Loading...
12-16-19 BZA Agenda         REGULAR MEETING AGENDA    1. Call To Order    2. Approval of Agenda    3. Approval of Minutes  November 26, 2019, Regular Meeting    4. 510 Parkview Terrace  Joann Birk, Applicant    Request: § 113‐88, Single‐family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(c)(1) Side  Setbacks.     1.7 feet off the required 15 feet of side yard setback to a distance of 13.3 feet to the side  (south) property line.    Purpose: To allow for the construction of a larger deck.    5. Adjournment  December 16, 2019 – 7 pm  Council Chambers  Golden Valley City Hall  7800 Golden Valley Road           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, Andy  Snope, and Planning Commissioner Adam Brookins  Board Members absent:  None  Staff present:    Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman and Planner Myles Campbell    Approval of Agenda  MOTION made by Perich, seconded by Snope to approve the agenda of November 26, 2019, as  submitted and the motion carried unanimously.    Approval of Minutes  MOTION made by Perich, seconded by Orenstein to approve the October 22, 2019, meeting minutes as  submitted and the motion carried unanimously.    901 Ottawa Ave  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 along Ottawa Avenue.    Campbell noted that this application request was a continuation from October’s Board meeting. He  explained that the applicant had worked with staff and revised their initial plans, reducing the total  number of  variances being requested. Campbell described the modifications to the pool location and  the plan to limit the height of the deck so that it would be handled similarly to a patio. Campbell  explained that the remaining variance request for a 5 foot tall fence had also been modified to recess the  gate further away from the property line, and that an existing row of vegetation would help screen it  from public view. Campbell explained part of the purpose for the variance request is a requirement of  the state health department to enclose below ground pools with a fence of at least 5 feet.    November 26, 2019 – 7 pm  Council Chambers  Golden Valley City Hall  7800 Golden Valley Road UNAPPROVED City of Golden Valley    BZA Regular Meeting  November 26, 2019 – 7 pm       2  Campbell explained that staff felt the variance met the three findings for variances: being a reasonable  use and design, necessary due to unique circumstances with the lot layout, and in that it would not  impact 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 from 4 ft. to 5 ft.    Jacqueline and Alexis Kantor, applicants, explained their plan for the fence. The design would be wrought  iron both for design considerations and to meet other standards for pool fences. Snope asked what  would be done with an existing fence at the south end of the property. The applicants explained that  particular fence section had been removed.    Nelson opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Nelson closed the  public hearing.    Board members generally commended the revised plan and the compromise found between staff and  the applicant.    MOTION made by Perich, seconded by Orenstein to approve the variance request for 1 ft. of additional  height than allowed in a front yard to allow for a 5 foot tall fence along Ottawa Avenue and the motion  carried 5 to 0.    535 Ardmore Drive  Jordan Romine and Amanda Malmin, Applicants     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.    Campbell described the background of the property and the existing site conditions. The lot itself is a  corner lot abutting Ardmore Drive and a frontage road for Olson Memorial Highway. The applicant is  seeking to replace an existing older fence that was beginning to collapse in sections. The applicant was  seeking a higher fence to provide greater privacy and noise protection from Highway 55, as well as to  work around an existing oak tree in the southern yard.     Campbell described that the city has an exception to allow for fences up to 6 feet in height on a  residential property that abuts a minor arterial roadway. Snope and Orenstein asked for clarification as  to whether or not the frontage road was not already considered an arterial given the rate of traffic on UNAPPROVED City of Golden Valley    BZA Regular Meeting  November 26, 2019 – 7 pm       3  Olson Memorial Highway.  Campbell and Zimmerman explained that the frontage road is considered a  local road, necessitating the variance despite the clear impact the highway has on the property.     Campbell continued to describe the proposed layout of 6 foot fences, which would create a closed back  yard area as well as a detached fence section in the front yard around a small paved patio.     In reviewing, the application against variance findings Campbell explained that staff felt that the two  northern fence sections had a clear and reasonable purpose in mitigating noise impacts from the  highway, while the southern section did not have as clearly defined a purpose, other than avoiding the  existing oak. The lot’s location abutting Olson Memorial highway was a unique circumstance that  necessitated the variance. Finally, staff explained that while screening was common along the frontage  road, a tall fence would be slightly out of place along Ardmore.     Staff recommended approval of the two northern fence sections and denial of the southern section.  Campbell offered that options such as moving that fence section behind the front plane of the house  would allow the applicant to build to their requested six feet in height without a variance.     Perich asked if a variance would be required if the frontage road carried the same street designation as  the highway. Campbell answered that they would not, given the previously discussed exemption, but  that the southern section still would. Arms‐Regenold asked whether this would also be true if was an  arterial class road. Campbell clarified that a variance would not be required to build a 6 foot fence in the  front yard of any residential property abutting a minor arterial class road. Snope asked for clarification  about moving the southern section behind the house and Campbell answered that the applicant could  build up to 6 feet by right as long as it was behind the front plane of them home, however that there  may be some concerns about impact on the tree root system.     Jordan Romine and Amanda Malmin approached the podium to address the Board. The applicants  explained their thinking for the southern section of fence. They had concerns with moving the fence  back, namely around the impact on the oak tree, potentially impacting basement windows along the side  of the house, and citing that Ardmore saw relatively high traffic coming on to or off of the frontage road.  They explained that cars sometimes pull off the highway and park along the street and that these  reasons are why they were seeking more privacy screening.    Nelson asked for the applicants’ thoughts on building the southern fence to 4 feet in the front yard  without a variance. Romine answered that they would prefer a consistent fence height across the  property. Board members asked further clarifying questions and there was some confusion about  whether the fences would be placed in sections or if they would enclose the yard. Applicants explained  that the two sections near the rear of the home would fully enclose the backyard, but that the additional  fencing was not shown since they would not require a variance. The only stand alone section would be  the second northern section around the paved patio.     Nelson opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Nelson closed the  public hearing.  UNAPPROVED City of Golden Valley    BZA Regular Meeting  November 26, 2019 – 7 pm       4  Commissioners discussed previous instances where they had approved variances for taller fences along  major roadways that were not covered under the minor arterial height exemption. Commissioners  generally agreed with staff’s determination and that approving the two northern sections would be  consistent with their previous decisions.    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 the two 6 foot tall fences along the frontage road and the  motion carried 5 to 0.    MOTION made by Snope, seconded by Brookins to deny the variance request for 2 ft. of additional  height than allowed in a front yard to allow for the southern 6 foot tall fence along Ardmore Drive and  the motion carried 5 to 0.    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.    Purpose: To allow for the construction of a second attached garage stall and additional living  space within a side yard setback.    Zimmerman described the existing site conditions and adjacent properties. The applicant was proposing  to redesign an existing garage to allow for more usable space and to open up some additional space in  the home above it. This would require two variances, one for a reduction in the side yard setback since  the garage would be expanding and an allowance for more 7.25 sq. ft. of gabled roof that would fall  outside of the required building envelope.     Zimmerman explained that the home to the south, which would be most impacted by a side setback  reduction, is actually set back significantly further from the road than 708 Tyrol Trail, and as such would  not be as impacted by the redevelopment than if the two homes were parallel to one another.     Zimmerman explained how the city’s building envelope requirements were determined and showed  illustrations identifying the portion of the roof that would extend outside of the envelope. Nelson noted  that the graphics were useful in determining what exactly was the issue requiring a variance.    Staff analysis found that a two car garage is a reasonable request, the home’s location was not due to  the actions of the applicant, and finally that the design and architecture took into account both the  existing home and the surrounding properties’ character.  UNAPPROVED City of Golden Valley    BZA Regular Meeting  November 26, 2019 – 7 pm       5    Orenstein asked if there were any issues with wall articulation. Zimmerman answered that the south wall  was not long enough to require articulation. Brookins asked if a separate variance would be required for  the deck in addition to the garage. Zimmerman replied that the variance is for the setback generally, and  would apply to all structures on the site. Brookins asked if any additional hardship needed to be  demonstrated for structures other than the garage. Zimmerman answered that he believed that the deck  and garage and the living spaces above were all connected, and that the practical difficulties of the lot  would apply to them all.     Charlie Peterson, an architect for Aulik Design and Build, addressed the board. He explained the design  decisions that went into the project such as making the garages deeper but more narrow, or providing a  bay window to add some articulation to the south wall. Peterson noted that the neighbors to the south  have signed off on the proposed project.     Board members asked some general questions and made some comments to the architect. Brookins  asked whether shifting any of the plans around to not require a variance would make any elements of  the design unfeasible. Peterson answered that alternatives could potentially be explored but that any  changes would impact the location of the stairs and the access to the rear yard. The design was  accounting for people to travel from the front yard to the rear via the garage rather than walking around  the southern side of the home. If the stairs could not be included, then there would be some loss of  greenspace on the southern side so that a paved path could be installed.     Rachael and Jonathan Rongoonwala came up to address the Board, explained that they bought the home  with the intention to keep it in its original form but to make improvements to bring into a more modern  use. They noted that this was by far their preferred layout and design out of many iterations.     The Board discussed the findings and the explanations given by the property owner and architects.  Orenstein, Nelson, and Perich complimented the fact that this improvement kept the character of the  existing home. Brookins noted he initially had concerns about the deeper garage increasing the  necessary variance but felt that the design and choices made were reasonable and would improve the  home. Snope agreed that the deeper garage increasing the setback variance was a concern but that he  preferred that option to a walking path along the south end of the home.     MOTION made by Brookins, seconded by Orenstein to approve both variance requests for 5.5 feet off  the required 12.5 feet side setback and the 7.25 sq. ft. of gabled roof outside the building envelope and  motion carried unanimously.               UNAPPROVED City of Golden Valley    BZA Regular Meeting  November 26, 2019 – 7 pm       6  Adjournment  MOTION made by Snope, seconded by Orenstein and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the  meeting at 8:10 pm.                                                                                                              ________________________________                                                                                               Nancy Nelson, Chair  _________________________________  Myles Campbell, Planner UNAPPROVED 1 Date: December 16, 2019 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Myles Campbell, Planner Subject: 510 Parkview Terrace Joann Birk, Property Owner Introduction The owner of 510 Parkview Terrace, Joann Birk, is seeking a variance from the City Code to reduce their side setback to allow for a deck off the south side of the home. Variance Request City Code Requirement The applicant is requesting a side yard setback on one side of 13.3 feet, which would be 1.7 feet short of the required setback for the lot. § 113-88, Single-family Residential (R-1) Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(c)(1) Side Setbacks. In the case of lots having a width of 100 feet or greater, the side setbacks for any portion of a structure 15 feet or less in height shall be 15 feet. Background 510 Parkview Terrace was built in 1992, replacing a previous home on the site. The lot is a little over 20,000 square feet with a width at the front setback line of 109 feet. There is an existing stair and landing that provides access to the rear yard from the main floor; the door for this landing is located on the southern building façade facing the neighboring property at 516 Parkview Terrace. The applicant’s plans would convert this landing into a raised deck, which could be used for recreational purposes in addition to the rear yard access. City Code Requirements § 113-88, Single-family Residential (R-1) Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(c)(1) of Golden Valley City Code requires that for lots over 100 feet in width, a minimum side yard setback between homes be no less than 15 feet for the principal structure. 2 § 113-88, Single-family Residential (R-1) Zoning District, Subd. (f)(5) of the code states that decks over eight inches from ground level shall meet the same setbacks as the principal structure in the side and rear yards. Summary of Variance Requests The applicant is requesting a variance from these setback requirements to replace an existing stair and landing with an expanded deck that would wrap around the southwest corner of the home and project primarily out into the rear yard. This deck would be raised, approximately 10 feet off the ground. The existing stair and landing would be the same distance from the side property line as the proposed deck layout. Staff believes that the stairs were allowed previously given that the city allows for 25 square feet of stairs and landings to extend into required setbacks for accessibility reasons. That being said, there is no such provision for decks and so the new alignment, while not technically increasing the encroachment into the setback, would now require a variance. The applicant had previously submitted a building permit that included an earlier design and layout of the deck that was flagged by staff as requiring a variance. This earlier design included a stair/landing that would have encroached even further than the revised submission, at its closest point being 8.8 feet from the property line. Staff agrees with the decision to move those stairs and to not further increase the side yard encroachment than what had previously existed. Both designs are provided in the packet. 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. Decks are commonly found throughout the City’s residential neighborhoods and are a reasonable home improvement for many homeowners to make to their property. The deck is not encroaching further into the side setback than the existing stairs are now, however it is fair to note that it will likely have a greater impact on the abutting property given its height being elevated off the ground. 2. The plight of the landowner must be due to circumstances unique to the property that are not created by the landowner. The practical difficulty stems largely from the location of the door off the main floor that the applicant would like to continue to utilize with their modified site layout. Given that it is on the south side of the building, a wraparound connection is necessary if the majority of the deck will be located to the rear of the building. That being said, while 5 feet may be the preferred width of the walkway for the applicant, by reducing it to 3.7 feet in width there would be no encroachment or need for the variance itself since the deck would be abiding by the principal structure setbacks. Building Inspections staff confirmed that there is not a 3 required minimum width for a deck or walkway, and as such the reduction in width would not trigger issues with the state building code. 3. And the variances, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. Due to existing vegetation and the topography of the site, staff anticipates little to no impact on the public viewshed. The current stair landing in the same location is not visible from the street and staff does not believe the changes being proposed would increase the visibility from the street. The greatest potential impact would be on the neighbor to the south of the property, but there is existing trees and vegetation along the property line that would provide some screening between the two properties. Decks and patio areas are also very common throughout the rest of the neighborhood. Additionally, staff assesses whether other options are available to meet the applicant’s need and do not require a variance, and if this variance represents the smallest measures possible while still meeting the stated needs of the applicant. As mentioned, staff believes that by reducing the width of the walkway and southern portion of the deck by 1.7 feet, the applicant could build their deck without requiring a variance to be granted. While the proposed deck would not further increase the side yard encroachment and the applicant made modifications to reduce the impact following staff comments, if a by-right solution can be found, staff would favor this solution over granting a variance. Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the request to allow for an encroachment into the side yard setback, reducing it to 13.3 feet from 15 feet --a I.I � � N I 0-2 ,1, U1 .. ... N z 3 ·-1 I 5'-;-f"-, �-1-_1T l lJ II I �-- .. b� b� le: �STOP DECK SHORT OF LOWER LEVEL PATIO DOOR. I ll71 ll71 ll71 II f ... -. . -....... f1�GI<. t8 338 SQ F-'f-............ ... . I I I D1?�� 102 <ll fT -,, __ ' I I _,.lo. q I �l\ / v-Existing Deck� \. ... . . .... . )( ......0-2 . I :1-E--4'-3"�. /' . I\f • II • a II •• a II \. / \..... ---. :� ,;;t,;� 7 k . \__ :1------oN-8� --.. . . -�. . . t\ ( D . LJ � . . . . . �'" . . .\ .. ( '-K--/ " /" . '' • • • ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ 1 • 11 1Vf • ■ a ■ ■ ■j II a ■ • a a ■ • ■ \XI ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • • \..�- -., U1 C � n 111 �-At,...,. -..A- .. •• .. .. �n ,_. N C: --- "' 1/) "'" ---rT = N 0 0 3 ,... "' '-_,,) 20' Sheet Title: Design For: Kyle & Joann Birk Project 510 Parkvlew Terrace Design Golden Valley, MN 55416 \___ ,,,,. ��4'� Design By: E.'.T.1996 Precision Decks PREOSION 20170 75th Ave North Corcoran, MN 55340 P-763-355-5233 -DECKS-MN. Lic.BC583025 A PASSION FOR OUTDOOR LlVJNG Ralph and Carrie Jacobson 516 Parkview Terrace Golden Valley, MN 55416 December 9, 2019 Myles Campbell Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals 7800 Golden Valley, Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 RE: Request Waiver section 113-88 SF Residential side yard requirements 501 Parkview Terrace Dear Mr. Campbell: Through your letter dated December 5, 2019, we first became aware of the intention of our neighbor at 510 Parkview Terrace to request a variance from the Zoning Code to reduce the required distance of the side yard property line by almost two feet. As the neighbor directly to the south of the house who is singularly affected by this exception, we strenuously object to the proposed variance. Background We chose to move to Tyrol Hills because of the beautiful lots. We totally remodeled our house in 1997 in keeping with the existing character of our neighborhood. We renovated our 1952 one-story walkout rambler into a one-story contemporary house on the inside while maintaining its original character from the street perspective. We also invested significantly to enhance the landscape of our yard. The original single-story house on 510 Parkview was subsequently removed and replaced by a two-story house situated to the southern lot line because of poor soil conditions on the northern part of the lot. In a further remodeling, the neighbors at the time requested a side yard property variance. We objected; they honored our wishes and maintained the zoning standard. The house to our south was built on a vacant lot. It looms over our house and is almost two and half times the size of ours. Across the street, the house is almost four times that of ours. As a result of the newer construction, our house now dwarfs those around us. The major value to our house remains the appeal of the lot. The proposed encroachment reduces the aesthetics and resale value of our property. The 510 Parkview house has an existing external stairway on the southside which presumably meets code. There is building expansion space on both the north and west sides of the house that could meet zoning requirements. Request If this petition is granted it may increase the appeal and value of my neighbor’s house—and certainly reduce the value of ours. We therefore object to the proposed petition and request that the Board of Zoning Appeals deny the side yard setback variance for 510 Parkview Terrace. We appreciate your consideration.