The URL can be used to link to this page

06-26-18 BZA Agenda Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, June 26, 2018 7 pm 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers I. Approval of Minutes—April 24, 2018, Regular Meeting II. The Petition(s) are: 529 Burntside Drive Aaron Koski, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.72 Fences, Subd. 3(A)(1) Front Yard Fence Requirements • 2 ft. taller than the allowed 4 ft. of height along a portion of the front yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a fence. III. Other Business • Election of Officers IV. Adjournment �� T1�is dacument is avail�bi� in alt�rnat�forrnats upon� 72-i�our requ�st. Pl��s�eall 7f�3-5R3-800b (TTY: 7G3-593-3968}to make a r�quest. Exam�ies of alternate fiormats ;` rnay inclucle largt;print,electronic, Br�ille,au�ioc�s5�tt�,�tc. ` °� Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals April 24, 2018 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, April 24, 2018, 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 Brookins and Johnson. Also present were Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Member Nelson was absent. I. Approval of Minutes— March 27, 2018, Regular Meeting MOVED by Orenstein, seconded by Maxwell and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve the March 27, 2018, minutes as submitted. Brookins abstained. II. The Petition(s) are: Continued Item - 7210 Harold Avenue Tollberq Homes, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.22, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(B) Height Limitations • 3.5 ft. over the 28 ft. of height allowed for a total height of 31.5 feet. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new home. Goellner reminded the Board that this proposal was tabled at their last meeting. She stated that the applicant has withdrawn the request for a garage width variance and is only seeking a variance for the height of the proposed new home. Goellner referred to an illustration of the proposed home and stated that the previous height variance request was to allow the home to be 33 feet in height rather than the allowed 28 feet and that the new request would allow the home to be 31.5 feet in height. Goellner stated that the applicant has said that the unique circumstances in this case include that the topography of the lot necessitates a tuck-under garage and that the height of the proposed home above the tuck-under garage is normal height. She stated that staff is recommending denial of the requested variance because while the topography necessitates a tuck-under garage, two stories above the garage is optional. Also, there is an imposing visual impact from a tuck-under garage with two stories above it, there is significant buildable area on the lot that is not being utilized, and grading changes can be made in order to avoid a variance. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals April 24, 2018 Page 2 Perich asked when this property was subdivided. Goellner said it was subdivided within the last six months. She added that when this house was designed the R-1 zoning code requirements were used instead of the R-2 requirements that should have been used. Maxwell asked if the height requirements are different in the R-2 zoning district. Goellner said no, but that there was some confusion by the applicant regarding how the grade is measured. Perich asked Goellner to explain how changes to the grade of the property could be made in order to avoid the need for a variance. Goellner stated that the proposed bolder wall could be changed to bring the grade up slightly in order to build into the grade more. She added that the applicant thought the grade was measured using the sides of the property as well as the front, but the zoning code states that grade is measured along the front of the property. Johnson noted that the purpose of the garage percentage requirements are so that a garage fa�ade isn't so imposing, yet a big retaining wall in a front yard would also have a visual impact and be imposing. Goellner agreed and added that the biggest change the applicant could make would be not to build two stories above a tuck-under garage. Johnson asked if there are different standards for building a home on an R-1 lot versus an R-2 lot and asked if any type of home could be built as long as it fits within the building envelope. Goellner said there aren't different standards, but typically a smaller home would be built on a smaller R-2 lot. She added that the intent of the height requirements was to limit the impact of the height from the street. Orenstein asked if this proposed house would still be below the neighboring house. Goellner said she hasn't confirmed that, but that is what the applicant has said. Maxwell noted that almost the entire first story of the proposed house is buried in the hill. Goellner agreed. Wade Tollefson, Northwest Design Inc., representing the applicant, stated that at last month's meeting the big talking point was how this house relates to the street. He stated that a tuck-under garage is the right design for this lot and that they have made every effort to lower the height of the house as much as they can. He stated that they can't make the house any wider and that the lot falls off drastically in the back. He said the alternative would be to build a traditional two story home with a steep driveway which would look even taller and that no one would buy a rambler style house. He stated that it is not spelled out in the handouts he received from the City that the grade is measured at the front of the lot without using the side yards. Johnson asked Tollefson if he still has the handout he received. Tollefson said it is on the City's website. Goellner explained that the grading requirements are located in the definition section of the Zoning Code and not again in the R-1 or R-2 sections. She added that the City is in the process of recodifying the Code so this confusion shouldn't happen again. Brookins asked Tollefson to address the suggestion of moving the retaining wall. Tollefson stated that moving the retaining wall would result in a big, flat, tall wall that doesn't really change the grade, is just a big expense, and would be less attractive. He added that the neighbor to the west is in favor of this proposed plan and that moving the wall would push this house closer to his. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals April 24, 2018 Page 3 Brookins asked about building a 2/12 pitched roof or a split-level home. Tollefson said that would be a pretty flat roof and they would have to change the roofing materials. Johnson asked about constructing the house with a flat roof. Goellner stated that the allowed height for a flat roof is 25 feet so she's not sure that would help. Tollefson stated that the spirit of the Code is that the City doesn't want new homes to overshadow neighboring properties. He said that if they build a traditional two story home it would defeat the purpose because it would be taller at the street level and a one level home is not an option. Maxwell questioned if the City should force the applicant to build an unsightly retaining wall rather than a tall house. Perich said the house could be placed on top of the hill which would be even tall�and he can see why the neighbor wouldn't want that. Johnson asked what would happen if the house were pushed back 20 feet on the lot. Orenstein stated that there is a severe drop off toward the rear of the lot. Tollefson stated that the height of the house would still be measured in the same way. Perich opened the public hearing. Josh (last name not given), potential buyer of the property, said they have discussed all of the feedback they've received and they changed the plans and fixed one of the original variance requests. He said they can't push the home back any further on the lot and it really is located in the best location. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Perich closed the public hearing. Orenstein stated that last month the Board stated more or less that they would consider a height variance if they fixed the other garage issue and they have. Perich agreed that the applicant did take some of the Board's feedback into consideration. He said it is a question of whether they want this proposed design or something built within the Code requirements that could be more imposing. He added that he is also concerned that this lot was recently subdivided and now they want a variance. Maxwell stated that the City should maybe have a square foot limit in the R-2 Zoning District but they don't. He said the question is whether they want to allow this proposed option, or a house perched on top of the hill. Johnson said he is thinking that the Board should deny this request because the applicant can appeal the decision to the City Council. He said because this is a new property and totally within the control of the applicant, and the City's rules say they can build a house on top of the hill, there is very little they can't control. Maxwell agreed there are other options like moving the retaining wall forward. Orenstein said moving the wall forward could be more of an intrusion. Brookins disagreed and said more screening could be added that would take away from the height. Tollefson stated that moving the retaining wall would not help, they would still need a 1.5 foot variance from the height allowed. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals Aprii 24, 2018 Page 4 Brookins stated that the garage could be at a different elevation and they could build a split- level house that would meet the requirements. Goellner added that moving the retaining wall, changing the ceiling height, or changing the pitch of the roof might help with the height and they could possibly not need a variance. Perich said the applicant has made valid points, but there are other options. Johnson agreed and reiterated that it is totally within the applicant's control on what they build here. MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Perich and motion carried 3 to 2 to deny the requested variance. Maxwell and Orenstein voted no. Brookins, Johnson and Perich voted yes. III. Other Business • Annual Board/Commission Orientation Goellner referred to a PowerPoint presentation and discussed the structure of the Board of Zoning Appeals, the rules regarding a quorum, Robert's rules of order, the Board's bylaws, the open meeting law, and the annual calendar. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:43 pm. David Perich, Chair Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant �;��..�i ��:` � �� .. ,� " �� "�� r�;, �� ,L� �� r�;� , . 3 f � . . e3 v�'Si��, �.s,,,H �'`€�� y4.�'?,� „ �6�� . _ . �� , £a Ph�sitc�l :D��e�oprnent I�epartam.en�t 763-593-8095 I 7E�3-593-81(39{fax? Date: J u ne 26, 2018 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Amy Morgan, Planning Intern Subject: 529 Burntside Drive Aaron Koski, Applicant Introduction Aaron Koski, owner of the property at 529 Burntside Drive, is seeking a variance from the City Code to build a fence in the front yard of their property facing the Highway 55 service road that exceeds the maximum height allowed. The applicant is seeking the following variance from City Code: ' Variance Request I City Code Requirement __ _. __ _ _ ___ _.._: ; Section 11J2, Fences, Subd. 3, Regulations by ' An additional two feet in height in excess ' Zoning District, A, Residential and Multiple ' of the maximum four feet in height Dwelling Zoning Districts, 1: Fences in the front permitted for a fence in the front yard, yard shall not exceed four feet in height. Fences ' totaling a proposed height of six feet. in the side and rear yards shall not exceed six feet ' ' in height. Background • City Code does not permit fences above four feet in front yards in Residential districts to preserve the aesthetics and character of local neighborhoods. • The lot is approximately 16,773 square feet and zoned for R-1 Single-Family Residential use. • The lot has two front yards, located on the North and East. • Primary access to the house is located on the East, however, there is a secondary entrance located on the West end of the property. • The applicant is proposing to move an existing fence to be in-line with the structure in order to enclose all entrances into the house. • If the applicant's property directly abutted Highway 55, they would be able to construct a six foot fence by right; however, the property is separated from Highway 55 by a frontage road. • The applicant has stated that a six foot fence would provide a barrier from traffic noise, minimize visibility into yard from Highway 55, and create a security perimeter around the property. • The applicant states that they have opted to pursue a six foot fence rather than natural vegetation or a four foot fence in order to better mitigate noise from Highway 55 and limit visibility from the frontage road. 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 construction of a fence in the front yard to provide a noise and privacy buffer 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 The property fronts the Highway 55 service road with no barrier between the property and Highway 55, resulting in noise from heavy automobile traffic. 3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality The proposed fence would be of the same materiality and setback of the existing house and would not alter the character of the property. While the side of the property facing Highway 55 is technically a front yard, it functions as a side yard and the main entrance faces Burntside Drive. Additionally, staff assesses whether other options are available to meet the applicant's need and do not require a variance. Due to the location of the property and the close proximity to Highway 55, staff finds that a conforming four foot fence in the front yard would not address the property concerns. Therefore, the applicant's request for a two foot height variance for their fence is a reasonable request in order to mitigate traffic noise and increase privacy. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the request for a variance of an additional two feet in height in excess of the maximum permitted four feet in height for a fence in the front yard. d210 -- + '= v . 43 00 _.__�� i�,.� _ ��,. � ��X �!. _,..... Subject Property SS -- 529 q5�2 4500 520 SJS 4205 4600 4524 520 4612 �f'� 524 529 �.. �4�' S01 1 ��'' S10 500 521 520 525 � 4515 4i01 521 4605 �� 516 57� '? 44B 512 _... 341 420 505 qg�� 506 509 339 �i �, 3J5 '�� - 4200 4627 l�ty�ittSlaE�� 'Jf 2 416 - 500 � ` ..., 14r�,��k,,;�c, 331 417 /"7� �6 4J17 4309 �0 3�6 4303 �2 4217 4273 q205 41J5 q26 412 327 43 3 328 . 416 �7 4312 4308 �2 � l�-Z�� , � . . �- ,; � 'r`. _ —. �� -� - r �r �� : �.� r„�Z-r----'��, � G�-'-� ;_ . � � --S'---. 'T'—m� _�-� � EC3AN. FIELD �c NOWAK -jy _� . _ SURVEYORS � � 3Y�f � �•1-� -1� ... �� 1 `�_ f�-'�.' — – �� __--�� 7415 WA�UTA dWa � � MINNEAPOl15. MINt1ESOTA ist�t. IU� . N CERTiFICATE �F SVRYEY F� FRED �/GORA � TA T E' f�/GH t��/Q Y N 0. ,S S �� ---- i�s oo --__ �a./. �Rou � ryC �„ '— 36.90 r ! 1` Ia b` ' } � �� ! y � a ''t�j�- S OYER/�(RN6 t ` � Ir' �4=5 � 75.1 � 8vlLDING ° Q , UNDER GON3'TRUG T10N � � ,� � 30. o "� �° ° � �, � �¢ � � a as io � � � � ♦ � � � � �� , . � v � � . ;�, � 0� r.4_' j � 2.3=' FENCE' � r 3'St ' � 2.Ot � �c� �� /43. 75 I � .s'GALE:/"=.30' oFsc�iPrio.v.�o , � `�i• T i,B�GtC�►Cz, 6LfNl,dqLE � ��.� �e hereby Certify thal this is a true and correct reprtstntetion of e survey of the boundarits of the land above AescribEd and of the location of all buiiding� if any, thereon, an6 alt via'rble encroachments, if any, from ar on said land. Dated thf s �r_day of�lU6U3T ,/9B0 . EGAN F I El0 a NO'1MAK� INC ��urveyo�� i le No '¢78Z 6oOk No �251-�8 �y '` � , Planning � 7800 Golden Valley Road,Goiden Vailey,MN 55427-4588 city of -'.: 763-593-8095 � TTY:763-593-3968 � www.goldenvalleymn.gov � planning@goldenvaileymn.gov �olden P �ANI� ING APPLIC�,TION valley • • • � - . . Street address of property in his application: � , . n �Sy �z f c�r,.�-rs,G�� '. . •• • • • Name individual,or corpor te e itiy: , t� �"� Address: 5.�� 3��,�-fi-5�� = Phone number: l Email address: / 4�( Z" d�� r t��"�� c.�'U,»� [��i� � � /�-Z� a1 /�. Authorized Representative(if other than applicant): Name: Address: Phone number: Email address: Property Owner(if other than applicant): Name: Address: Phone number: Email address: • � • Provide a detailed description of the variance(s)being requested: '!`'� _� �2s �w �i-�:I" �r-c�{J . �� 1,"'r�f� �'��,E �j��'� „� �� rt �j �- ��,ti+ �' I�I�: r�� i � �a`' �'� ►� 5�—Cil�tc f'l� 'L i, �'�`'� -�J� • r� i � r �� , a�� a•,`�'�• �,-f� �v��.r- � � r-��t /-" � ��'�'�;...� 1� l� �i ��''�v 2� � �:�r . P�:r,� �+--� V,`N�/ � '�`a�'� �,h� �l�� '�r,l , , 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: �ZQ ►�.�� P�� -� -�,� shr��r �-. ��.� , � 1.,z I�. �.� �-e �..�i �,�,� �=-.-K � Y...,�� ; � � ,�@�.,-� � � �--� ► � �{ c �� ' ;�,.- �S , c� �S�a�� S� �-��,`�. e.�`�r i� - W(�� a� �/ �1�� p r�'�� a� '�"!�c�.. �.JJ�� r !�/ � �e�;`�„e s �-/�� /�/ �aea;� s��- .;�' P �.,P.��. � �� c-.7 ��rY.O_ '�� e tize .,,�-t�r, �i ry s�r�,,P v��.�,� .�a�r�7�, L,�.<�Q Jd�� Planning � 7800 Golden Valley Road,Golden Valley,MN 55427-4588 city of °_ 763-593-8095 � TTY:763-593-396$ � www.goldenvalleymn.gov � planning@goldenvalleymn.gov pr�lden � valley • • • • - . . - . - . Minnesota State Statue 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 4b2•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. �-�.5 i�^{, � tvt� �' ✓�� -1 r,�� r.5z31 �t -}� `�''Qa�^^ �� , �' M��" G-� v�Q-� �' .� �,' S;b; t�fi-� `�'r� �„fi�•�L tw cy--� , '�"_U w.'�i ir,.,'-2,,+ �S ��i� c� 5�� o..r� , r�,,,� `�'i � �,� �� .'� '��a'�!' f� ��'t s �lv�". � What is unique about your property and how do you feel that it necessitates a variance? � a s �tic� � �� .D 2.��" S'�2,C.e , C7 � + � �.e.-tw9�..�C� \ Explain how the need for a variance is based on circumstances that are not a result of a landowner action. �vc.�1,-C' �� I (� �..v...fi�.s . � Explain how,if granted,the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of your neighborhood and Golden Valley as a whole. �� a`�'�r.c�-� �C,r--��`�h`� v' �-�.' ;s �•� 1-��-1 5 S . �g.�� ., � f, � , � ��'v�F"`'� r� � �r ►�.v I �^�`�--c�'�'" , (,�s �1 ..-s-� C'`'"—�''� � � U t` �� .�'�� /� C�2,,�. /�r�,�� C� �� c�'� i�( 2^,f'Er' �-,.�Q . Planning ( 7800 Golden Valley Road,Golden Valley,MN 55427-4588 city of 763-593-8095 � TTY:763-593-3968 � www.goldenvalleymn.gov � planning@goldenvaileymn.gov golden valley • • � � - . . - . - . 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. `}� �e�.. � ��- r`-�y��/a cl�ss � �C,�� 2� �� 6.n� rr�V �c..-,c� ��,,�� `� S`��`a,�� t��3��...r(,¢, � � � � e � � . O Curren!survey of your property,including proposed addition and new proposed building and structure setbacks(a copy of Golden Valley's survey requirements is available upon request;application considered incomplete without a current property survey) O One current color photograph of the area affected by the proposed variance(attach a printed photograph to this application or email a digital image to planning�agoldenvalleymn.gov;submit additional photographs as needed) 0 Fes:$20o application fee for Single-Family Residential,$30o application fee for all other Zoning Districts O Legal description:Exact legal description of the land involved in this application(attach a separate sheet if necessary): . • 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 han applicant),or property ower if other than applicant). Name of Applicant(please print): �� ' �` Signature of Applican - Date• �� Authorized Represenlative(if ot6er than applicant) Name(please print): Signature• Da�e• Property Owner(if other than applicant) Name(please print): Signature• Date• � Please nofe:The City of Golden 1/al(ey will send notice of your variance request to all adjoining property owners as well as owners of properfies 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 before the pubfic hearing. � This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request.Please call 763-593-8006(TTY:763-593-3968)to � make a request. Examples of alternate formats may include large print,electronic,Braille,audiocassette,etc. �