Loading...
08-25-15 BZA MinutesMinutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 25, 2015 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, July 28, 2015, at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Perich called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Members Maxwell, Nelson, Perich and Planning Commission Representative Baker. Also present were Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Member Orenstein was absent. Approval of Minutes — July 28, 2015 Regular Meeting MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Perich and motion carried unanimously to approve the July 28, 2015 minutes as submitted. Commissioner Baker abstained. II. The Petition(s) are: 8025 Medicine Lake Road New Hope Christian Life Center, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.46, Institutional Zoning District, Subd. 8 Front Yard Requirements • City Code requires that all front yards in the Institutional Zoning District be planted, and landscaped, and contain no off-street parking. The applicant is proposing to construct a driveway with parking in the front yard along the south property line. Request: Waiver from Section 11.46, Institutional Zoning District, Subd. 9(B)(2) Accessory Uses - Front Yard Requirements • 25 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 10 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a detached garage. Request: Waiver from Section 11.46, Institutional Zoning District, Subd. 9(B)(3) Accessory Uses - Yard Requirements • 5 ft. off of the required 50 ft. to a distance of 45 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (east) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a detached garage. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 25, 2015 Page 2 Request: Waiver from Section 11.46, Institutional Zoning District, Subd. 9(B)(6) Accessory Uses — Height Limitations • 2 ft. taller than the allowed 10 ft. to a height of 12 ft. from the floor to the top plate. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a detached garage. Request: Waiver from Section 11.46, Institutional Zoning District, Subd. 9(13)(8) Accessory Uses — Size of Accessory Structure • 152 sq. ft. more than the allowed 1,000 sq. ft. of accessory structure space. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a detached garage. Goellner referred to a location map of the property and explained the applicant's request to construct a 32 ft. x 36 ft. garage along with a 36 ft. wide x 180 ft. long driveway with parking spaces in the front yard setback area along the south property line. She discussed the requested variances and stated that the Zoning Code requires the entire front yard setback area to be planted and landscaped and contain no off-street parking. She referred to the proposed garage and stated that the applicant is proposing to build it 10 ft. from the south property line rather than the required 35 ft. and 45 ft. from the east property line rather than the required 50 ft. The applicant is also proposing that the garage be 12 ft. in height rather than the allowed 10 ft. Goellner stated that the applicant has said his unique circumstances are the need for indoor storage of materials and vehicles, the fact that the property has two front yards, the need for additional parking and that the proposed location of the garage will have less visual impact than it would elsewhere on the property. Goellner stated that staff is supportive of a garage addition and the proposed 12 ft. of height, but would like to see it placed in a conforming location, not in the location proposed. She said staff is also supportive of allowing a driveway to connect to the proposed new garage, but would like the applicant to provide a 10 ft. wide landscaped buffer and would like the driveway to be 24 ft. in width rather than the proposed 36 ft. Nelson asked what the setback requirement would be along the south property line if that were considered to be a side yard rather than a front yard. Goellner said the side yard setback requirements on this property are 50 ft. Baker asked if there is a minimum width requirement for driveways. Goellner said 11 ft. is the minimum width necessary for functionality, however the City's Engineering Department would like the driveway to be 18 ft. in width at a maximum. She added that the intention of the Zoning Code requirement is to keep the front yard setback area landscaped. Baker asked if there are any topography issues on the property. Goellner said there are significant slopes on the north, west, and east sides of the property. She reiterated that Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 25, 2015 Page 3 staff feels the general location of the proposed garage is ok, they would just like it to be built within the buildable area. Maxwell asked if the property is flat enough to move the garage further to the north. Goellner said yes. Nelson referred to the existing shed on the property and asked if it is located in a conforming location. Goellner said no, and added that there are also some parking spaces on the southwest corner of the property that are non -conforming. Pastor David Kent, Applicant, said he feels this proposal is a positive thing and will be an improvement over what is there now. He stated that the area where they are proposing the new driveway is currently a gravel area where grass won't grow and has been used as a driveway for several years. He explained that he would like the proposed driveway to be 36 ft. in width to allow for parking spaces. He said it has been mentioned that they could park in the street when necessary, but he remembers when they put in a new driveway along the west side of the property that neighbors thought there would be too much traffic on 25th Avenue and the parking would be worse. He said they've considered several other locations for the proposed garage but the property is too steep or the view from Medicine Lake would be impacted. He said they want to keep the costs to a minimum and where they are proposing to place the new garage would only affect one neighbor and that neighbor has been supportive of the project. He added that the 5 ft. variance from the east property may not be needed, he just wants to make sure he has enough space. He stated that if they move the entire garage further north they would require more driveway space which would take away more of the open space. Nelson stated that she is supportive of the variance from the height requirements and the variance from the east side yard property line, but noted that if the garage was moved further to the north there would still be a large area of open space. Maxwell agreed and said the Board doesn't generally favor front yard variance requests, especially one this large. He said he would like to find a compromise by moving the garage further to the north so a front yard variance along the south property line wouldn't be necessary. Kent stated that their church is growing and if they move the proposed garage further to the north it would impact any future additions to the church building and they would have to go through the variance process again. He said it would not benefit anyone to move the garage further to the north. He reiterated that this proposal is a positive thing and said he doesn't really consider the south area of their property to be a front yard. Nelson explained that the Board is bound by statutes that they have to follow and the Board needs to remain consistent with the variances they grant. Kent said that codes change over time and he is asking to Board to consider this individual case in a fair and equitable manner. Perich said he thinks there is a lot of space on the property on which to build the proposed garage. He said he is struggling with the idea that it can't be moved further to the north. Maxwell agreed and said the proposed garage strikes him as being too close to the south property line. Baker said one of the criteria used when considering variances is that the need for the variance isn't being caused by landowner. He said the applicant is choosing Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 25, 2015 Page 4 not to build the garage in a conforming location further to the north because of possible future expansion of the church building. Kent said he understands the Board has a job to do, but they've paid a fee to come to them and make their case. He asked the Board what they are proposing he should do. Baker said he would propose that the garage be constructed within the buildable area. Nelson reiterated that she thinks the Board would be supportive of the variances from the east property line and the variance regarding the height. Kent noted that the proposed driveway would be in violation as well. Baker asked if the garage could be reoriented and accessed from 25th Avenue. Maxwell noted that there is no street right-of-way where the garage is proposed to be located. He stated that he would be supportive of the garage being closer than 35 ft. to the south property line, but he feels 10 ft. is too close. Baker agreed that narrowing the driveway and moving the proposed garage further north might be a good compromise. Kent said he would be open to the idea of moving the garage further to the north. Nelson asked if the existing shed on the property would be removed. Kent said yes. Perich opened the public hearing. Carl Hoffstedt, 2450 Valders Avenue North, asked about the proposed distance from the garage to the property line. Goellner stated that the applicant is proposing to locate the garage 10 ft. away from the south property line. Hoffstedt asked about the proposed distance from the garage to the existing home to the south Goellner said it would be approximately 20 ft. Hoffstedt said if that distance is similar to the distance between other homes in the area, then it should be ok. He asked if the proposed parking spaces would be parallel parking spaces. Goellner said yes, they would be parallel spaces along the proposed new driveway. Hoffstedt said he doesn't have a problem with the variance on the east side of the property or the variance regarding the height of the proposed garage but he thinks the new driveway will be used more for parking spaces than as a driveway. He said he supports the proposed new garage because it will clean up the look of the property. Nelson asked Hoffstedt how big of an issue overflow parking is on Valders Avenue and 25th Avenue. Hoffstedt said there isn't an issue on Valders Avenue and there is a little bit of overflow parking on 25th Avenue. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Perich closed the public hearing. Nelson reiterated that she is ok with the size and height of the proposed garage, with the variance from the east side property line, and with the driveway being 24 ft. wide, in line with the garage, but she would like it to be further away from the south property line than what is proposed. Perich agreed. Baker asked if a 24 ft. wide driveway would preclude parking. Goellner said it will make parking difficult. Baker said he is not compelled by the need for additional parking and he is not sure why staff is recommending that the driveway could be as wide as 24 ft. Goellner stated that the standard width for a two-way drive aisle is 24 ft. Maxwell suggested the variance request for the garage and driveway be amended to allow 18 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 17 ft. at their closest point to the front yard Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 25, 2015 Page 5 (south) property line. Perich asked Kent if he would be alright with Member Maxwell's suggested amended variance request. Kent said yes. Baker asked if the existing Cottonwood trees would be required to be removed. Goellner said no. Kent added that they may need to be removed and that he would like to put in trees that would be nicer for the neighborhood. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Nelson and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variance requests finding that the proposed location of the garage doesn't act like a front yard, other areas of the property are steep and not buildable, the request is in accordance with the City's regulations, and it is best to have a driveway in-line with the garage. • A driveway with a maximum width of 24 ft. is allowed to be constructed in the front yard (south) setback area. The driveway shall contain no parking and be set back 17 ft. from the south property line with a 17 ft. landscaped buffer between the driveway and the property line. • 18 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 17 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (south) property line to allow for the construction of a detached garage. • 5 ft. off of the required 50 ft. to a distance of 45 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (east) property line to allow for the construction of a detached garage. • 2 ft. taller than the allowed 10 ft. to a height of 12 ft. from the floor to the top plate to allow for the construction of a detached garage. • 152 sq. ft. more than the allowed 1,000 sq. ft. of accessory structure space to allow for the construction of a detached garage. III. Other Business Review of recently amended Single Family Zoning District (R-1) setback requirements. Goellner stated that the City Council recently amended the setback requirements in the Single Family Zoning District due to questions regarding the interpretation of the Code language. She showed the Board several examples of recently constructed homes and explained the amended language which focuses on protecting neighboring homes from the blockage of light and air, simplifies the language for better comprehension and administration, and allows for attractive home design by discouraging garage -dominated front facades and preserving back yard areas. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 25, 2015 Page 6 IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 pm. David Perich, Chair Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant