Loading...
11-26-19 BZA AgendaREGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call To Order 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Approval of Minutes October 22, 2019, Regular Meeting 4. 901 Ottawa Avenue North Jacqueline Kantor, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 113-152, Screening and Outdoor Storage, Subd. (c)(1)(a) Height Requirements 1 ft. taller than the allowed 4 ft. in height for fences in a front yard. Purpose: To allow for a 5-foot tall fence in a front yard. 5. 535 Ardmore Drive Jordan Romine, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 113-152, Screening and Outdoor Storage, Subd. (c)(1)(a) Height Requirements 2 ft. taller than the allowed 4 ft. in height for fences in a front yard. Purpose: To allow for a 6-foot tall fence along Olson Memorial Boulevard Frontage Road and Ardmore Drive. 6. 708 Tyrol Trail Rachael and Jonathan Rongoonwala, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 113-88, Single Family Residential, Subd. (f)(1)(c)(2) Side Setback Requirements 5.5 ft. off of the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 7 ft. at its closest point to the side yard south) property line. An area of approximately 7.25 sq. ft. of gabled roof outside of the building envelope. November 26, 2019 – 7 pm Council Chambers Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting October 22, 2019 – 7 pm 2 Purpose: To allow for the construction of a second attached garage stall and additional living space within a side yard setback. 7. Adjournment REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Call To Order The meeting was called to order at 7 pm by Chair Nelson. Roll Call Members present: Kade Arms-Regenold, Nancy Nelson, Richard Orenstein, David Perich, and Planning Commissioner Ron Blum Board Members absent: Andy Snope Staff present: Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman and Planner Myles Campbell Approval of Agenda MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Perich to approve the agenda of October 22, 2019, as submitted and the motion carried unanimously. Approval of Minutes MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Perich to approve the September 24, 2019, Meeting minutes as submitted and the motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Blum abstained 4400 Tyrol Crest Brock Peterson, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 113-152, Screening and Outdoor Storage, Subd. (c)(1)(a) Height Requirements 2 ft. taller than the allowed 4 ft. in height for fences in a front yard. Purpose: To allow for a 6-foot tall fence along Wayzata Blvd. Campbell referred to a location map of the property and stated that the house was built in 1952. He noted that the property’s access is on Tyrol Crest, but it also has the Wayzata Boulevard frontage road, which is at a different topographical height, abutting the rear lot line creating a second front setback for the rear yard. Campbell explained that Zoning Code states that fences in all front yards shall not exceed four feet height and fences in side and rear yards shall not exceed six feet in height. He showed the Board a drawing that illustrates where on the property the applicant would like to construct a 6 ft. tall fence. Campbell stated that the staff analysis of this proposal is that the space is sufficiently separated from the frontage road already and a privacy fence is a reasonable use in this context. The location of the frontage October 22, 2019 – 7 pm Council Chambers Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting October 22, 2019 – 7 pm 2 road was not created by the applicant which is what is creating the front yard issue, and surrounding properties have privacy fences so a fence on this property would not alter the character of the neighborhood. Campbell stated that staff is recommending approval of the request to allow for an increase in the maximum fence height allowed at the rear of the lot from 4 ft. to 6 ft. Blum asked if there are any similar scenarios like this in the City. Nelson said the Board has been tough on fence variances in the past. She noted that variances have been granted along the Highway 55 frontage road. Brock Peterson, applicant, said the property along Wayzata Blvd. really acts like a rear yard. Nelson opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Nelson closed the public hearing. MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Perich to approve the variance request for 2 ft. of additional height than allowed in a front yard to allow for a 6-foot tall fence along Wayzata Blvd and the motion carried 4 to 0. 1109 Winnetka Avenue North Trisha Fry and Mike Olson, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 113-88, Single Family Residential, Subd. (f)(1)(c)(2) Height Requirements 7.17 ft. off of the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 5.33 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for a garage addition. Campbell referred to a location map of the property and explained the applicant’s request for a variance of 7.17 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 5.33 feet at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line in order to convert the existing breezeway space to livable space and to add a second garage stall. Campbell explained that Zoning Code required lots having a width greater than 65 ft. and less than 100 ft. the side setbacks for any portion of a structure 15 ft. or less in height shall be 12.5 ft. Campbell stated the staff analysis is that a two stall garage is a reasonable use and is the norm for most newly constructed home. The location of the addition would put it behind the front plane of the house and preserve the existing front facade. The lot is somewhat undersized compared to current R-1 requirements and the location of an emergency exit inhibits some development to the rear. He added City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting October 22, 2019 – 7 pm 3 that many surrounding and nearby properties have garages for one or two cars to this proposal would not impact the essential character of the neighborhood. Campbell stated that staff is recommending approval of the requested variance. Orenstein asked about the setback requirement on the north side of the property and if there would be any changes on the north side. Campbell said the setback on the north side is also 12.5 ft. and there would be no changes made to that side of the property. Nelson asked if the new driveway would meet the required setback. Campbell said yes, the driveway would be 3 ft. from the side yard property line as required. Blum said he has questions about the feasibility of other options. He asked about the size of the current garage and the proposed new garage. Campbell said the current garage is approximately 11.5 ft. wide x 21 ft. deep and the proposed new garage would be 20.5 ft. wide x 26 ft. deep. He noted that the existing breezeway is proposed to be used for a kitchen remodel. Blum asked about the length of the breezeway. Campbell said it is 10.4 ft. long. Zimmerman added that the proposed new garage would be approximately 8 ft. wider than the existing garage. Blum said he thinks the breezeway could be used for additional garage space. Campbell said the breezeway and garage will both need foundation work to do any type of addition. Blum asked if there is anything to the rear of the current garage and breezeway that would prevent an addition to the rear of the property. Campbell said there is an existing deck in the rear yard. Blum asked about the rear yard setback. Campbell said the rear yard setback is 25 ft. Blum said it seems like there is nothing to prevent the applicant from building a tandem two stall garage to the rear of the existing structure. Mike Olson, applicant, stated that they want to make the home more usable and have enough space for two cars in the garage. Nelson asked if there is an egress window behind the house. Trisha Fry, applicant said yes, there is a small galley kitchen that they would like to expand into the breezeway space and that there is an egress window under the kitchen. Nelson opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment Nelson closed the public hearing. Blum said he thinks the variance request is substantial and said there would be no difficulty in constructing a tandem garage without a variance. He said there is more than enough room between the existing house and garage for a garage addition if the breezeway was used for garage space. He added that is different from other garage variances he’s seen because in those cases the garage was attached to the house and in this case there are at least two other options that could be used by the applicant to build a two stall garage. City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting October 22, 2019 – 7 pm 4 Nelson said in order to allow people a two stall garage the Board has granted variances in the past that are closer to the side yard property line than what is currently being requested. She said she understands Blum’s concern about using the breezeway for additional garage space but to her a tandem garage is not very desirable or useful. Blum asked if a tandem garage, despite being undesirable, constitutes the level of hardship that is required when approving variances. Nelson said she thinks it would. Orenstein agreed the Board has a history of approving variances in order to allow a second garage stall. He said he understands this is a substantial variance request but he would be supportive of it. Blum said there are ways the applicant can build a second garage stall without needing a variance. Nelson asked the applicants to explain the square footage of the home and their plans for the breezeway space. Fry said there is approximately 1,300 square feet and using the breezeway would give them about 170 square feet of additional space. She stated that the existing kitchen is a tiny, galley style kitchen and it is difficult for two people to be in it at the same time. Olson added that they would also like the additional living and entertaining space. Fry said they would be willing to use some of the breezeway space in order to have a side by side garage, but they have different work schedules so a tandem garage would be difficult for them. Perich said he thinks the proposal is reasonable and noted that a 20 foot wide garage is really the bare minimum size for a two stall garage. He said the proposal won’t alter the essential character of the neighborhood so he would vote in favor of the variance as requested. Nelson said she thinks a two stall garage will improve the property and she is in favor of the variance request as proposed. MOTION made by Nelson, seconded by Perich to approve the variance request for 7.17 ft. off of the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 5.33 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line to allow for a home/garage addition. The motion carried 3 to 1. Blum voted no. 5410 Wayzata Boulevard Webb Golden Valley, LLC, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 113-151, Off-Street Parking and Loading, Subd. (b)(8) Design Standards 22 ft. wide drive aisles rather than the required 24 ft. in the north parking lot area. Zimmerman referred to a location map and aerial photo of the property and stated that the property is 4.5 acres and is split by a public alley. He stated that the south portion of the property contains one building that houses Good Day Cafe, Metropolitan Ballroom, and D’Amico Catering and that the variance request pertains only to the north portion of the site which is a parking lot. He explained that construction of I-394 and the apartment/senior buildings to the east have reduced parking and that a City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting October 22, 2019 – 7 pm 5 better parking layout could increase the number of parking stalls from 354 to 395. He added that all of the proposed parking stalls would meet the minimum required dimensions. Zimmerman referred to a plan of the existing parking lot layout and the proposed new layout which proposes 22 ft. wide drive aisles rather than the required 24 ft. Zimmerman stated that the staff analysis of this proposal is that the use of the parking lot is reasonable and the required drive aisle width prevents a more efficient layout from being implemented. The existing lot dimensions create challenges in reorienting the parking stalls and previous actions by MnDOT and the City have reduced the parking options. He added that the character of the area would not be altered because the north portion of the lot is already being used for parking. He noted that one alternative is to shift and reconstruct the north curb line but that would require the relocation of 5 light poles, threaten the health of approximately ten mature trees, and reduce the amount of pervious surfaces. Zimmerman stated that staff is recommending approval of the variance as requested. Perich asked if a 24 ft. drive aisle is standard. Zimmerman said the 22 ft. to 24 ft. range is common. Doug Feickert, representing the applicant, said he didn’t have anything to add but is happy to answer questions. Nelson said she has been to many events at this location and agrees that the existing parking lot is a problem. Feickert agreed and said they used to use an existing vacant parking lot but that is no longer available. He added that the proposed parking lot layout will be a substantial improvement. Nelson opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Nelson closed the public hearing. Nelson said this is a reasonable use, the need for a variance is not caused by the landowner, and the essential character of the area won’t be impacted so she feels it meets all the criteria used in considering variance requests. MOTION made by Nelson, seconded by Blum to approve the variance request for 2 feet off the required 24 feet of drive aisle width to a distance of 22 feet for two drive aisles within the north parking lot and motion carried unanimously. 901 Ottawa Avenue North Jacqueline Kantor, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 113-88, Single Family Residential (g)(1)(a) Accessory Structure Location Requirements The proposed pool would be closer to the front setback than the principal structure. City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting October 22, 2019 – 7 pm 6 Purpose: To allow for the construction of a pool. Request: Waiver from Section 113-88, Single Family Residential (f)(1)(b) Rear Yard Setback Requirements 21.83 ft. off the required 25 ft. to a distance of 3.17 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a deck. Request: Waiver from Section 113-152, Screening and Outdoor Storage, Subd. (c)(1)(a) Height Requirements 1 ft. taller than the allowed 4 ft. in height for fences in a front yard. Purpose: To allow for a 5-foot tall fence in a front yard. Campbell referred to a location map of the property and explained the requested variances. He stated that the applicant is requesting a fence height of five feet which is one foot above the permitted maximum height for front yard fences. The applicant is also requesting to put a swimming pool in the front yard that would be approximately 1 ft. closer to the property line than the home, and a deck that would be 3.17 ft. away from the rear property line instead of the required 25 ft. Campbell gave some background information about the property and said that it is an oddly shaped corner lot with fronts on both Ottawa Avenue North and Killarney Drive resulting in no side yards, and the house is set 12 ft. back from the rear property line leaving little to no room for additions to the rear of the principal structure. Campbell stated that the staff analysis is that the location of the proposed pool, the privacy fence, and the deck are all unreasonable given the new site issues they create related to privacy and the view from the street. The property shape and layout create issues for any uses that aren’t allowed in a front yard as well as limiting the use of the rear yard, and the pool and high privacy fence would both be out of character with the nearby homes. He added that a pool in the front yard would be especially out of character for the area. Therefore, staff is recommending denial of all three variance requests. Arms-Regenold asked if staff would recommend approval of just one of the requests. Campbell explained that without the pool request there wouldn’t need to be a 5 ft. fence in a front yard. Perich asked about the front yard setback requirement. Campbell stated that any accessory structure with frost footings, in this case the pool, has to be behind the front plane of the house. Orenstein asked about the setback requirement for the proposed deck. Campbell said it is 25 ft. He added that a patio could be 3 ft. from the rear yard property line. City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting October 22, 2019 – 7 pm 7 Jacqueline Kantor, applicant, said she understands the front yard setback requirements but that is not how the house flows or how they use it. She said they made the plans with the neighbors and they have a letter from the neighbors that states they think it will add value to the area and will not change the character of the neighborhood. Alexis Kantor, applicant, said the deck is more of a step out deck over the patio. Nelson said she understands this is a challenging lot however, the Board is typically strict about front yard variance requests. Jacqueline Kantor noted that there are lilac bushes along Ottawa Avenue and that the fence would be behind those bushes so the view from the street would still be that foliage. Perich asked what other options were considered for the pool. Jacqueline Kantor said they considered using the other side of the property but they were discouraged by staff. Nelson asked the applicants if they don’t get the variance for the pool if they are interested in the other variances. Jacqueline Kantor said no. Zimmerman referred to the site plan and discussed some other potential options. He stated that the pool can be located where it is proposed it just has to be behind the front plane of the house so the pool could be made smaller. He referred to the variance request regarding the fence and stated that the Building Code requires a 5 ft. fence around pools however, the proposed fence could be brought further away from the front property line where it is allowed to be up to 6 ft. in height. He said the deck could be kept under 8 inches in height and could then be located 3 ft. from the property line. Arms-Regenold asked how much pool space they would lose if it were in a conforming location. Zimmerman said he thinks the pool could be a different shape or shifted slightly and a variance wouldn’t be required. Nelson asked the applicant’s how they feel about changing their plans to avoid variances. Jacqueline Kantor said moving the fence would take away almost the whole yard. Orenstein said he thinks some reasonable alternatives have been offered. Perich agreed that there are some alternatives to work with. Nelson and Blum agreed. Alexis Kantor asked the Board if they could table the proposal and come back with a plan that is a compromise from what they want but is closer to what the Board might feel comfortable with. Orenstein said they would have to see a new plan first in order to make decisions. Jacqueline Kantor reiterated that the neighbors don’t think the character of the neighborhood would be impacted and asked the Board how much weight they place on neighbors comments. Nelson said the Board tries to be consistent with the variances they approve throughout the City. MOTION made by Blum, seconded by Orenstein to table the variance requests and the motion carried unanimously. City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting October 22, 2019 – 7 pm 8 1601 Noble Drive John Gabbert, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 113-123, Planned Unit Development and Overlay Districts Subd. c)(7)(c)(6) Private Streets 2 ft. narrower than the required 20 ft. of street width. Purpose: To allow for the existing 18 ft. wide private roadway. Zimmerman referred to a location map of the property and gave some background. He explained that the Sweeney Lake Woods PUD was created in 2015 and consists of three single family lots along Sweeney Lake which are connected to Noble Drive via a private road. The private road is 18 ft. wide within a 20 ft. wide outlot. He stated the PUD standards call for a 20 ft. wide paved road within an easement that is at least 4 ft. wider so the existing 18 ft. wide road is nonconforming. He stated that there is a proposed PUD amendment plan pending that would expand the PUD boundary and incorporate additional land, however in order to address the nonconformity the applicant must widen the existing road to 20 feet or obtain a variance to allow it to remain 18 ft. wide. Zimmerman stated the City Code requires common sections private streets serving three or more dwellings be paved to 20 ft. of width which ensures sufficient access for emergency (fire) vehicles. He added that the Fire Department has stated that they would be okay with the existing 18 ft. wide driveway if any new homes have a sprinkler system installed when they are constructed. Zimmerman noted that it is difficult to acquire additional land to expand the existing private road and that poor soils and minimum construction standards to support fire trucks would require complete reconstruction of the road if it were widened. Zimmerman discussed the staff analysis and stated that the use of the private road is reasonable and the minimum width standards are preventing the PUD amendment from being approved, also the width of the outlot is pre-existing and established prior to PUD standards. If approved the road would continue to serve a small development of single family homes so the character of the area would not be impacted and the only other alternative is to acquire additional land or an easement to expand the road with which would require complete reconstruction. He added that two feet is the minimum amount need to meet the needs of the applicant and to satisfy the PUD standards. Zimmerman stated that staff is recommending approval of the requested variance with the following two conditions: 1) Fire sprinkler systems shall be required in all new homes subsequently constructed within the PUD, and 2) The variance shall only take effect upon the approval of the pending PUD amendment. Nelson asked about the status and timeline of the pending PUD amendment. Zimmerman stated that it will go to the Planning Commission in November and the City Council in December. He said he thinks City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting October 22, 2019 – 7 pm 9 generally there is support for the PUD amendment but there are some engineering details to be worked out around stormwater management. Nelson asked how many new homes there would be with the PUD amendment. Zimmerman said they are proposing to take away one of the existing lots and add two more so there would be a net gain of one lot in the development. Orenstein asked if the surface of the driveway would change. Zimmerman said it would be kept as is if the variance is approved. Perich asked if it was a driveway before the PUD was created. Zimmerman said it was a driveway that was not paved. Perich asked if the 20 ft. wide road requirement was in place at the time the PUD was created. Zimmerman said yes, and that staff and the Planning Commission supported requiring a wider public street, however the Council ultimately approved the PUD to allow the existing 18 ft. wide private road. Jacquie Day, representing the applicant, said she wanted to clarify the hearing notice that was sent which stated that up to seven lots could be created. She said they are not creating seven lots, it deals with making changes that would touch seven lots. She referred to a map of the development and discussed the lots that use the private road for access. She said the private road access for two lots would be taken away so really only four homes would be using the private road. Perich asked Day how she felt about the condition regarding adding sprinkler systems to the new houses. Day said the applicant plans to build first class homes and is fine with that condition. Perich asked if the applicant has considered purchasing the extra two feet in order to make the driveway width 20 feet. Day said there are many reasons why that is not possible. She said there is an existing home (1807 Noble Drive) that is not part of the PUD and abuts the driveway and the existing driveway was only put in a few years ago and was very expensive to build and would have to be torn out and reconstructed. She added that the proposal will remain low density residential and the new homes will have sprinkler systems. Nelson opened the public hearing. Amar Alshash, 1807 Noble Drive, said he is concerned about this variance and he would like to keep the road as is. He said he supported the original PUD development and preventing the driveway from becoming a street for more homes to be developed. He said he believes that at the time it was said that only three new homes would be developed as a result of leaving the driveway alone, not four as Ms. Day stated, now developers want to add two more homes next to his property with a net gain of one home. He said the character of the neighborhood will be completely altered by this development. He said he has a legal easement on the private driveway and no one has requested his permission to move forward with this proposal. He said he got a phone call from Ms. Day asking for two feet of land and he said he was open to discussion about how that would work but he never heard a follow up. He said he is disappointed that they are adding more homes than the City initially agreed to and that the developers City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting October 22, 2019 – 7 pm 10 have not asked his permission even though his easement will be improperly burdened by more traffic with the addition of more homes. Robert Meller, 1800 Major Drive, said this variance request should be denied for three reasons. The first is that it is based on a materially inaccurate application because it says the driveway is currently serving four lots which is not true, and it says it will serve four lots afterwards which is simply not true because at least one lot would be added. He said it would be a horrible precedent to approve a variance based on an inaccurate application. He said the second reason is that the application is premature. He said a mistake was made when a nonconforming 18 foot wide driveway was allowed and if the applicant wants to alter it that they should go through a different process to fix the mistake, they are not doing that they are asking for a variance. He said if the variance is granted it would be for three lots which is not needed because it is working just fine. He said either it satisfies the requirements or it doesn’t and should be denied. He said the third reason is that didn’t even try to negotiate to get the additional two feet they need to widen the driveway. He added that economic hardship in regard to rebuilding the driveway should not be considered. Jacquie Day stated that the original road was approved for four lots. She said as far as approaching Mr. Alshash it was prior to them investigating and finding out that they couldn’t really just add two feet, the driveway would have to be completely taken out and rebuilt so they didn’t pursue talking to Mr. Alshash. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Nelson closed the public hearing. Nelson explained that the Board isn’t here to comment on how many lots were approved or not, they are only considering the requested variance about the width of the private road. Zimmerman added that he would encourage people to come to the Planning Commission and City Council to speak to the development as a whole and the changes being proposed. He stated that Ms. Day is correct that the original road was approved for four lots and that a variance for the driveway is the appropriate process along with the parallel process of the PUD amendment. Blum asked if the width of the driveway was a substantial part of the Planning Commission’s discussion when the original PUD was approved. He asked if the driveway is a substantial part of the PUD why this isn’t a PUD amendment request instead of a variance request. Zimmerman said the Planning Commission and staff recommendation was to require the driveway to be widened however the Council did not approve the PUD that way so the driveway was left in a nonconforming situation. The PUD Code language requires that nonconformities be addressed and a variance is a common way to address nonconformities. Arms-Regenold asked if the applicant bought two feet of Mr. Alshash’s property if that would be City right-of-way. Zimmerman said Mr. Alshash could sell the applicant two feet of property or create a private easement. Blum said he thinks there are some difficulties with the land in regard to the driveway construction but that is not sufficient for him to approve the variance request. City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting October 22, 2019 – 7 pm 11 Orenstein noted that the Board’s decision could be appealed to the City Council. Perich stated that the essential character shouldn’t be altered and in his opinion the essential character would be altered. Nelson said she isn’t comfortable at this point to approve this variance request and that the Planning Commission or City Council might be a better forum for this discussion. MOTION made by Perich, seconded by Orenstein to deny the variance as requested and motion carried 4 to 0. 1126 Florida Avenue North Dan Grossman, Applicant Section 113-152 (c)(1)(a) – Fences in all front yards shall not exceed four feet in height. Fences in side and rear yards shall not exceed six feet in height. The Board of Zoning Appeals will decide whether or not staff is interpreting the above language correctly in regard to the height of a recently constructed fence at 1126 Florida Avenue North. Zimmerman explained that this is not a variance request, it is an interpretation of the Zoning Code language. He said the two questions with this item are if the measurement of fence height should be taken from grade or from the top of a retaining wall, and if it can be determined if a fence extension at 1126 Florida Ave N was added before or after 2004 when the City Code was revised. Zimmerman gave some background information about the property and explained that in the summer of 2019 the applicant contacted staff about replacing a nonconforming fence. In August of 2019, a Zoning Permit application was submitted and approved for a 6 ft. tall fence which included a portion in the front yard. The neighbor at 6420 Golden Valley Road contacted staff to say the fence was too tall and there was also an illegal fence extension in place so staff visited the site on August 23 to investigate. Staff found that the new 6 ft. tall fence was constructed above an existing 18 inch stone wall and the total height of the fence from grade measured approximately 7.5 ft. He stated that a fence extension of approximately 22 inches had been added at some point in the past. The applicant believes the extension was done in 2002, the neighbor believes it was done after 2006. If the extension was done prior to October of 2004, it would be allowed as a legal nonconforming structure. Zimmerman showed the Board several pictures of the subject property and explained the City Code requirements that state “Fences in all side and rear yards shall not exceed six feet in height,” and “Any nonconformity existing at the time of adoption of an additional control…may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but not including expansion.” Zimmerman stated that the staff analysis is that even though the Code does not say that fence height should be measured from grade common sense dictates that the height of the fence should be measured City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting October 22, 2019 – 7 pm 12 from grade as it is with homes and other structures and that the new fence should be reduced in height to match the previous height. He added that absent any other evidence, staff has no reason to believe the fence extension was installed after 2004 and it should be allowed to remain. Blum asked if the Hennepin County map system gives any clarity as to when the fence was constructed. Zimmerman stated that the City has aerial photos from 2002 and 2004 and they indicate that the fence was most likely built in 2003 or early 2004. Arms-Regenold asked if staff knows who constructed the fence. Zimmerman said the homeowner put in the extension and the fence. Perich asked if the extension is remaining and if the new fence goes up the extension. Zimmerman said that is correct, the new fence is taller than allowed and the extension is taller still. Orenstein asked if there are different requirements for fences on top of retaining walls. Zimmerman said all of the fence requirements are the same. Dan Grossman, Applicant, said there was an existing fence in place. He showed pictures of the property and the new fence and said it is the same height and if it changed it is maybe by an inch or two. He discussed the location of the retaining wall and the grading and drainage of the property. He added that the fence is 6 ft. tall from the top of the retaining wall to the top of the fence. He asked if the grade was built up more if that would solve the problem. Orenstein asked if the top of the retaining wall was at grade at some point. Grossman said no. Orenstein asked who owns the retaining wall. Grossman said he does. Nelson opened the public hearing. Jeffrey Polinchock, 6420 Golden Valley Road, said he submitted pictures showing the fence extension was built after 2003. He said he asked Mr. Grossman at that time if the extension was permissible and he grumbled something and laughed. Nelson asked Polinchock how long he has lived at his property. Polinchock said since 2001 or 2002. He referred to several pictures and discussed the height of the fence in various places and the fence extension. He said he talked to Mr. Zimmerman as the fence was going up because it was obvious that it was significantly taller than the previous fence. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Nelson closed the public hearing. Nelson said there doesn’t seem to be definitive proof as to when the extension was built so she can’t find a compelling reason to require the extension to be taken down. Perich and Orenstein agreed. City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting October 22, 2019 – 7 pm 13 Blum asked if ordinances were approved in the past that were applied retroactively. Zimmerman said those were specific to homes, not to fences. Blum said testimony is evidence if they think it is, so they could take either side’s testimony as sufficient evidence. MOTION made by Nelson, seconded by Perich that the Board cannot determine when the fence extension was made, therefore it is allowed to remain and the motion carried unanimously. Nelson said that in regard to how the fence should be measured she thinks it should be from grade to the top of the fence. Perich agreed. Arms-Regenold asked if the fence was built legally if the applicant should be allowed to keep it as is. Zimmerman said the applicant was allowed to replace the fence at the same height, but it was built taller than the previous fence. MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Perich that the Board’s interpretation is that fence height should be measured from grade. Therefore the fence that was constructed taller than 6 ft. should be corrected and the motion carried unanimously. Grossman asked if he could build up the grade. Zimmerman said he could but he would have to get the proper grading and stormwater permits from the City. Adjournment MOTION made by Nelson, seconded by Orenstein and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 9:21 pm. Nancy Nelson, Chair Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant 1 Date: November 26, 2019 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Myles Campbell, Planner Subject: 901 Ottawa Ave N Jacqueline Kantor, Property Owner Introduction The owner of 901 Ottawa Avenue North, Jacqueline Kantor, is seeking a variance from the City Code in order to construct a 5’ privacy fence within the area of their front yard. Variance Request City Code Requirement The applicant is requesting a fence height of 5 feet, one foot above the permitted max height for front yard fences in residential districts. 113-152 Screening and Outdoor Storage, Subd. c)(1)(a) Fences in all front yards shall not exceed four feet in height. Fences in side and rear yards shall not exceed six feet in height. Background The property at 901 Ottawa Avenue N was platted as part of the White Acres addition, and was built in 1974. The property in question is a corner lot on both Ottawa Avenue North and Killarney Drive, with the home primarily facing and having driveway access onto Ottawa Ave North. Due to the configuration of the home on the lot, there is essentially no backyard. The house’s rear side abuts its shared lot line with 4821 Killarney Drive to the southwest. This is a continuation from the October Board of Zoning Appeals meeting, where the variance application was tabled to allow the applicant time to work with city staff to revise their plans. At that time, board members and staff were concerned about the number of requested variance items and their combined impact on the neighborhood. After modifications to the site plan the applicant is returning now with only a single variance request regarding the maximum fence height. City Code Requirements For screening, § 113-152 Screening and Outdoor Storage lays out that in residential districts the height of a fence should not exceed 4 feet in yards abutting a public right of way. The regulation is 2 intended to preserve consistency of appearance from one property to the next and promote neighborhood character. Summary of Variance Requests Due to the lot’s layout and the location of the home, there is essentially one long curved front lot line that abuts the two right-of-ways and one rear lot line shared with 4821 Killarney. There is essentially no usable rear yard for this property given that the home is set back around 12 feet from the rear lot line. Given the lack of a rear yard, the majority of usable space on the property is located to either side of the home. These areas abut Ottawa Avenue and Killarney Drive respectively. Since the previous meeting. Applicants have moved the location of a proposed pool to be behind the front plane of the home itself, making it compliant with the city’s location requirements for accessory structures. The applicant also clarified that the deck proposed to the rear of the home would be less than 8” in height, and given this would not be subject to the principal structure’s setback standards. The city treats these decks much like they would a stone or paved patio. The remaining item that would still require a variance before being allowed would be the 5’ perimeter fence, which would enclose the southern portion of the yard, including the pool and patio. A portion of this fence would be to the front of the home, as well as run along Ottawa Ave, where the maximum height allowed is four feet. The purpose for this increase is due to the requirements of the state standards to provide fencing around belowground swimming pools. According to Minnesota Administrative Rules 4717.1550 Subp. 2, this fencing must: A. be at least five feet high; B. be equipped with self-closing, self-latching gates capable of being locked; C. not have any opening greater than four inches; D. not have any opening greater than two inches below the fence; and E. not be a readily climbable design. 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. In order to constitute practical difficulties: 1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. Staff finds the proposed fence to be a reasonable use for the property. The fence in question is serving a necessary purpose in terms of maintaining health department standards surrounding belowground pools. While a fence of this height is usually not allowed in the front yard of a home, here it will be mostly screened from the public right-of-way by the 3 presence of an existing hedge. The section of fence that will be visible from the road has also been brought back towards the interior of the lot, further reducing its potential impact. 2. The plight of the landowner must be due to circumstances unique to the property that are not created by the landowner. The fact that the lot is a corner lot is not unique for the city, as hundreds of other lots in the city are similarly subject to the limitations posed by having two front yards. However, the location of the home does pose additional constraints, since most other corner lots at least have some developable area in their rear or side yards. This situation is not the result of any action by the landowner, since it was the decision of the original builder to use this layout. 3. And the variances, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. A fenced in front yard is uncommon in this particular neighborhood, however given the existing hedgerow along the same stretch of Ottawa that the fence would be located on, there would be little to no change in the amount over screening being provided. Additionally, staff often tries to work with the applicant to find the least drastic variance request or to find alternatives to the variance request. In this case, staff and the applicant worked closely after the application was initially tabled to come up with a new solution and site layout that would meet both parties’ needs. Staff feels the revised plan represents a major compromise and one that preserves the usable yard area while minimizing any potential impact on surrounding properties. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the request for a variance of an additional foot in height required for the 5-foot privacy fence, in excess of the maximum permitted 4 feet in height. WV i D LOWER °I/ / YARD / \ PROPOSED 4' FENCE / \ E/= / EXISTING Sj / HOUSE / \ g 03 I EXISTING EXISTING DRIVEWAY D GARAGE I o ' Poo E I S' FENCE AND GATE GATE W/ LATCH W/LATCH / o \ PROPOSED STAIR FOR ' ACCESSTOLOWERYARD PROPOEuS i ° EXISTING RETAINING WALL AND PATIO ° PRIV Y FENCE PROPOSED 6' PRIVACY FENCE \ PROPOSED WOOD PLATFORM DECK ON TOP OF EXISTING SLAB, MAX 7" HEIGHT 0 moo i CONCRETE PATIO EXISITING CHAINLINK FENCE ATGRADE EDGE OF POOL, / RAISED PLANTING BED \ 14'x25' WITH PROPOSED S' i AUTO COVER J I FENCE TO MEET POOL REQ'T ° m zEXISTING HEDGE / I M UPPER ' YARD / 130 o. 6 0 10 I I' PROPOSED SITE PLAN 901 OTTAWA AVE, Golden Valley, MN 55422 STRANDDESIGN1/1611 - 11-011 11.13.2019 1 Date: November 26, 2019 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Myles Campbell, Planner Subject: 535 Ardmore Drive Jordan Romine, Property Owner Introduction The owner of 535 Ardmore Drive, Jordan Romine, is seeking variances from the City Code in order to construct three sections of 6’ tall privacy fencing within the area of their front yard. Variance Request City Code Requirement The applicant is requesting fence heights of 6 feet, two feet above the permitted max height for front yard fences in residential districts. 113-152 Screening and Outdoor Storage, Subd. c)(1)(a) Fences in all front yards shall not exceed four feet in height. Fences in side and rear yards shall not exceed six feet in height. Background The property at 901 Ottawa Avenue N was platted as part of the Glendale addition, and was built in 1949. The property in question is a corner lot on Ardmore Drive and a frontage road for Highway 55, with the home primarily facing Ardmore but having driveway access onto the frontage road. City Code Requirements For screening, § 113-152 Screening and Outdoor Storage lays out that in residential districts the height of a fence should not exceed 4 feet in yards abutting a public right of way. The regulation is intended to preserve consistency of appearance from one property to the next and promote neighborhood character. This being said, the city code does make an exception to this rule, stating that a wall or fence not exceeding six feet in height is permitted in the front yard of all properties directly adjoining a minor arterial street. In this case, Highway 55 would meet and exceed the road classification standard being a principal arterial road, however the adjoining frontage road would not meet the classification requirement. 2 Summary of Variance Requests The applicant is seeking permission to build three separate sections of fence at 6’ in height on the lot. At least some portion if not the entirety of all three sections would fall within the lots to effective front yards. The applicant explained they were seeking the fence variance to provide greater safety, noise protection and general privacy on the site. As seen on the attached aerial photo the two more northern section of fencing would certainly provide some significant reduction for noise from the highway in addition to privacy. The southern fence would have a lesser effect on reducing the impact of the highway, and its extension into the front yard is due to the existence of a mature oak tree, which the applicant would prefer not to disturb. 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. In order to constitute practical difficulties: 1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. Staff finds two of the three fences to be a reasonable use of the property given the home’s quasi-adjoined nature to Olson Memorial Highway, a principal arterial street that sees very high daily traffic counts. The city’s code already makes exception to its fence height limitations in similar cases, but the variance here is required due to the frontage road sitting in between the highway and home. Staff finds that it makes sense to apply the code standard here given that the frontage road is not providing any type of buffer from the arterial roadway. However, staff finds the third southerly section of fence to be unreasonable. Unlike the other sections, staff does not feel the section would be serving a purpose in reducing highway noise pollution, which is the primary grounds for allowing the additional height with the other two sections. This section wholly faces and fronts on Ardmore Drive, a local classification street with a residential character. 2. The plight of the landowner must be due to circumstances unique to the property that are not created by the landowner. The fact that the lot is a corner lot is not unique for the city, as hundreds of other lots in the city are similarly subject to the limitations posed by having two front yards. However, the location of the home being along the frontage road of one of the city’s busiest streets is a unique circumstance with its own types of property impacts. Similarly the trees location in the southern yard was also not determined by the applicant but by a previous property owner. Neither circumstance was created due to the actions of the applicant. 3. And the variances, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. 3 Fences or other screening such as vegetative buffers are somewhat common along the frontage road, and staff do not anticipate any impact on character along the frontage. However a 6-foot tall fence would be uncommon for the surrounding properties along Ardmore Drive. A few homes on Ardmore have fences but in general these are smaller and more open than the applicants proposed privacy fence. Additionally, staff often tries to work with the applicant to find the least drastic variance request or to find alternatives to the variance request. In this case, staff feels that the two northern fence sections will do a good job of achieving the aims of the applicant, namely reducing noise pollution, without representing a major deviation from the city code. They are reasonable in their scale. The southern section of fencing has a less clearly defined justification for its increased height. Staff would recommend either moving the fence to be behind the front plane of the home, in which case they could build up to 6’ in height by right, or to reduce the height of the fence to the allowable 4’ if they still desired to preserve the proposed layout. Recommendation For the two northerly fence sections that face Olson Memorial Highway, staff recommends approval of the request for a variance of an additional foot in height required for the 6-foot privacy fence, in excess of the maximum permitted 4 feet in height. For the southerly fence section along Ardmore Drive, staff recommends denial of the request for a variance of an additional foot in height required for the 6-foot privacy fence, in excess of the maximum permitted 4 feet in height. Planning 1 7800 Golden Valley Road,Golden Valley,MN 55427-4588 city of 763-593-8095 1 TTY:763-593-3968 1 www.goldenvalleymn.gov I planning@goldenvalleymn.gov golden v PLANNING APPLICATION valley Zoning Code Variance Street address of property in this application: 535 Ardmore Dr, Golden Valley MN 55422 APPLICANT INFOPMATION Name(individual,or corporate entitiy): Jordan Romine Address: 535 Ardmore Dr,Golden Valley MN 55422 Phone number: Email address: 507-450-6971 romi0039@d.umn.edu Authorized Representative(if other than applicant): Name: Address: Phone number: Email address: Property Owner(if other than applicant): Name: Address: Phone number:Email address: SITE INFOPMATION Provide a detailed description of the variance(s)being requested: We are requesting a variance to the requirement that"Fence height must be...4 feet or less in the front yard."We would like to put 6'tall fence in our front yards (corner lot) in 3 different locations. 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: Our lot sits on the service road to Hwy 55, and there is essentially no barrier between us and the busy highway and industrial zone across the Hwy. For protection from the noise pollution, increased safety, and general privacy,we request a variance is made to allow us to have the fencing in our front yards extend to 6'tall(both North and East sides of the lot). We are hoping to replace and build upon the current fencing on the property to enclose the entire back and side yards as well part of the fronts. Part of this will replace 70 linear feet along the northern portion of our property boarding the service road to Highway 55.Another part extends into the Ardmore front yard to avoid an old,mature oak tree. We would also like to replace the 32 linear feet of fencing around 2 sides of a patio in the front yard which has aged and started to lean/fall. Both existing sections of fencing currently stand at 5'tall(top foot is lattices le . Planning 1 7800 Golden Valley Road,Golden Valley,MN 55427-4588 city,of 763-593-8095 1 TTY:763-593-3968 1 www.goldenvalleymn.gov I planning@goldenvalleymn.gov golden valley Zoning Code Variance 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 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. The variance would allow us to install a continuous 6'tall privacy fence along the service road to Hwy 55 and avoid a large, old oak while still making full use of the back and side yards. The additional space will also allow us to enjoy the patio and grill in the front even during busy weeknights by providing a barrier between us and the highway. By extending these fence sections by 2 vertical feet, we believe it will provide benefits we feel are key for us, our family and friends to enjoy the outdoor spaces around our home. What is unique about your property and how do you feel that it necessitates a variance? Our property is alongside the service road to Highway 55 and Ardmore drive, a high volume highway access point. Even during off-peak traffic,there is considerable traffic and noise which has negatively impacted our ability to use our outdoor spaces. We also feel this situation increases safety concerns that come with being so close to a busy road. General privacy is also an increased concern. Explain how the need for a variance is based on circumstances that are not a result of a landowner action. Our house is located in very close proximity to high volume roadways and loud industrial zones which is out of our control. There is also an existing mature tree that prevents part of the fence from staying in the back/side yard without losing a lot of fenced in area(-1200 square feet with the variance, over 500 square feet of strictly back/side yard). Explain how,if granted,the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of your neighborhood and Golden Valley as a whole. We are building with fencing with materials that will create a clean and uniform appearance. It gives plenty of space to the mature oak tree to maintain its health. It allows us to create outdoor green space for homeowners and neighbors to connect. The proposed fence locations would be set back 50ft(patio section) and 60ft(southern side yard) from Ardmore Dr and 10'(north front yard) and 45'from the service road(patio). This is well outside the corner visibility zone and leaves an unaltered sightline as you travel down the street. Planning 1 7800 Golden Valley Road,Golden Valley,MN 55427-4588 city 0 763-593-8095 1 TTY:763-593-3968 1 www.goldenvalleymn.gov I planning@goldenvalleymn.gov golden valley Zoning Code Variance 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. For all sections: For the southern side yard s= We could make them 4'tall instead of 6'. We could plant bushes in Create a bump-in section of fence around front to help with the noise(something we already plan to do). This the tree. Our fence contractor advised against option by itself can be uncertain and challenging to maintain so misses this because it would look incongruent and is out on the consistent benefits we've mentioned above. more expensive. We would also miss the tree For both sections in question on the enclosed fencing: as part of our play space in the backyard. We could bring the fence back into the backside yards.With this Although technically an option, we don't option we be functionally losing over 2000 square feet total of fenced consider this a real viable option: we cut s ace from our Dronosed glan. down the oak tree we're tryingLrying to go around. PFOUIPED ATTACHMENTS O Current 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@goldenvalleymn.gov;submit additional photographs as needed) O Fee:$200 application fee for Single-Family Residential,$goo 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): SIGNATUPES 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 applicant),or property ower(if other than applicant). Name of Applicant(please print): Jordan Romine Signature of Applicant: z__Date: 11/3/2019 Authorized Representative(if other than applicant) Name(please print): Signature: Date: Property Owner(if other than applicant) Name(please print): Signature: Date: 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 before the public 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. 11/4/2019 Property Survey - Google Does Property Survey Information Jordan Romine Amanda Malmin 535 Ardmore Dr, Golden Valley MN 55422 Addition: Glendale Lot: 001 Block: 001 PID:1902924420002 The boundaries of our property were identified as part of a 2019 surrey for the rebuild project at 521 Ardmore Dr. The stakes marking the NW, SW and SE comers of our lot have been identified and marked. The lot lines indicated on the Hennepin County Plat GIS Map can be used as a representation. Clear resu is PID:9902924420002 535 Ardmore Dr Golden Valley, MN 55422 Owner Jordan RomlrWAmanda Malmia JOM AN ROM94E TaxpaW. AJ.VJIDA MALMN 535ARDMORE OR GOLDEN VALLEY MN 554M Penal Area: 0.41 ams 17,935 sq A Tonans/Apeaaet: Ad lion Tonons Glendale Lot 001 Book: 001 Melas S somm: 1 Date: November 26, 2019 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Subject: 708 Tyrol Trial Rachael and Johnathan Rangoonwala, Property Owners Introduction Aulik Companies, representing Rachel and Johnathan Rangoonwala, owners of the property at 708 Tyrol Trial, is seeking variances from the City Code in order to allow for the construction of a second attached garage stall and living space within the side yard setback. Variance Request City Code Requirement The applicant is requesting a variance of 5.5 feet off the required 12.5 feet to a distance of 7 feet at its closest point to the side yard property line. 113-88, Single-Family Residential, Subd. f)(1)(c)(2) Side Yard Setback Requirements. In the case of lots having a width greater than 65 feet and less than 100 feet, the side setbacks for any portion of a structure 15 feet or less in height shall be 12.5 feet. The applicant is requesting a variance of approximately 7.25 square feet of gabled roof outside of the building envelope. 113-88, Single-Family Residential, Subd. f)(1)(c)(2) Side Yard Setback Requirements. The side setbacks for any portion of a structure greater than 15 feet in height shall be measured to an inwardly sloping plane at a ratio of 2:1 beginning at a point 15 feet directly above the side setback line. Background The property at 708 Tyrol Trail is 0.44 acres in size and is in the middle of a Single-Family Residential R-1) Zoning District. The existing home currently includes a one car tuck-under garage that sits 19.5 feet from the south property line. In order to construct a second attached garage stall, the applicant is looking to expand the structure to the south (towards the side property line) and to the west (into the rear yard). The addition 2 would provide additional garage space as well as living space on the main level of the home and half-story space on the upper level. New egress stairs would be constructed to access the rear yard from the tuck-under garage. City Code Requirement City Code Section 113-88 sets the side setback at 12.5 feet from the side property line for a lot of this width. It also creates a tent-shaped building envelope that tips inward once it reaches 15 feet in height. These regulations help protect adjacent properties from unreasonable impositions of massing close to the property line. Summary of Variance Request The applicant is requesting a variance from the required side yard setback in order to construct the home addition, which would include a second garage stall, living space on the main floor, and half- story space on the upper level. In order to accommodate this project, the applicant is proposing to establish the side yard setback at 7 feet instead of 12.5 – a variance of 5.5 feet. In addition to being within the required side yard setback, a small portion of the upper level of the home would project outside of the established tent-shaped building envelope. The applicant states they are attempt to reinvest in the existing structure rather than tearing down and rebuilding. Every attempt has been made to improve the existing living space while remaining consistent with the character of housing in the neighborhood. Neighbors to the south and west of the subject property (most impacted by the proposed changes) have written letters of support. 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. In order to constitute practical difficulties: 1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. A two car garage is a reasonable use of a property given winter in Minnesota. Without a variance, the proximity of the existing structure to the side property line prevents the addition of a second garage stall. The applicant also intends to create living space above this garage addition. 2. The plight of the landowner must be due to circumstances unique to the property that are not created by the landowner. The original placement of the home on the lot does not allow for a second garage stall without the granting of a variance. 3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. The applicant has worked to design an addition that would be consistent with the architectural style of the house. A majority of homes in the area have two stall garages, 3 including a two stall tuck-under garage directly across the street. The adjacent property to the south has a home that set back significantly and would not be impacted by the addition. The proposal would not alter the essential character of the locality. To aid in the analysis, staff works with the applicant to assess whether other reasonable options are available to meet the applicant’s needs without requiring a variance. The applicant explored constructing a detached garage but this would result in a lengthy driveway as well as the demolition of a sunroom above the existing garage. Alternatively, the existing home could be demolished and rebuilt with a new floorplan that includes a two car garage. Staff does not believe either of these are reasonable alternatives to the proposed reduction of the side yard setback. Lastly, staff assesses whether the proposal requests the smallest variance necessary to meet the applicant’s needs. The applicant has designed the garage to the minimum width necessary to accommodate two vehicles. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of a variance of 5.5 feet off the required 12.5 feet to a distance of 7 feet at its closest point to the side yard property line. Staff recommends approval of a variance of approximately 7.25 square feet of gabled roof outside of the building envelope. Planning | 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427-4588 763-593-8095 | TTY: 763-593-3968 | www.goldenvalleymn.gov | planning@goldenvalleymn.gov Zoning Code Variance Street address of property in this application: APPLICANT INFORMATION Name (individual, or corporate entitiy): Address: Phone number: Email address: Authorized Representative (if other than applicant): Name: Address: Phone number:Email address: Property Owner (if other than applicant): Name: Address: Phone number:Email address: SITE INFORMATION Provide a detailed description of the variance(s) being requested: 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: PLANNING APPLICATION 708 Tyrol Trail Aulik Companies (Gary Aulik / Charlie Peterson) 275 Market Street. Suite 156. Minneapolis, MN 55405 952.591.1500 charlesp@aulikdesignbuild.com Rachael and Jonathan Rangoonwala 708 Tyrol Trail. Golden Valley, MN 55416 651.792.6569 jonathan.rangoonwala@gmail.com 1. We are requesting a Variance from the required 12.5' Side-Yard Setback to 7' at the Southern property line. This reduction in Side-Yard Setback will allow the replacement of the existing 1-car tuck-under garage stall with a new 2-car tuck-under garage. As the existing house placement and lot topography favors a tuck-under setup, the new structure will allow for new, conditioned Living Space at the Main Level of the home as well as some new, 1/2 story, conditioned space at the Upper Level. (see proposed drawings) 2. We are requesting a Variance to allow a small portion of the Gable roof to encroach into the Articulation Envelope. Approximately 7.25 sq ft of roof will intrude on the Articulation Envelope as viewed from the street (East) Elevation (see proposed drawings). 3. The proposed tuck-under garage will be 22'-2" wide (street elevation). As we are trying to limit the width of the new garage to preserve 7' of Side-Yard Setback, we are proposing a Storage Area at the back of the new garage that will comply with the Zoning Code's 12.5' Setback requirement. This Storage Area portion of the Garage will be largely subterranean, with Outdoor Terrace above it with no conditioned Living Space (approximately 41% of this area is positioned beneath the existing deck). To allow connection to the Backyard from the Garage, we are proposing a structural wall / stair on the South Side of the Storage Area. This stair would have approximately 65 sq ft within the 12.5' Side-Yard Setback. We are requesting a Variance of 40 sq ft beyond the 25 sq ft allowed for stairs and landings. (see proposed drawings) In the interest of saving this 1939 Cape Cod home and investing in it vs tearing it down, we have studied ways to incorporate a 2-car, tuck-under garage addition to allow the parking of two vehicles inside. The current 1-car tuck-under garage does not allow for the parking of a vehicle given it's limited dimensions in addition to the needs of the storage of bicycles, lawn mower, snow blower, etc. Given the width of the lot and the placement / layout of the existing home, a reduced Side-Yard Setback is the most practical, aesthetic and sustainable way to incorporate a 2-car garage on this property. We have aimed to keep the width of the addition to a minimum. We looked at asking for a 5'-6" Setback request but feel that we are able stay at 7' and still achieve a great project that will augment and improve the existing home for modern living. The garage would consist of block/concrete walls which would be retaining earth and thus require a thicker wall vs a framed wall. The garage addition is 22'-6" wide (21'-2" interior) and 29'-6" deep (27'-6" interior). As the existing house placement and lot topography favors a tuck-under setup, the new structure will allow for new, conditioned Living Space at the Main Level of the home as well as some new, 1/2 story, conditioned space at the Upper Level. (see proposed drawings) DocuSign Envelope ID: F2642325-DB66-4289-A878-435185AF92C4 Zoning Code Variance (continued) Planning | 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427-4588 763-593-8095 | TTY: 763-593-3968 | www.goldenvalleymn.gov | planning@goldenvalleymn.gov 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 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. The current 1-car tuck-under garage does not allow for the parking of a vehicle given it's limited dimensions in addition to the needs of the storage of bicycles, lawn mower, snow blower, etc. The value of a practical, 2-car garage in MN is that it makes day to day activity more efficient, safe and enjoyable. The Sunroom above the existing Garage is not conditioned and is typically too hot to use in the summer and too cold to use in Winter. The windows in the Sunroom do not have any fall-protection for humans and are dangerous. By achieving a reduced setback of 7' the addition will provide a practical garage condition for our climate conditions as well as provide opportunity to enlarge the Main Level floor plan to allow for conditioned space above the garage. Given the City's willingness to grant Side-Yard Setback Variance requests under 5'-6" to achieve practical two-car garages where older homes only had single-car garages, we feel that our request of a 7' setback is sensitive to the need for setbacks and allows the family to expand the home to meet their needs. Relocation and tear-down were other options that have been considered but the family really loves the neighborhood / city and are working to achieve a reasonable path to improve their home. As stated previously, given the width of the lot and the placement / layout of the existing home, a reduced Side-Yard Setback is the most Practical, Aesthetic and Sustainable way to incorporate a 2-car garage on this property. The neighbor most affected by the requested variance, has a home that sits significantly back from the Proposed Garage Addition / Home and as such, will not be crowded or over-shadowed by the proposed development. Other options such as tear-down and a detached garage were explored but neither of those options are as practical, aesthetic or sustainable ways to incorporate a 2-car garage on this property. As the home was originally built in 1938, the placement / layout was established before current Zoning Code was in place and at a time when the automobile was not as relied upon as it is today. In addition, the size and number of home maintenance and recreation items that are typically stored in the garage have increased since 1938. We feel that our request of a 7' setback is sensitive to the need for setbacks and does not diminish the character of the neighborhood. The addition will allow the family to expand the home to meet their needs. Relocation and tear-down were other options that have been considered but the family really loves the neighborhood / city and are working to achieve a reasonable path to improve their home. We feel that our request of a 7' setback is sensitive to the need for setbacks and does not diminish the character of the neighborhood. The neighbor most affected by the requested variance, has a home that sits significantly back from the Proposed Garage Addition / Home and as such, will not be crowded or over-shadowed by the proposed development. That particular neighbor has verbally stated support for the project and intends to either attend the Variance Hearing to show their support or write a letter of support for submittal to the Board. Their feeling is that planned improvements to their neighbors homes helps everyones property values. This addition will allow the family to expand the home to meet their needs. Relocation and tear-down were other options that have been considered but the family really loves the neighborhood / city and are working to achieve a reasonable path to improve their home. DocuSign Envelope ID: F2642325-DB66-4289-A878-435185AF92C4 Zoning Code Variance (continued) 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. 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. REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS Current 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) 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@goldenvalleymn.gov; submit additional photographs as needed) Fee: $200 application fee for Single-Family Residential, $300 application fee for all other Zoning Districts Legal description: Exact legal description of the land involved in this application (attach a separate sheet if necessary): SIGNATURES 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 applicant), or property ower (if other than applicant). Name of Applicant (please print): __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Signature of Applicant: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Date: _________________________ Authorized Representative (if other than applicant) Name (please print): _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Signature: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Date: __________________________ Property Owner (if other than applicant) Name (please print): _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Signature: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Date: __________________________ 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 before the public hearing. Planning | 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427-4588 763-593-8095 | TTY: 763-593-3968 | www.goldenvalleymn.gov | planning@goldenvalleymn.gov Numerous approaches were explored when considering this project. Tearing the home down is something that was discussed but given value analysis is not something that makes sense at this time. A detached garage was also discussed however this option would require the structure to be set in the rear yard and an extensive driveway to be built as well as the tear-off of the existing 1-car garage and Sunroom. This option and investment to build a new garage and not having it attached is not practical. Given the width of the lot and the placement / layout of the existing home, a reduced Side-Yard Setback is the most practical, aesthetic and sustainable way to incorporate a 2-car garage on this property. Aulik Companies (Gary Aulik) 11/5/2019 Rachael and Jonathan Rangoonwala 11/5/2019 DocuSign Envelope ID: F2642325-DB66-4289-A878-435185AF92C4 4Id, If Ill Ad 0 to All i t y M;A r fif, ill do Ad Are 0 q OF So fit44 Y + , . Wit do ' a /gypA All A./ ( M. . , M A r`, .Rl //rOle" isA , ' rh A 1 / • i 1r rl ` , Or I t r -'off1 Itif1 .• . + IV - X . "A1' ! r ` fr , '{` r Or I r MIk -.^ , All A A Id 11flot A I'' I l,1i OAF 9 I 0 1 jW r 4 !. titi It T i: `4N ' r r 74#4,*4 4. Jtv r_ 1 ^' ' v ,fl' %,r' ts to IPA y If P , . 4;, low r n1OAF. v' .Ory4 N, '7r114 of A too Ar/{ or•, a..i-'` •r ,°r, 1 ` . , T jr ` llil, 04 A lotdo i Add rev Ite po too 11 1 * It " I IIIN Y : `<« s' '*J' h, r + H. i , el I! JAP 1 4 Al do AlAtoldAlto ' A to 04 fee or A% too off i ydo a y C x - i w M iitt Ad j. 0 let old, Al r T of d x';,.` .. 4. Aid ,r plot r' 11 1;, . A, ', 4' T x. NY _ IY Aye e tor r K • 1 iJ ' ! fit C1 film At J y` y y KY / , / fel i !'. alln. +a.-t. r ,•'.`. "1 y1ti'+ S:r.Cl. arn. ,ew. A' ai. do A do offe oet it 16r le .Q+. 4jkg f , • ' •w raw " " 1'+. .+.y.:..,, A IF At t or "Ali i . , i t w1do of doe F r a. > rA.Y Ai p i may,` ee44 If L. sAd .Y% yd !.teArd; a • yr« ,.. r- _ It p 70F A If+ .. " * ov , r rn Ti Me _ t do of i redif AF Ad, AA Afi, r ` it old"A fir i1µ1 . P 4 r i f _, , F tm:If4 UP GYM" a. 1h. ;.,. * of r ' Jeff edd rI d1 At a r i . N'. 't:yy I. t +t' v If'`+. 'rA for A! Itim1 ! ,- Ali Ad do It to. j t r. s — y y t 4 rati y" fjiejrIIeWIu- . t` r-'': _ •>w.-^- .'.-b.,g? F ' F Al x."'{ `'_,..+,00Ar if AN do A-1fal All A, All of Iti or I, 1pr - 9 - .._.., - - y k Fit oftod I I .. - - L4' 7 LA old ell, I Fir h do VA tot mooddel d A It Tk It prVol V m Ato.:"' ±i F - f - _tl+. L:' :; ;:AV:,•. , j,. Vol aIV 1 ' ' a ''_f {-. IV IN V 304 too y. i dA k or Of0 It 11 do.r! Vol Iold, N_ i 1 r ml . + ?a e - CNN . r'E,;k to :la• - x„+, 400,11h. Vol.•'/ •. or '.1,. .<` `..s£'` 1 f' .f.l' :i IY — a+• c It ii N Volt VIAlowit VV V,VqpVMotor two V. tr I L. , 1 rF 'a 1, ,.) ' I, y.M ,' - 4, f+ •. Vol IVIt ot r i .e[ t4 ,.Vol yVAL W 1l sr ,? aIftto Vol Vol a. I Vol, It IV - IV Vl AWN IIto 4 No 4 to t "Ir. + Ot C*i 6, - r AAllVIt t\ Vol. oil Votto _ II to Vie. a i rot/vi I all l - d (. toII—_ VVVVV i. f 1 .. ,. mot• to a t' S t'y,_\' + J r.„ _.:.j}_ - ! l ,M •• .' • E 7eV ; ^ rrll li •= ^^• Vol s h• 1It /. 401mIt I i 011. It Vol to At ads rs f.. , pa R ." 1'` o, -••ter iI. rAD ie• th TVIV, It yV: IV too to as F° ti 5 y%VoVa r to A'-rl' F- Von loller xVolI 4yC VV i7 ti f + rr 1 old L 1m as r OIL r A f. VrSt Ill r ,• . h,,t, fir• 1 ;' • a . y + A did do OFF Ito A VIA 7r. 'Z. d t. `$ra\' ia' Asto 4t ' l 41 6l+ S &? 4 qt FA At did ff 4A At w its"iftspy 4y6P \ . `r . Val It y e.. K3f IO IF,' Ad \ tFiber \ } YST - F A. view AIF i t iMFg*a r h, is6 A 1 `.. _ :. III n• ` ,; fir,•,.Y + V'KiX.tw 4 , t ,•!!ti ! ••.Ax' a^-Y .yam r IIF 1. IF 4 Add l:% im ^ fi i'«: IF 04i l+t eFe. 11 tFa. All W1w did f Ad I it IF; ,. ? • . VIA RS 1 t% ., s a , :r ye k ott do 0 A IFAmi A FAN it' r „ I ; FLY.: _ or f 4A. If FAA 11 11» fit, A, a 4% 1 ElFirrio Add 11, do Ail a ' • t` d. Ford IF t A awl, Leif Add' FAA 3 1111jS J 1} _ ! Fir L "Fe A q... F, Iog 1, * Y { I J yrt to _ A. It As Will I Fit 9w = r f t 14 I, f .L _ . . 'AAA - AA A, ...._ . FIFO F: TomAli If ., d.. YdFie OF d AV OFIAitIds Oat 0 a to A itad Atoo A If Aw f6 of did it 'r 7d' ,Y S '0 " vp Im did ft A or d All rj•, t , • d kji^ ' ,' a a, It ' A x ! r . % a •> . • id w. ' t Add % mm%ir- All A AitIFOFtoFAAdIFAd w 11 x Aid *nk .. _ k. it jytFAAif.' " i `.i.r'- +' .. FAL di, A A Ad IF opprYf `•~ , + ram' J,' ,r . ' 1^`e a t' Adel Y' n _ ` aj• 5S ^ A A,rwitwaY f r ' .y FAA A, A of IFoil at, Per A IS s+`:" T • n y 'ial`.!'ti'+` Y, ^i ' by; r•i,,, „ ti= WAIFFAA, 0dd, A ALL It C 3: FAA, A Ido OF p A. y AAA F' Ad to , _ AA A A- Add or dot Put ti It AFF u Met l r IF 11 November 12, 2019 To Whom It May Concern, Greetings, I am writing this brief note as a longtime homeowner in the Tyrol Hills neighborhood of Golden Valley. My family currently resides at 641 Westwood Drive South. This is our third home in Golden Valley. It has come to our attention our neighbors, the Rangoonwala family at 708 North Tyrol Trail, are applying for a variance to allow for an addition to their home. Our families currently share a backyard. Previously, my family lived for 7 years next door to the Rangoonwala’s home (prior to their purchase). Needless to say, my family are not only great fans of Tyrol Hills, but I am personally quite familiar with the Rangonnwala’s property, aesthetic value, and proximity to their neighbor’s property. To the point above, we are quite excited with the construction plans for their addition the Rangoonwala’s have shared with us. Our family believes the Rangoonwala’s plans contribute to the unique architectural differentiation of the homes in Tyrol Hills. They are using a quality builder and their design plans maintain the Cape Cod design of their home. Their addition is clearly planned in a conscious manner to honor a similar home footprint and square footage of other homes in Tyrol Hills. Our family is a strong supporter of the current efforts from the City of Golden Valley to review the rules around lot divisions and buildable sites. I speak for many in Tyrol Hills when I thank you for that effort. In the case of the Rangoonwala’s plan, it is clear they represent the integrity of a Golden Valley homeowner to improve their home and the quality of the neighborhood. From a selfish position, their efforts can only contribute to the desirability of homes in Golden Valley and our own home value. Should you wish to speak with me directly, I would welcome the opportunity. I may be reached at 612- 916-0404. Best, Curt Olson 641 Westwood Drive South November 18, 2019 City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 RE: Jonathan and Rachel Rangoonwala Application for Variance at 708 Tyrol Trail North Dear City Council, My husband and I reside at 800 Tyrol Trail North, Golden Valley, MN. We have lived in the house for 6 years. For our first few years in the neighborhood, 708 Tyrol Trail was either vacant or had renters and the property was never very well kept. We were very happy when Jonathan and Rachel moved in and told of us their plans to eventually improve the property. I understand Jonathan and Rachel require a setback variance for their proposed improvements. Jonathan has showed us the plans and my husband and I support the granting of the proposed setback variance. We do not believe the variance will cause any detriment to our property or diminish its value. Given our lot size and position of our improvements, we do not believe the variance will have much effect on our property at all. We look forward to the proposed improvements and the increased value the same will bring to the Rangoonwala's property, our property and the surrounding neighborhood. If there are any questions concerning our support, please feel free to contact me at (612) 309- 9589. Sincerely, t-4i- ty L. 'Mein, Esq.