The URL can be used to link to this page

02-28-17 BZA Agenda Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 28, 2017 7 pm 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers I. Approval of Minutes— January 24, Regular Meeting II. The Petition(s) are: 1509 Alpine Pass James Rutherford, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 10 Impervious Surface Requirements • 2.55% more than the allowed maximum total impervious surface of 50% of the lot area. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a driveway expansion. III. Other Business Discussion of 2017 Board of Zoning Appeals Bylaws IV. Adjournment TI1is�iocument'is availal�le in alternate fprn�ats u�o��a 72�I�our request, P(ease call 763-593-800b{77Y: 763-593-�968)to makc a request. Ex�mples afi alternate formats n�ay include large�rinfi,electronic, 8�aiife,autliac�ssette,etc. Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 24, 2017 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, January 24, 2017, 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, Orenstein, Perich and Planning Commission Representatives Johnson and Kluchka. Also present were Planning Manag�r Jason ; Zimmerman, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner and Administrativ�Assistant Lisa Wittman. Member Nelson was absent. I. Approval of Minutes— December 27, 2016, Regular Meeting MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Perich and motion carried 3 to 2 �t� approve the minutes as submitted. Kluchka and Orenstein abstained. II. The Petition(s) are: 1401 Winnetka Avenue North Luis Hector Perez Silva, A plicant Request: Waiver frorn 5�ction 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 12 (B) Height Limitatians • 2 ft. over th� 10 ft. of height allowed for a total height of 12 ft. Purpose: To allow for the recently constructed shed to remain 12 ft. tall. Zimmerman referred to phatos of the property and explained that in September of 2015, the applicant appfied for a building permit to build a shed. The Building Official approved the pfans for the shed, but noted on the permit that the wall height could not exceed 10 feet. Irr May of 2016, it was brought to the City's attention that the shed was constructed 12 feet tall instead of the allowed 10 feet. Since then, the City has been working with the applicant to resolve the issue, and the applicant has received several administratiue citations, but the shed is still out of compliance so now the applicant has decided to apply for a variance to allow the shed to remain 12 feet tall. Zimmerman noted that if the variance is not granted, the applicant will have two weeks to make the shed compliant or else pay the second fine that is currently pending. After that the matter will be turned over to the City Attorney. Zimmerman referred to the Zoning Code's definition of height limitations for accessory structures which reads as follows: No accessory structure shall be erected in the R-1 Zoning District to exceed a height of one (1) story, which is ten (10) feet from the floor to the top horizontal member of a frame building to which the rafters are fastened, Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 24, 2017 Page 2 known as the top plate. He stated that the applicant has said that he needs the additional height to store equipment for his subcontracting business. The applicant has also stated that he can install a "double plate" 10 feet up the 12 foot wall in order to address the issue, however Planning and Inspections staff agree that this solution would not meet the Zoning Code requirement. Zimmerman reviewed the points of examination used when considering variances and stated that the shed does constitute a reasonable use. However, there are no circumstances unique to the property which would require a 12 foot tall shed, gran#ing the variance would alter the essential character of locality, and there are other opfions available to reach compliance. Therefore, staff is recommending d�nial of the requested variance. Maxwell stated that the need for this variance was caused by the landowner, so if the applicant would have asked for a variance before the construction of the shed the City and the applicant wouldn't be in this situation. Zimmermari said that is correct and in fact, the shed was completed after the applicant was tc�ld �o lower the height. Perich questioned if the shed were not attached to the garage if it would still be considered an accessory structure. Zimmerm�n said it is still �n accessory structure, but attaching the shed to the garage mak�s it part of the g�arage instead of a second detached accessory structure. Perich asked about the total square footage of the garage/shed. Zimmerman said he believes it is under the 800 square feet of allowed;detached accessory structure space. Luis Hector Perez Silva, Applicanf, referred to his building permit application and his variance application and said that he has stated from the beginning that he was going to build the shed 12 feet tall. He stated that in 2008, an inspector stopped by his property without notice and said he should not be storing tools and equipment outside and that his property should;be cleaned up tor tt�e benefit of the City. He referred to an engineering book and discussed a section on "fixed base gable frames." Perich explained that the Board isn't discussing the definition af what a gable frame is, or the engineering of the shed, their job is to consider the 2 foot;height variance in question. Silva stated that no one understands what he is talking ab€�ut structurally. He said he can fix the walls of the shed and make them 10 feet tall but he has never been able to explain to anyone what he is talking about structurally and that the pictures the Board has been shown make no sense and are not right. He added that the 12 foof tall wall will be much weaker if it is shorter and asked who he should speak to about the;:$tructural issues. He referred to photos of the shed and explained how he wants to put in a double top plate 10 feet up on the 12 foot wall which will make the walls 10 feet in height. Johnson asked the applicant if the rafters are attached to a plate that is 10 feet from the floor. He referred to the height definition and noted that it defines the allowed height as 10 feet from the floor to the top plate to which the rafters are f�stened. Silva discussed gables and the fasteners he used and said he built the shed to be as strong as possible with balloon walls. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 24, 2017 Page 3 Perich asked the applicant why he can't build the shed how the City is requesting him to build it. Silva said he built the shed the way he did because he knows it is the best way and the strongest way to build it. He said he makes his living with a final product and by experience he knows this is the best way to build it. Perich asked the applicant if he lives at this property. Mr. Silva said yes. Perich opened the public hearing. Roger Mcconico, 1325 Winnetka Avenue North, said the applicant does not live at the subject property. He said his main objection is that the applicant is running a business out of his house and has an 18 or 20 foot long dumpster on his driveway. He noted that there are at least three other people in the area that have similar businesses as the applieant, but he never sees their equipment or vehicles stored on their propertie�. He said he thinks more stuff will just be brought to this property and he's concerned about their property values going down because of it. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comm�nt, Perich closed'the public hearing. Johnson asked for clarification because it alm�s# seems like the height definition allows a wall greater than 10 tall as long as the rafter is attached at the 10 foot level. Zimmerman said he has talked with the Building Official abAut a wall being capped at 10 feet but then allowing an additional 2 feet above that. He �xplained that fhat has not been staff's interpretation or the intent of the definition for height:He added that the roof can be taller than 10 feet, but the walls are limited to 10 feet in height. Kluchka noted that the Planning Cc�mmission has had many discussions about the issue of height. He said he doesn't think th'rs case is an issue of technicalities, it is an issue of visibility, aesthetics, and the building envelope. He noted that the shed could be modified so that one wall is 10 feet tall and the other walls are 8 feet tall. Zimmerman noted that the applicant has stated that his building permit application said the shed would be built 12 feet tall so he should be allowed to build it 12 feet tall, but it was noted on the b�ilding �ermit and in the plan review that the height of the shed needed to be modified to be 10 feet tal'I. Maxwell asked if the applicant was told in the beginning that he could apply #or a variance. Zimmerman said when he was first made aware of the issue he talked to the a�plicant and the applicant said it would be no problem to change his plans and make the shed conform to the Zoning Code requirements. Johnson asked if the shed was built how is was shown on the building permit application. Zimmerman said he thinks they are similar. Kluchka said he doesn't think the drawing is what was ultimately built. Perich referred to the criteria the Board uses when considering variances. He said he thinks having a shed is reasonable, but he is struggling to find any unique circumstances not caused by the landowner. He said he also thinks the shed alters the character of the locality because it sticks up above the garage. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 24, 2017 Page 4 Johnson said there could be a loophole in the way the definition of height is worded, but the City has been consistent with its interpretation so he is not inclined to approve the requested variance. Kluchka agreed. Maxwell stated that one of the criteria the Board considers it that the need for a variance isn't caused by the landowner and that is a problem when someone builds something first and then asks for a variance after the fact, so he can't support his variance request. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimou�ly to deny the requested variance. = Perich informed the applicant that he can appeal the Board's decision to the City Cauncil. 1315 Angelo Drive Jim Klem Construction Inc, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Singte Family Zoning District, Subd. 11 (B) Height Limitations • 5.5 ft. over the 25 ft. of height allawed for a total height of 30.5 ft. Purpose: To allow for the recently cons#ructed rooftop access to remain 30.5 ft. talL Goellner reminded the Board that they've seen variance requests for this property twice in the past. The first varianc� granted in June was for 3.5 feet over the maximum allowed height of 25 feet. The second variance was granted in August for the same height, but a larger rooftop access room. She referred to the site plans and explained that the house is currently under construction and that the contractor made adjustments to the roof plans and the parapef wall after the variances were approved so the applicant is now seeking a �ariance to allow the recently constructed rooftop access to remain 30,5 feet tall. Goellner n4ted that the applicant's stated unique circumstances include that a change to the architectural plans was necessary for structural support, proper water runoff from the roof, and the fact that the rooftop access room is not easily visible from Angelo Drive because it is set back 24 feet from the front property line, in the center of the home. Goellner stated that staff is recommending approval of this variance request because there are conflicting regulations in the Zoning Code regarding height and building envelope requirements. The rooftop access room fits within the building envelope, but does not meet the height requirements. She stated that in this case the need for a variance is not the fault of the landowner, the unique circumstance is the conflict in the Zoning Code. She added that the rooftop access room does not alter the essential character of its locality, the visual impact is minimized by the location of the rooftop Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 24, 2017 Page 5 access room in the center of the property and it constitutes a reasonable use of the property. Johnson stated that the Planning Commission has heard many resident concerns about new construction/subdivisions that have contributed to flooding problems and asked if the City has any liability if the Board grants this variance for an architectural issue that they've identified as a problem. Zimmerman clarified that in this case the issue is with water running off of the roof, not off of the site. Johnson asked if the City agrees that this change in the slope of the roof will fix the problem. Zimmerman stated that #he Inspections Department is comfortable with the sloped roof. Jim Klem, Jim Klem Construction Inc, Representing the Applicant� said he constructed the rooftop access room with a sloped roof rather than the flat roof shown by the architect in order to get proper water runoff. He said he tried to minimize the slope to respect the design and the City's height regulations and that he didn't realize he would need a variance. Orenstein noted that this is the third variance request for this property and asked that applicant if they are plans for any more. Klem said no. Perich opened the public hearing. Cathie Corcoran, 1330 Angelo Drive, s�id this will be a beautiful house and the rooftop access room sits back from the frQnt of tF�e property so it won't be an issue. She stated that the variance requests for this property have been for misunderstandings with the code itself so there should be some leeway in this case. She said she approves of this request and considers it an asset. Kluchka said he is glad to see this house being built. He stated that this hasn't changed the building envelope'tapic, but it'changes the height numbers allowed in the Zoning Code. He added that this proposal follows the intent of the original variance request so he is supportive of this proposaL " Perich agreed an�i said the`request is reasonable, it is not directly caused by the land owner, and it is not changing the character of its locality. He added that if the house had a pitched roof it cr�uld be taller than what is proposed without the need for variances so he is supportive of the variance requested. Orenstein agreed. Maxwell said, he is disappointed that another variance has been requested for this property after the structure has already been built but he is persuaded that there is a conflict in the in the Code regarding height. Johnson agreed. MOVED by Perich, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request for 5.5 ft. over the 25 ft. of height allowed for a total height of 30.5 ft. to allow for the recently constructed rooftop access to remain 30.5 ft. tall. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 24, 2017 Page 6 IIi. Other Business Discussion of 2016 Board of Zoning Appeals Annual Report Goellner referred to the 2016 BZA Annual Report which summarizes the variances requested in 2016 as well as variances over the past five years. She discussed some of the highlights in the report which include: the total number of variances, variance requests by type and area, and BZA decisions (approved, denied, or tabled requests), Perich said he would like to know how many variance requests were modified by the Board before they were approved. Goellner said she could add that inform�tion to the report. She added that in the spring, the Chair will have an opportunity to present the report to the City Council. Orenstein asked if there will be a chance to talk to the �ity Council about the criteria the Board uses when considering variances. Goelln�r said yes, but added that the City is bound by the requirements in state statute. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 pm. David Perich, Chair Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant �� a�. Ph�si�a1 I�evelo�►me��k T��p�rtrnent ��-��-so��-��-s��c�� Date: February 28, 2017 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Subject: 1509 Alpine Pass James Rutherford, Applicant Introduction James Rutherford, owner of the property at 1509 Alpine Pass, is seeking a variance from the City Code to expand the driveway on their property. The applicant is seeking the following variance from City Code: _. ____ _ , __ _ ��'� Variance Request ' City Code Requirement .....,__. . ._ . . _..._. �.__... ... .....__ r........ 2.55% off the maximum total impervious Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. ' surface of 50% of the lot area to a total of ; 10, Impervious Surface Requirement:The total ',' S2.55% impervious surface of the lot area. ; impervious surface on any lot shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the lot area. Background • The lot is approximately 8,700 square feet and zoned for R-1 Single-Family Residential use. • The applicant proposes to expand the driveway to accommodate a second garage stall. • The BZA approved two side yard setback variances for this property on December 27, 2017 in order to accommodate two building additions. • The total impervious surface on the lot today is 44.7% (the home additions are not yet built). • The total impervious surface on the lot with the building additions will be 47.18%. • The total impervious surface on the lot with the building additions and the expanded driveway would be 52.55%, but the maximum is 50%. The proposal includes 221.5 square feet of impervious surface above the maximum allowed. • The existing driveway is approximately 12.5 feet wide at the back of the driveway apron and totals 422 square feet. The applicant is proposing to widen the driveway to approximately 27 feet wide at the back of the driveway apron and totaling 889 square feet. The City's Engineering Division typically allows no more than 25 feet in width at the back of the driveway apron. • The applicant states that the property has steep topography that makes it difficult to pull into the driveway. The applicant notes that a wider driveway will assist with this difficulty. Analysis 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: 1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner The expansion of the driveway to accommodate a second garage stall constitutes a reasonable use of the property. 2. The landowners' problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that is not caused by the landowner Staff finds that while there is challenging topography on this site, it does not constitute a practical difficulty for the proposed project. The applicant has the option to build a driveway expansion that meets City Code while still working within the constraints of the steep topography. 3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality The proposed driveway expansion would alter the essential character of the locality. The abundance of pervious surface with vegetation is an important component to the character of the South Tyrol neighborhood. Additionally, staff assesses whether other options are available to meet the applicant's need and do not require a variance. Staff finds that other options are available that meet impervious surface requirements while still allowing a reasonably sized expansion of the driveway. Staff finds that the driveway expansion could be reduced by 2.55% or 221.5 square feet in order to meet impervious surface requirements. By reducing the size of the driveway expansion, the applicant could also comply with the Engineering Division's requirement that the driveway be no wider than 25 feet at the back of the driveway apron (currently proposed at a width of approximately 27 feet). Lastly, staff assesses whether the proposal requests the smallest variance necessary to meet the applicant's needs. Staff finds that the applicant can reduce the size of the driveway expansion by 2.55% or 221.5 square feet while still widening the driveway in order to alleviate the difficulty caused by the steep topography. Also, the applicant recently received approval for two building additions, which will increase the impervious surface by 2.5%. These additions could be slightly decreased in size (in combination with a reduction in the driveway expansion) in order to achieve a maximum impervious surface of 50% on the property. Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the request for a variance of 2.55%off the maximum total impervious surface of 50%of the lot area to a total of 52.55% impervious surface of the lot area. If the Board approves this variance, staff recommends that the Board require that the applicant include stormwater management or landscaping mitigation as a condition of approval. Possible options for this particular project could include one of the following: 1. Planting new trees to mitigate the removal of the two large trees that provide stormwater infiltration and other benefits. Tree replacement ratio could be 2:1 or 1:1. 2. Applicant could construct or install one stormwater management tool of their choice, including vegetated swale/depression, rain barrel, rain garden, or French drain. .T:`:c::c: ::�:. 1311 1 at11 _-".:'�;.. _ ,' ?+�:'--:.13 45_.�, 1400 r:._'� �-ulri !i:i{ ':::�.,�•p•.,�: 1315 �. --=� 1317 ,-�: y ao� � f, 1319 �� 1 1404 143 9 1470 1415 1435 1406 1429 1408 - 1410 1411 • 1423 Q~ 1430 1521 %/ Subject Property _---�''� ` 1431 �f 1416 1515 7414 + y aao �a2 s -�_ -� 1501 1572 1510 1509 . 142 0 1439 1508 4310 Sat�th T�r�o1 Park 4.� 1 535 15� 1450 j % 3315 ST. LOUIS PARK ��,. 9 W � � 9IbSSrINI'A�'I'IVAN�Q'IOJ60SI A � ¢N � �3�N��S�2I Q2IO.�I2I�H.LI12i ] � `° � � r[�,�,; w a � � � N .. �.j N b [� /O . � ... .-i .-. N \ � O❑ W � �O o o � '� J a m � � � �11 � N � �� LL LL � LL � (n U"�T fn lL Uj LL lL lL LL LL(L LL � � � �m N(/]� N (/]VJ(n(n[n VJ VJ � I� „'\ f�D c��J O �� p�j N I�M N(D V a0 (�O ��tl � Q a0 V f7 .-(O� V V�N f��J�(�O N V � �� s � w G �` � Z O Q} � r w ~ � �a � � N .\ � > > >3 � .� ¢W U VJ F- 2] m J� � � �� Q¢Z � �2 �Q Z � ¢ � O Q� a`n ZO v� W°� in�c7 a O � , g �,o W�a Q �� w��Q � � o� �°�'� o Zo�>�aw a � U jz OCw72 �' OU�aOw� O O Q wd� C7¢� � C7�C7oC7C7� � � Q rn rn <n rn H F-2�°a° �33 O �pv~iO��a O a � �� w z z � w a w a w w a ¢ n¢. zo 5� a �� w� �; �� m < ss�d a�rd� ,--� � �---- . � ---------- � � --------- ----- m �, ------- � - �* 0 9S �, a��Na�ua� a N � N � � :�i . oa� o � a � ��; � b'�a�uo� //oM 6u��a�a� _ <o � �.� � �.t,,;3. O p tn M.0 �' r0��.�" ..,0,,` �� 3 m �+ ! l� O�Q � � 'o ' ..�� V`O '' .c ` , ��a� � •.,�b� .$� o e � ` " ` �� y O t•O �x � 505 0 „6/s �Ol : x : �a o �� oG � \� � * � o �� o N � ,� 50 ` � \\c' � � '� •y �1 .0 `�' •ll "A/6'y, �O !�n x cV � o t � —�9 � � � - 0�. p�s � � o� �s ,�'� c� Z� o � o a� o.�Z �Z o�i l 2;s � � c� m , o`� ,�0 � � 3a �� 3� s �� _� v 20 m 3 � Q-y, �, � oa y �a�uo�d l/DM 6uiuio�a �r � y � � , � Sti�� N o ---------------------— m . N --- , �l £,9 � / �. a�ua� M,.�Z,L S ZS _� ,sz �, N 2S y. u� x m � � �. � N � f a j x `.� � � 91 hSS N W'A�3'1"IdA N9U'IQ'J 605I � ! � �g � K �.��Q.IS�� .�.��H.�.n� � 'O �c r„+ "a � «, � ��. � ,�,�.n,' 3 �i v,�i' ;�"� f � �� 3 � ��, � �� _-- -- , f P.. Q v � m LL� � «�� LL I.�.. LL LL ��"$ U]K�� ((j LL �/j ti LL LL LL LL t1.LL (/j �/j J p� N V7 LL Vl Vl fq N(n UI Vl fV7 � � �O�O N ctt� � N(��ta'{1 N�O�i� O M r�-., �O(7 ..��O t0 .- V N t7 N l0 N y.� «� �1�� Q � 41 � f w .-.- '"`.. r- � ¢�+ � �{,,� '.. W � LL� f d <ii U � .. 4� {°e. g � � Sw mw ¢ � '^7` W w r� � > m�� F t• h"� N �� ¢w0 � �p c�n�� Z W ..,�, . Z ��w � NQz c�i� rw-'� in�C7� O z .,.�:�� .J � [n� W�f1 Q ¢U W Q z Q, J J #� j C�iC7 ��w � z��azF.a..� O FO �Z g�U O r- O w �- �- U uJw� � � � UOrn WU¢W O O (Qj Nn'� 7_� (n Z(W/1Z VJ7Ztn N vW) in�m �7� O C�-�--� 4 O � �-,2 y�' �3'> O �O�O�NO¢ O O (n ��c�'� ,'u5 zz a w2w�ww(1. d a �§ a n C r � �� U T'O �, � ssgd a�rd. m . Ii�' �- � ___ --- �, �. -----_._ --- µ_._. � — -_--_______ _.._� __.__.____..- ----- a��a Tua i ��/�Z��`�,93`===:�_--- m .�--.. � � )� F . / �� __ " - �- - �` � % ^� � �i �.i l, < -.'.oa�y� — -..�, - _ <c� s, P' ,�� t v Q �1�y�� \ aluo��//oM buiuioJa l --- ~`!�'"'�__..� { ��f �' � ° �� I � 4 ,;, �� i 3 m \ 1 � iI�''-1::, i � I � �, ` �� a1� o °�'� � J o � � mQ` 1� i `s � E '� � � ''} v'� �.c� ._-� . � �� i �f.�� _�.�0 1 � � �s Va' � 1 . �. '. y ,9 � � � ' � � i ! � o � �. � �. �� — � <> � �� // � * � 505 .v�E&ot�i_�.:� � ' � 9, ;Q°,Q _ o°l \�y. ..._..._._._....__.�._.,,_=�.�- � .._� � �[' �� 6 �n �� , . , \o �—_______._a_50 � � � �� ., � �. � � Q� .._,�,( ! / / Q \ ��``\ a� _ �'C' \ �y . o� f-_.. / �,i...,.� � '![ ��9- Q n � k �1 / `� � ��•\p� r-t f� ^�. ��. \ ,- �, � I ;/ � , � � �� _� _�9� `\ \ `� ,\. �o, o�s a % �� `�,, � r .�, ��f---��._�� t-i` '`N\ `` � �` 2 ,��i a� b ' `,ay� 0'!Z Q b -6 O'� � �1 �U �\if � , � o�a /� � � , 3 D .�J-.._. c ° .� 3� S h '�.._.__ �2 Jo �U , '.�t. Z p � � i �- _�. 1,.. - ,-.,___.� �t r. �.._;r- .. - -- � � %' L�i,� � � I �°a('V ia�uaJd IJpM 6u�u+o�a�y j � I�_� � , --_..._ i j i �-�- x _ i :; _----_._._ _ _ ____ ' j �' ��,� � ! ' � �� rc� ! ry � ..__ �� iv c i . _....- , '.�c`� l `a�ua� bl'£'9YM„lZL�ZS _ ,5,, `�s� � 4) x F /� C ��/ Feb.6,2017 Emily Goeilner, City of Golden Valley Dear Emily, tn our original variance request,we drew the new driveway coming off the NE corner of the new garage. The very day of the council meeting,our architect,sent a new drawing bringing a new question into play which we were not aware of. We did not know he had changed the N side of the new driveway to qualify with permeable code. We however had never discussed permeable surface with him or the city. Only when the variance was granted did we see the N driveway did not follow our original drawing. It was then we learned that the permeable surface was an issue. What we had originally drawn required a variance of 2.6%of the permeable. This lot has a sharp grade. It drops 9'from the garage door opening to the street. Topography lines 506 to 497. This occurs in 35'. This is the reason I cannot drive my vehicle into the existing garage on icy days unless 1 accelerate. This is dangerous and I often have to stop, back up and make another run at it as 1 slide to the side. On these days we often park in the street. If we built the new driveway so that it curved to the N side in order to meet the permeable requirements,there is little doubt that the vehicle would slide to the low side and perhaps get stuck but certainly end up on the grass. The only certain and safe way to deal with this grade and getting into the garage, is to have enough room to go faster than normal up the icy slope and into the garage door. The window on the existing house is centered on the garage door. To make the house look symmetrical,the same size window of the new addition should be centered over the garage door. In a perFect world,we would like to replace the old garage door with a 9'and also install a new 9'door on the addition. However,the ceiling height is only 7'thus we would need a custom door/doors. If they cost what they may,the new door may have to be an 8'. This and the window determine where this garage door is located on the new garage. We do not think it safe to make the driveway come off the garage door opening. And the edge of the garage door is likely only 2.5'from the corner of the garage. In other words,there just is not too much room to do much sliding around. For these reasons,we are asking to have the driveway come off the N side of the garage. It will give the best opportunity to come straight up the steep grade and into the new garage door even if there is some side slippage. Finally, because this issue did not come up at the variance meeting and as we originally asked for the driveway to be built even with the N side of the Garage,we would appreciate it if the additional $200 fee could be waived. Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely, James Rutherford Pfann��g � 7£�OQ Galden Vall�y Road,Golden VaCl�y,MN 55427-4588 c:rtY af `763-593-8095 � TTY:763-593-3968 � www.goldenvalleymn.gov � planning@goldenvaEleymn.gov Q��V �� • � • � ' . • � Street address of property in this application: IS'�� 's�s . . . . . . Name(individual,or corporate entitiy): -�J�7+M�5 �k'�ki�r�rC� Address: l5ny �/�� ss Phone number: Email address: ��.� --y�3^�� r,��.�� .-�r�� Autf�orized Repres�ntative(i�akher than applicant): ; Name: Address: Phone number: Email address: Praperty pwn�r(if�ther tMan'applicant}� Name: Address: Phone number: Email address: • • • Provide a detailed description of the variance(s)being requested: �� T�� Provide a detailed description of need for a variance from the Zoning Code, including description of building(s),description of proposed addition(s),and description of proposed alteration(s)to property: Plann'sng � 780Q Goiden Valley Road,Gc�lden Vafley,MN 55427-4588 �:tt�t�f "763-5�33-8495 � TTY:763-593-3968 � w��rw.goidenvalEeymn.gov f planning@gaBdenvafleymn.gav ��'�� Va��ey • • � • - . . . - . �Minnesota State Stat�e�62.3b7 req�ires that a pr��r�y ex�i6it"practical c#ifficult�es"in nre��r#oi-a�a�i�#nce Ea�e ce�ns�d�re�.'�Prae#ic�� '� ��difficulties: � • result in a use thati is reasonable '�� • are based vn a prc�blem tha�is unique to'th�prQperty ; � are'no�caused by fhe landowr�er • da not after the essential character of the iocality Tn dem�nstrate how your request,�ri�l comply wi#h Minn�sata�ta�e Statut€�#bz.357.pae�se re�panc�t�r the fallowing quesfions.' 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. P{�nn�rtgt � 78Qp Go(den Valley Road,Golden Valley,MN 55427-4588 c:rtlj of �763-593-8095 � T7Y:763-593-3968 � www.goldenval{eymn.gov � planning@golcfenvalleyrrer�.gov ��'�� va�ley • . • • - . . - . - . The City requests that you consider all available project options permitted by the Zoning Code before requesting a variance.The Board of Zoning Appeals will discuss alternative options to seeking variance with you at the public hearing. Please describe alternate ways to do your project that do not require variances from the Zoning Code. � � � � . O Current swrvey of yaur prap�r#y, includir�g propos�d addition and n�w'prnposed building and structure seEbaek��a,capy c�f G�Iden Val4ey's survey requirements i��uailable upon rec�uest,��aplicatic�n considered'incc�mplete withqu#a currentproper{y sur�veyj O Qne current color pha#ograph eaf tMe area a�fected by the propased variar�ce(�t{ach a printed phate�graph to this applicatiQn or ' email�digital imag�e to planningcxgo4den�alleymn.gc�u;submit additivnal phptcigraphs as needed) Fess$2C��ppli�ati�n fee�lfor Sin�le-Fami�y I�e�identEak.$3��applicatiezn f�e,for��e�tl�er Zcrrring[�ist€�i�ts Q Ce�al dgs�riptivn:Exact iegai descrtptian of the`land inuo��ed in this app.�icaticin�attach a separat�siieet if nec�ssary); . 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 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 before the public hearing to inspect the area affected by this request. Please include printed name,signature,and date for ap- plicant,authorized representative(if other than arpplicant),or property ower(if other than applicant). �--- / Name of Applicant(please printj: �.K•.-� �i� Signature of Applicant: ti� - � _�7 Date: " Authorized Rep'resen#ative(if'ather fhan appli¢ank� Name(please print): Signature• Date• Proper#y Owner(if ather fhan appdican#) Name(please print): Signature: pate. Please note:The City of Golden 1/a(fey will send notice of your variance request to alf adjoining property owners as wefl as owners of properties directly across streets or alleys. Your neighbors have the right to address the Board of Zoning Appeals at yourpubfic hearing. You are advised to personally contact your neighbors and explain your project to them before the public hearing. This document is auailable in altefnate formats upon a 72-hour request.Please ca(I 763-593'-8006(TTY:763-543-3968)to - � � make a request. Exarnples of alternaCe formats may inelutle large print,electronic,Braille�audiocassetC�,etc. �, �;�� ` P��sic�1 �eu�loprnent I�►+��►ar�rnen� 7�s3-593-�0"�5/7�3-s93�81Ct9(fax) Date: February 28, 2017 To: Board of Zoning Appeals From: Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Subject: Bylaws Update In March 2017,the City Council will be considering City Code language to add a teen member to each Board and Commission to coincide with the dissolution of the teen committee. The proposed amended bylaws and the sections of City Code regarding the Board of Zoning Appeals are attached. Bylaws of the Board of Zoning Appeals City of Golden Valley Article I. These Bylaws of the City of Golden Valley, Board of Zoning Appeals and adopted by same, shall govern the conduct of its proceedings as provided for in Section 11.90, Subd. 4. "Board of Zoning Appeals" of the City Code, attached hereto as Appendix I. Article II. Officers and Staffing 1. The Chairperson shall be elected by April of each year from and by the members of the Board of Zoning Appeals. 2. No person may serve as chairperson for more than 2 consecutive years, in a 3 year period. 3. The member of the Board of Zoning Appeals appointed by the Planning Commission cannot service as chairperson. 4. The �N�=es�e�-e#-Planning Manager a�-8��^^m�^* of the City of Golden Valley or his/her designee shall serve as staff liaison to the Board. 5. The staff liaison shall conduct and maintain all official correspondence, subject to these rules, at the direction of the Board, including all notices required by these rules of procedure and Section 11.90 of the City Code; minutes of the Board's proceedings; and files on petitions for each case which comes before the Board. Article III. Membership 1. The Board of Zoninq Appeals shall consist of 5 regular members and 1 non votina vouth member, who shall live or attend school within Golden Valley and be enrolled in qrades 9 throuqh 12. All members shall serve a 1 vear term A Planninq Commissioner shall be the 6th reqular member All of the members of the Planning Commission are alternates to the Board of Zoninq Appeals Article-�1�IV. Meetings 1. A monthly agenda shall be prepared and mailed to each of the members of the Board. Completed petitions must be received at least 15 working days prior to the day of the meeting for which a hearing is scheduled. 2. A regular monthly meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals for the hearing of cases shall be held on the 4th Tuesday of each month at 7 pm unless no cases are pending. 3. Special meetings may be called by the Chairperson whenever he/she deems the same expedient, and shall be so called whenever three members request the same in writing. Each member and affected petitioner or property owner shall be notified at Bylaws of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals Page 2 least 5 days previous to any Special Meeting, of the time, place, and purpose of the same. 4. A majority of the membership of the Board shall constitute a quorum. In case there shall be no quorum present on the day fixed for a regular or special meeting, the members must adjourn the meeting. In order to obtain a quorum, the member appointed by the Planning Commission must be present. Article �V. Conduct of Business 1. The meetings shall be called to order by the Chairperson or in his/her absence, the immediate past Chairperson. In the event that both are absent, the staff liaison shall call the meeting to order for the business of electing a Chairperson Pro Tem. 2. Record shall be made of those Board members present and those absent. 3. The minutes of the previous meeting shall be submitted for approval and any errors noted or corrections made shall be recorded, after which, the regular order of business shall be taken up, provided that the reading of the minutes may be dispensed with and the same approved if there are no objections. 4. The further order of business, unless otherwise ordered by the Board, shall be as follows, and shall be shown on the agenda of each regular meeting. a. Hearing of petitions or business carried from a previous meeting b. Hearing of new petitions c. Communications d. Other business e. Adjournment 5. The staff liaison shall prepare a written report and recommendation on each petition submitted to the Board, which shall become a part of the official record. 6. In conducting official business the Board shall: a. Hear and decide appeals only on matters provided for in Section 11.90 Subd. 4.B of the City Code and M.S.A. 462.359 (4). b. Hear and decide appeals only where the petition meets the specific requirements of Section 11.90 Subd. 4.C, "Procedure" of the City Code and only where notices as required by the Section have been provided by the City. 7. All petitions and evidence received by the Board shall be reviewed and considered, and within a reasonable time the board shall make its written orders deciding the particular matter. 8. Where there is a question of procedure not specifically covered by these Bylaws or City Ordinances, the Chairperson shall be guided by Robert's Rules of Order. Bylaws of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals Page 3 Article VI. Records 1. All records of the Board shall be a public record. 2. The petition form referred to in the Bylaws and Section 11.90 of the City Code shall be that officially adopted by the board of Zoning Appeals. 3. Each petition shall be given a number corresponding to the year, month and sequence in which it is accepted by the City staff. 4. A map showing the location and number of each case shall be maintained by the secretary. 5. A file of all materials (including surveys and petitions) and decisions relating to each case shall be filed in the Inspections Department, in the address files. Article VII. Amendment Procedure 1. Suspension of the Rules. The rules of procedure may be suspended by a majority of the members of the Board at any regular meeting. 2. Repeal or Amendment of the Rules. These rules may be amended or repealed at any regular or special meeting subsequent to the meeting when the same is proposed, by a 2/3 vote of the entire Board. Updated — February 2017 11.90 Section 11.90: Administration Subdivision 4. Board of Zoning Appeals There is hereby created a Board of Zoning Appeals which shall be organized, operated and have certain powers, as follows: A. Organization. 1. The Board of Zoning Appeals shall consist of€r�te six members which includes one (1) youth member. All members of the Board of Zoning Appeals shall serve a one-(1) year term. During the month of April the City Council shall appoint €et�-F4} five 5 of the members. ''''"""�`" ��" , A Planning Commissioner, � � ' � , shall be the �-�� sixth � member of the Board of Zoning Appeals. All of the members of the Planning Commission are alternates to the Board of Zoning Appeals. In the absence of any member of the Board of Zoning Appeals, any member of the Planning Commission may serve as an alternate. At least one (1) member of the Planning Commission shall be present at each meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board of Zoning Appeals shall meet at least once a month if there are any petitions pending for action. 2. The Board of Zoning Appeals shall keep a written record of all of its proceedings, including minutes of its meetings, its findings and the action taken on each matter heard by it including its Final Order. The Board of Appeals shall adopt such further rules for the conduct of its proceedings as it shall deem necessary, including rules governing the exact date of its meetings, the date by which petitions must be filed to appear on the agenda of any particular meeting, provisions for the conduct of the meeting including the matter of giving of oaths to witnesses at the hearings, the manner in which evidence might be presented at the hearings and provisions for the filing of written briefs by the petitioner or other interested parties. Golden Valley City Code Page 1 of 1 § 2.50 Section 2.50: Boards and Commissions Generally Except as otherwise provided in a specific Section, all Boards and Commissions created by the City Code shall be for the limited purpose of advising the Council with respect to a City function or activity or to research and evaluate issues identified by the Council. As such, Boards and Commissions shall function in an advisory capacity only. Subdivision 1. Appointments The terms of all Board and Commission members shall be fixed and determined at the time of appointment. The Council shall appoint the members of all Boards and Commissions and may fill vacancies for unexpired terms. Members of Boards and Commissions shall serve until their successors are appointed. Appointments shall be made by the Council at its last meeting in April, effective May 1, except for appointments to the Absentee Ballot Counting Board, which will be appointed as needed from the roster of election judges approved by the City Council. Subdivision 2. Staff Support The City Manager shall appoint a staff liaison to attend all meetings of Boards and Commissions and record the meetings. Subdivision 3. Attendance and Rules Each Board and Commission shall establish by-laws, which must be reviewed and approved by the Council every three years. The Council has final authority regarding all by-laws. Boards and Commissions shall follow Roberts Rules of Order unless alternative procedures are established in the approved by-laws or in the City Code. A quorum shall be a simple majority of the votina membership and all recommendations shall require a quorum. No member shall serve as chair more than two years in a three-year period, except that service for less than a full year shall not be applied to this limit. If a member is unable to attend a meeting, that member should contact the staff liaison, who will inform the chair if a quorum cannot be attained and the meeting will be cancelled. The Council may establish an attendance policy for members to remain in good standing. Subdivision 4. Annual Report Each Board and Commission shall present a written annual report outlining its activities over the past year and proposed activities for the upcoming year. Source: Ordinance No. 333, 2nd Series Effective Date: 9-30-OS Golden Valley City Code Page 1 of 1