Loading...
09-24-19 BZA Minutes REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Call To Order The meeting was called to order at 7 pm by Chair Nelson. Roll Call Board Members present: Kade Arms-Regenold, Nancy Nelson, Richard Orenstein, David Perich, Andy Snope, and Planning Commissioner Andy Johnson Board Members absent: None Staff present: Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman Approval of Agenda MOTION made by Perich, seconded by Orenstein to approve the agenda of September 24, 2019, as submitted and the motion carried unanimously. Approval of Minutes MOTION made by Perich, seconded by Nelson to approve the September 9, 2019, Special Meeting minutes as submitted and the motion carried unanimously. 840 Pennsylvania Ave S Morries 840 Pennsylvania Ave Re, LLC, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 113-97, I-394 Mixed Use Section, Subd. (1)(b)(3) Side and Rear Surface Parking Setback Requirements • 9 ft. off of the required 15 ft. to a distance of 6 ft. at the surface parking lot’s closest point to the side and rear yard property lines. Purpose: To allow for a surface parking lot to be closer to the side and rear yard property lines than allowed. Zimmerman referred to a location map and gave some background information on the property. He stated that Morrie’s purchased the property in 2018 and received a Conditional Use Permit to construct an employee parking lot in January of 2019. Zimmerman stated that the existing parking lot setback requirement is 15 ft. however, the new Mixed Use zoning regulations have reduced the setback requirement to 6 ft. He explained that due to a delay in the adoption of the 2040 Comp Plan by the Met Council the new setback will not be effective until January 1, 2020, and that Morrie’s is asking for a variance to construct a parking lot to the new setback prior to the effective date. September 24, 2019 – 7 pm Council Chambers Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting September 24, 2019 – 7 pm 2 Zimmerman referred to a site plan and stated that the proposed setback of 6 ft. will allow 81 parking spaces instead of 67 if they build the parking lot 15 ft. from the property lines. Zimmerman stated that the property was obtained for employee parking and the City approved Conditional Use Permit demonstrates that this is a reasonable use. Also, the delay in the approval of the 2040 Comp Plan has prevented the new regulations from becoming effective which is a situation not created by the landowner, and the proposed setback of 6 ft. would be considered conforming on January 1, 2020, so the essential character of the area would not be altered. He added that allowing the construction to proceed in a timely and efficient manner is the best option and that the variance would become unnecessary as of January 1, 2020, so staff is recommending approval of the requested variance. Snope stated that the aerial photos of the property show that the south side of the property abuts the neighboring property, but that the site plans show a space between the properties. He asked which is correct. Zimmerman stated that there would be a buffer on the south side of the property after the new parking lot is constructed. Snope asked where snow would be stored. Zimmerman said he thinks the intention is to use the area to the south or the corners of the parking lot to store snow. Philip Branson, representing the applicant, stated that currently the south side of the property is asphalt to asphalt with the neighboring property so their proposed new parking lot will be an improvement. He added that snow will probably be stored along the west side of the property. Johnson asked Branson if they are planning on keeping the mature trees. Branson stated that the existing trees are located on the property to the north of theirs. He said that they have no plans to remove any trees and will be adding 4 trees to the site on the north side of the property. Zimmerman added that the landscape plan was approved with the Conditional Use Permit. Branson said that they recognize the Code will be changing in January but they are concerned about the construction season. Johnson asked if there will be any public art. Branson said they don’t have plans for public art but they are open to the idea. Nelson opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Nelson closed the public hearing. Snope said the proposal complies with the 2040 Comp Plan so he sees no problem giving them the green light so they can get going on their project this construction season. MOTION made by Perich, seconded by Orenstein to approve the variance request for 9 ft. off of the required 15 ft. to a distance of 6 ft. at the surface parking lot’s closest point to the side and rear yard property lines and the motion carried unanimously. City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting September 24, 2019 – 7 pm 3 428 Sunnyridge Lane Greenwood Design Build, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 113-88, Single Family Residential, Subd. (f)(1)(a) Front Setback Requirements • 27 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 8 ft. at a home’s closest point to the front yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of new home to be closer to the front yard (north) property line than allowed due to the un-combining of two 40-foot wide lots. Request: Waiver from Section 113-88, Single Family Residential, Subd. (f)(1)(c)(3) Side Setback Requirements • 4 ft. off of the required 8 ft. to a distance of 4 ft. at a home’s closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new home to closer to the side yard (south) property line than allowed due to the un-combining of two 40-foot wide lots. Zimmerman referred to a location map of the property and explained that it was platted (along with surrounding lots) in 1915 prior to any zoning regulations. All of the lots were 40 ft. wide and many property owners bought two lots and built one home on them which gave the appearance of 80 ft. wide lots, however two legal lots remained in place. He stated that with the demolition of the home, Hennepin County can approve a “lot division” to recognize the two 40 foot wide lots separately. Zimmerman noted that 428 Sunnyridge Lane is a corner lot and that one of the two 40 foot wide lots will also be a corner lot which means that a 35 foot front yard setback plus an 8 foot side yard setback means there would be 43 feet of setback required on a 40 foot wide lot which would make it unbuildable. Zimmerman referred to the Code requirements and stated that the front yard setback requirement is 35 feet which applies to both front yards on a corner lot. The side yard setback requirement is 10% of the lot width on the north side and 20% of the lot width on the south side and the minimum structure width requirement is 22 feet. He showed the Board several illustrations that showed the setbacks and the buildable area. Zimmerman stated that the staff analysis of this property is that the use of an R-1 zoned property for a new home is consistent with the Comp Plan, utilizing a 40 foot wide lot is reasonable, but the current setback requirements make the lot unbuildable. He stated that corner lots are not unique, but there are only a handful of 40 foot wide corner lots in the City. He explained that exceptions to the front yard setback used to be included in the Zoning Code but changes were made by the City and were not caused by the landowner. He stated that many other homes in similar situations in the neighborhood were City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting September 24, 2019 – 7 pm 4 either built with the previous code exception or were granted a variance by the City with no impact to the essential character of the locality. Zimmerman noted that no other options exist aside from not building and the owner has the right to build on a legally platted residential lot. He stated that if the variance is granted as requested the width of the building envelope would be 28 feet. Zimmerman said staff is comfortable saying some relief on the north side is reasonable and is consistent with what has been granted for other similar properties. Therefore, staff is recommending a modified variance of 25 feet off of the required 35 feet of front yard setback to a distance of 10 feet from the north property line to match the home to the west. He added that staff is recommending denial of the variance request for 4 feet off the required 8 feet of side yard setback to a distance of 4 feet from the south property line. Perich asked if the landowner had to request the subdivision. Zimmerman explained that this is not a subdivision because the property is already two lots. It is a lot division done through the County. Perich questioned if the applicant requesting the lot division makes the variance request their fault. He asked if they could build one new home on the property. Zimmerman said they could build one home if the lots were combined, but it is already two lots and they legally have the right to have two lots. Snope asked how the existing house was built so close to the north property line. Zimmerman said it was probably built before there was a Zoning Code and that no variances have been granted to this property. Johnson referred to the proposed driveway location and asked if there is a precedence to make them use the alley instead. Zimmerman said that nothing prohibits them from getting a curb cut for a driveway. Orenstein asked about the height requirements. Zimmerman said the new houses can be 28 feet tall but they will have to step back once the height is over 15 feet. Doug Cutting, Greenwood Design Build, referred to the north lot and stated that on a typical 40 foot wide lot the setbacks are 8 feet and 4 feet and that is what they are asking for. He said what staff is recommending is concerning because that wouldn’t allow for a garage and a front door on Sunnyridge Lane and with the height requirements it would be difficult to build. He said with the 8 foot and 4 foot setbacks it would be easy to comply. Johnson asked about the plans for the trees. Cutting said the buffer on the north is outside of the property lines. He added that if they are forced to put the garage in the back another tree would have to be removed. Arms-Regenold asked about the requirements for detached garages. Zimmerman stated that a detached garage could be 5 feet from the property line off the alley and that they may need a variance for that as well. City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting September 24, 2019 – 7 pm 5 Nelson said her opinion is that she’d like to improve the housing stock and that a garage in the front is better than a detached garage to the rear of the house. Orenstein asked the applicant if there is a reason no alternative plans have been shown. Cutting said they have no desire to build a detached garage. Nelson added that there aren’t a lot of options with this property. Johnson said that a 28 foot wide building envelope is desired but asked the applicant what the minimum building envelope could be. Cutting said anything less than 28 feet is challenging, but 26 feet would work. Nelson opened the public hearing. Bob Krussow, 411 Sunnyridge Lane, said he’s ok with the staff alternative and would be ok if the proposed new house would match what is across the street, but he doesn’t like what was originally requested. He said he is concerned about so much being squeezed into this area, but they have to look at the minimums that were set in the past. He said he prefers houses to line up and not have garage fronts be so prominent. He added that he thinks it would be doable to have a garage in the back. Jacqueline Day, Listing Agent, representing the owner, stated that the owner of the property passed away and left the property to her family. She said the owner wrote notes stating how happy she was to have two lots and she knew she had two lots. She said her main concern is that a 22 foot wide house doesn’t make sense. It would be hard to sell, hard to design, and is not practical. Kristin Pavek, 513 Meadow Lane North, said context matters and that across the street is a walking area and two blocks down is Theo Wirth Park and that she has never felt where the existing house is to be invasive. Solomon Sanchez, 425 Sunnyridge Lane, said he would like the building envelopes to be as big as possible so something desirable is built. He said he is also concerned about the plan for the trees. Casey Pavek, 513 Meadow Lane North, said he lives on a 40 foot wide lot and their house is 24 feet wide. He said he would like to see simplicity and clarity around these 40 foot wide corner lots and for them to be looked at like interior lots. He said the density is of value to him and that having smaller lots is greener. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Nelson closed the public hearing. Snope said that having learned that the existing house is two feet from the north property line he feels better about granting a variance. He said he thinks they have to allow some give and allow for more than a 22 foot wide building envelope.