Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Re: Petition for Zoning Variance at 1341 Orkla Drive — Johnson / Bakke To Whom It May Concern: I received the City's April 16, 2015 Hearing Notice regarding the property referenced above. I own the property across the street at 1348 Orkla Drive and I have no objection to the requested variance. Yours Very Truly, /s Michael Glover cc: Jay Johnson and Britt Bakke 2015 City of Golden Valle 4-22-15 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY Board of Zoning Appeals Notice of Final Order March 4, 2014 City of 0r .. _- valle Y 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Petitioner(s): Ben Wikstrom — Lake West Development (Covington, LLC) Address: 14525 Highway 7 Minnetonka, MN 55345 At a regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals held on February 25, 2014, your petition for the following waivers from the City's Zoning Code were approved for the property located at 1343 Orkla Drive: Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements 7.1 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 27.9 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new home. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1), Subd. 11(A)(3)(b) Side Yard Setback Requirements • City Code requires an increase in side yard setback area for houses over 15 feet in height. The side yard setback along the south property line is allowed to remain at 12.5 feet without increasing even though the house is over 15 feet in height. Attached you will find an unofficial copy of the minutes of the Board. Staff Liaison Board of Zoning Appeals If waiver(s) are not acted upon within one year from the date of this Order in accordance with statutes, the waiver(s) have expired. 763-593-8000 Fax763-593-8109 ITY763-593-3968 W'wvfrgofdertvalievmorl qqnf, Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals February 25, 2014 A regular meeting of the Golden Vallpy Board of Zoning Appeals wa held on Tuesday, February 25, 2014 at City Hall, 78Oq Golden Valley Road, Go alley, Minnesota. City Afaq,ner Jason Zimmerman called t e meeting to order 8 pm. Those pre?bFkwere Planning Corr Segelbaum an Idhauser. Also Intern Nick Olson an inistrati, Maxwell and Nelson were hwe, Since the Chair and V!' Chair Chairperson Pro McCarty I. Appr6val of Minutes — J oard decided to put the r agenda since many of II. The Petition(s) are: 0sentatives Boudreau-Lehdis,'WCarty, a City Planner Jason Zimmerman, Planning Lisa Wittman. Board;Members Johnson, Segelbaum nominated McCarty to be fired the, meeting. ary 28, 2014, Regular ting val of the January 28, 2014, minutes on the next did not attend the January 28 meeting. 1343 Orkla Drive Lake West Development Mgvinuton, LLC) Request: Waiver from Section 11,21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard'Setback Requirements • 7.1 ft. off of the'required 35 ft. to a distance of 27.9 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (north) property line. Purpose; To allow for the construction of a new home. Request: Walver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1), Subd.11,1(A)(3)(b) Side Yard Setback Requirements •' 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. Olson referred to a survey of the property and stated that it consists of two lots. He explained the applicant's proposal to un -combine the lots and build two new houses. The variances requested relate to the proposed new home on lot to the north. He added that the proposed new home would line up with the existing homes along Knoll Street, several of which have received variances from the front yard setback requirements and are located closer than the required 35 feet from Knoll Street. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals February 25, 2014 Page 2 Waldhauser asked if the City has recommended to the applicant that he re -plat the property so that two homes could fit without the need for variances. Olson stated no, and explained that because the two lots already exist the City wouldn't require re -platting. Segelbaum asked about the un -combining process. Olson explained that the property consists of two existing platted lots of record that were combined at some point for tax purposes. Only one house with one address has been located on the property, but it is really two lots. Segelbaum asked how big of a side yard variance is being requested. Olson stated that the applicant is proposing to build up to the required 12.5 foot setback. The' request is to not have to increase that setback amount as the house gets taller. In this case;, the height of the proposed house would require there to be a 15.5 foot side yard setback... Segelbaum referred to a map showing the locations of other houses along Knoil Street and asked which ones received variances. Olson pointed out the ones where he found evidence that a front yard variance had been granted. Boudreau -Landis referred to the survey of the property and noted that the property line along the east seems closer to the street than the property line along the north. Zimmerman stated that the amount of right-of-way is different along each front. McCarty referred to the survey and asked. if, the, south side yard setback was measured from the foundation or the cantilevered wall of the proposed Crew house. Zimmerman said it was measured to the cantilevered wall;, because the floor will cantilever. If it were a bay window and not the floor, the measurement would be taken from the foundation. Segelbaum asked if the south elevation would be in violation of the articulation requirements if the wall did not cantilever.Zimmerman said yes. Segelbaum asked about the distance between the house and,the south property line without the cantilevered wall. Olson stated that it would be approximately two feet further away from the property line, but the applicant would still need`a variance of one foot. Ben WiksttQm, Lake West: Development, Applicant, said he would be willing to shift the house three 'feet to the, north and ask for a larger front yard variance in order to meet the side yard setback requirements. He referred to a survey of the property and noted that Knoll Street, along the north of the property, isn't centered within the right-of-way so there is more open.space along the north side of the property. He stated that the houses he is proposing to build are reasonably sized homes. He referred to the comment made about redrawing the property li4between the two lots and explained that they considered that option, however they would like to keep the south lot larger in size. He stated that if they don't receive variances, they would still construct two new homes, but the north home just wouldn't be as functional. He added that he feels a precedent has been set with the other homes in the area that were constructed closer than 35 feet to the front yard property line. McCarty asked Wikstrom to discuss the un -combining of the lots and asked what would prevent him from making this proposal work without variances. Wikstrom reiterated that this property is legally platted as two lots which, by statute, he can build on. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals February 25, 2014 Page 3 He stated that if he shifted the existing property line between the two lots to make the houses conform, both houses would be similar in size and there would be two homes that look the same right next to each other. Waldhauser asked if the side yard setback would have to increase if a two-story home is built on the south lot. Wikstrom said yes. Segelbaum asked Wikstrom to identify the practical difficulties that would help justify the granting of variances. Wikstrom stated that the buildable area on the north;lot;is, small and added that the setback requirements and house styles were different when` the property was originally platted. He stated that he is not implying that there are financial; difficulties;but the lots are already platted this way and were not created by him. He added that a home that is 25 feet wide and 100 feet long would not be in character with this neighborhood. McCarty opened the public hearing. Cathy Zettervall, 1336 Wisconsin Avenue North, said she doesn't want variances granted for this property because she doesn't want to see houses that are bigger than every other house in the neighborhood. She added that she thinks itis a weals. argument by the applicant to state that he doesn't want two houses that would like alike next to each other. Larry Zettervall, 1336 Wisconsin Avenue North, asked if the. Board has to consider the height of other houses in the area as well. Waldhauser explained that the increased side yard setback area according to the height; of°a house is a recent requirement. Segelbaum added that the 35 -foot front yard setback has been in place for long time. Zettervall asked about the reasons for the setback requirements. Waldhauser stated that front yard setbacks were established to keep consistent lines of view up and down a street and the increased side yard setbacks were established to cut down on the amount of light that is blocked and to protect existing neighbors. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, McCarty closed the public hearing. Waldhauser stated that the front yard setback proposed is not out of character and won't look out of place. She referred to the side yard setback request and stated that when the two -foot deep cantlevered "portion of the wall is taken into account the distance is really one foot visually and she doesn't feel it would be necessary to re -draw the property lines for such a small distance. `Segelbaum asked Waldhauser if she would rather see the house pushed further to the north so that a side yard setback variance would not be needed. Waldhauser said no, she would not like to see the house built closer to Knoll Street. Boudreau -Landis agreed with Waldhauser and said the proposal is reasonable and that it is really a small infraction on the south, side yard setback requirements. He also stated that he is comfortable with the front yard variance request since the right-of-way area along the north is quite a bit larger than normal. Segelbaum also agreed and stated that the side yard setback request is minimal and that the Board has historically been very conscious of front yard setback requirements. He said he would be supportive of both of the proposed variances. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals February 25, 2014 Page 4 McCarty added that the topography also breaks up the visual plane on the block. He said he thinks this is a reasonable proposal but he is not convinced that the difficulties are unique to the property and although the issues were not caused by this landowner, they were caused by a past landowner. He said he would be curious to see other ways to plat this property. Zimmerman stated that he is not sure that two lots, with enough width, could be created if the center property line was shifted. McCarty suggested the lot line between the two properties could be platted from north to south instead of east to west. Waldhauser stated that the elevations for the sides of the house look boring because there are no windows proposed. Wikstrom said he would be willing to add windows on both sides of the house. Segelbaum stated that he hopes the applicant won't need to ask for variances to build a house on the south lot and questioned if that could be added as,a condition to this proposal. McCarty said he doesn't think the Board has that authority. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Boudreau -Landis andmotiori'�carried unanimously to approve the following variance requests: • 7.1 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distanceof 27.9 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (north) property line to allow for the construction of a new home. • The side yard setback along the south property line is allowed to remain at 12.5 feet without increasing even though the house is over 15 feet in height. Waldhauser added a condition that windows be added on the north and south side elevations. The Board agreed withthe added condition. Other Busiese No of r business as discussed. IV. AdjNrnme tlt The meeting wb journed :50 pm. George Maxwell, Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant