The URL can be used to link to this page

bza-agenda-oct-26-21 REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Board of Zoning Appeals meetings are being conducted in a hybrid format with in‐person and remote options for attending, participating, and commenting. The public can make statements in person at this meeting during the public comment sections. Remote Attendance/Comment Options: Members of the public may attend this meeting by via Webex, or by calling 1‐415‐655‐0001 and entering access code 177 452 4723. Members of the public wishing to address the BZA should contact staff liaison, Amie Kolesar – Planning Assistant, at akolesar@goldenvalleymn.gov or at 763‐593‐3992. 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Approval of Minutes September 28, 2020, Regular Meeting 4. Address: 1537 Aquila Ave N Applicant: Lynn Cooper Requests: § 113‐88, Single‐Family Zoning District, Subd. (g)(2) Accessory Structure Area Limitations To allow 100sq ft over the maximum of 1,000 sq ft allowed for accessory structure area. § 113‐88, Single‐Family Zoning District, Subd. (g)(3) Accessory Structure Height Restrictions To allow 1 foot and 1.5 inches over the maximum of 10ft allowed for the height of a detached accessory structure. 5. Address: 2933 Quail Ave N Applicant: Matt Harambasic Requests: § 113‐88, Single‐Family Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(a) Principal Structures – Front Setback To allow 2.8 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 32.2 feet for a front yard setback. § 113‐88, Single‐Family Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(c)(1) Principal Structures – Side Setbacks To allow 0.4 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 14.6 feet for a side yard setback. October 26, 2021 – 7 pm Hybrid Meeting City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting October 27, 2020 – 7 pm 2 6. Address: 6440 Wayzata Ave Applicant: Spire Credit Union Requests: § 113‐151, Off‐Street Parking and Loading, Subd. (b)(9)(a) External Landscaping To allow 23 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 12 feet at its closest point to the property line. 7. Adjournment REGULAR MEETING MINUTES This meeting was conducted in a hybrid format with in‐person and remote options for attending, participating, and commenting. The City used Webex to conduct this meeting and members of the public were able to monitor the meeting and provide comment by calling in. Call To Order The meeting was called to order at 7 pm by Richard Orenstein. Roll Call Members present: Chris Carlson, Sophia Ginis, Nancy Nelson, Richard Orenstein, Kade Arms‐ Regenold – Youth Member, Chuck Segelbaum ‐ Planning Commissioner Members absent: Staff present: Myles Campbell, Planner Approval of Agenda MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Nelson to approve the agenda of September 28, 2021, as submitted. Motion carried, 4‐0. Approval of Minutes MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Carlson to approve the June 22, 2021, meeting minutes. Motion carried, 4‐0. 1. Address: 1618 Kelly Drive Applicant: William Delaney Requests: § 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (g)(1)(a) Accessory Structure Location To allow for an accessory structure in the front yard of home. § 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (g)(3) Accessory Structure Area Limitations To allow over the 1,000 sq ft allowance for accessory structures. Myles Campbell, Planner, reviewed the property and the applicants request for a variance to allow for a detached garage in the front yard. The home is located on Kelly Drive but is setback significantly from the roadway. Staff reviewed the landscaping and forested areas nearby, the location of the proposed garage, and challenges if the garage were to be placed in another area on the lot. September 28, 2021 – 7 pm City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting September 28, 2021 – 7 pm 2 Practical Difficulties 1. Garage is of reasonable size compared to the lot and to store multiple pieces of recreational equipment. The exterior would match the existing home, and this in combination with the distance from the street would minimize impacts. 2. The home’s deep setback leaves less rear yard as usable for a detached accessory structure. Existing trees, patio area, and concerns around negative grading create additional difficulties in meeting the code’s requirements. 3. The garage would be partly visible from Kelly Drive but would be somewhat screened by trees and would match the home. Staff does not anticipate significant visual impact on the neighborhood. Other Considerations Staff assesses whether the variance represents the smallest feasible variance or if there are other options available:  Reducing the footprint by 50 square feet would eliminate one variance  Expanding the existing tuck under garage would eliminate potentially both variances Recommendation  Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow for an accessory structure in the front yard of their home.  Staff recommends approval of the variance request of 50 square feet over the allowed 1,000 square feet to a total accessory structure area of 1,050 square feet. Chair Orenstein opened the discussion for questions. Members discussed height requirements for the top plate and roof, frost footings, and code language. Members asked about garage size and discussed its use for storage of a boat and other items versus vehicles. Members asked about neighbor comments and staff noted they hadn’t heard from the neighbor to the north but there was another neighbor present to comment. The Chair invited the applicant to present. William Delaney, Applicant, asked about frost footings and if he could build on a slab, he also said he was comfortable moving the garage closer to his home so it was 12ft away instead of 18. The applicant stated that he wants the additional garage to look like part of the house from the road. Members and the applicant discussed garage height, materials, grading, and impact on neighbors. The Chair opened the public forum at 7:28pm. Callie Klogerson 1550 Kelly Drive (south neighbor) The neighbor commented on the garage location as it blocks sight lines and expressed concern for items stored inside. City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting September 28, 2021 – 7 pm 3 Staff presented a written comment from Susan & Abdul Cunningham, 1635 Kelly Drive; they support the variance request. There were no other comments. The Chair closed the public forum at 7:32pm Board members discussed the application, use, material conditions, location conditions, grading considerations, and the current driveway. A MOTION was made by Segelbaum and seconded by Carlson to follow staff recommendation and approve the variance request to allow for an accessory structure in the front yard with the condition it be no closer than 101.4 feet to the front property line and the applicant must use materials to match the appearance and quality of the home. Motion carried, 4‐0. A MOTION was made by Orenstein and seconded by Segelbaum to follow staff recommendation and approve the variance request to allow 50 square feet over the allowed 1,000 square feet to a total accessory structure area of 1,050 square feet. Motion carried, 4‐0. 2. Address: 7825 Medicine Lake Road Applicant: Red Barn Dairy Queen, Inc. (Dan Lommen) Requests: § 113‐92, Commercial Zoning District, Subd. (i)(1)(e) Separation Between Structures To allow a reduced distance between the principal structure and an accessory structure. Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, discussed the request to locate a standalone walk‐in freezer closer to a principal structure than is allowed by code. The freezer has already been installed behind the building, this request is retroactive. Zimmerman reviewed the property lot and location, that it’s mostly paved and the lot sits partially in a floodplain, the freezer is outside of this area however. The freezer was installed in early 2021 and staff was notified of the freezer by the Hennepin County Environmental Health Department. After staff evaluation, it was determined the location was in violation of the zoning requirement that accessory structures be at least 10 feet from a principal structure. Practical Difficulties 1. The freezer provides additional storage of goods critical to the operation the restaurant. Conforming locations would be immediately adjacent to the principal building or a minimum of 10 feet away. City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting September 28, 2021 – 7 pm 4 Shifting the freezer any further from the building would impede the drive aisle to the south and a different variance would be required. Hennepin County would have preferred to have the freezer installed as an addition, but after further review is comfortable with the current situation. Staff believes the use as proposed is reasonable. 2. The site is small, but not dissimilar from other commercial properties in the area. Placing the freezer 10 feet from the building would create violations related to site circulation, but other options exist such as attaching it to the structure or moving it to a location further from the building. Staff does not believe there are unique circumstances that are the cause of the problem, and that other actions by the landowner could have avoided the need for a variance. 3. The freezer is located behind the building, is hidden from view of the street, and is painted to match the principal structure. Staff believes the use would not alter the essential character of the area. Other Considerations Staff assesses whether the variance represents the smallest feasible variance or if there are other options available:  The freezer could potentially have been attached to the principal structure, which would have avoided issues related to circulation and parking while also satisfying Hennepin County.  Alternatively, it could be moved further from the building in place of one or more parking spaces. This would trigger a parking analysis would could also require the need for a parking variance. The Fire Department reviewed the request and indicated that given the small footprint of the freezer, first responders would travel around the freezer rather than pass through the narrow space between the two structures. Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the variance request of 5.4 feet off the required 10 feet to a distance of 4.6 feet for an accessory structure from a principal structure. (No unique circumstances.) Chair Orenstein opened the discussion for questions. Members discussed the code requirements for separation between structures, access for emergency personal, and parking in the lot. The Chair invited the applicant to present. Susan Degge, attorney representing Dairy Queen owners, discussed how Covid lead to an uptick in business and created a need for a secondary freezer. The owners thought of this as equipment, not a secondary structure, thus explaining the variance request being after the fact. The freezer has already proven to keep up with demand while reducing delivery traffic to the area. The freezer was added and created to blend in with the primary structure. City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting September 28, 2021 – 7 pm 5 Moving the freezer further away from the building is not something the health department wants to see and it currently meets all requirements from the health department. Moving the freezer would also take up usable parking lots. Members and the applicant discussed staff’s determination that there are no unique circumstances to warrant the variance. They discussed building regulations, expectations for servicing demand, staffing, health code requirements, and that there isn’t prep done in the freezer. The Chair opened the public forum at 8:12pm There were no comments nor was staff contacted in advance by anyone. The Chair closed the public forum at 8:15pm Board members discussed the application, how the freezer blends in with the primary structure, the safety beams installed around it, and that the addition isn’t visible from the road. Ginis stated that hearing from both Hennepin County and the City’s Fire Chief that there isn’t a concern, leads her to support the request. She added that she doesn’t support an after the fact request however. Orenstein and Carlson both stated they were originally in support of the denial but have decided to support the request based on the considerations given in the presentation. A MOTION was made by Nelson and seconded by Ginis to not follow staff recommendations and instead approve the variance request to allow a reduced distance between the principal structure and accessory structure. Motion carried, 4‐0. 3. Adjournment MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Carlson and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:26 pm. Motion carries, 4‐0 ________________________________ Richard Orenstein, Chair _________________________________ Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant 1 Date: October 26, 2021 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Subject: 1537 Aquila Avenue North Lynn Cooper, Applicant Introduction Lynn Cooper, property owner of 1537 Aquila Avenue North, is seeking two variances from the City Code related to an accessory structure in order to construct a new detached garage. She is requesting the following: Variance Requests City Code Requirements The applicant is requesting a variance of 100 square feet over the maximum 1,000 square feet allowed for a total of 1,100 square feet of accessory structure area. § 113‐88, Single‐Family Zoning District, Subd. (g)(2) Accessory Structure Area Limitations Each lot is limited to a total of 1,000 square feet of the following accessory structures: detached and attached garages, detached sheds, greenhouses, and gazebos. The applicant is requesting a variance of 1 foot 1.5 inches over the maximum of 10 feet allowed for the height of a detached accessory structure. § 113‐88, Single‐Family Zoning District, Subd. (g)(3) Accessory Structure Height Restrictions No accessory structure shall be erected in the R‐1 Zoning District with a height in excess of one story, which is 10 feet from the floor to the top horizontal component of a frame building to which the rafters are fastened (known as the "top plate"). Background 1537 Aquila Ave N is a 14,565 square foot single‐family residential lot just to the east of the General Mills Research Nature Area in the northwest portion of the city. The lot currently contains a single‐ family home built in 1948 and a 672 square foot detached garage to the rear of the home constructed in 1972. In mid‐2021, the homeowner obtained a zoning permit from the City to erect a 2 pop‐up shed in her yard to enclose one of her two travel trailers. At 200 square feet, it kept the property under the maximum of 1,000 square feet of accessory space. The applicant is now proposing to replace this more temporary structure with a second permanent garage. This property and the surrounding lots are zoned Single‐Family Residential (R‐1). Summary of Request The applicant would like to construct a 20 foot by 20 foot detached “garage in a box” in order to completely enclose her two travel trailers. There is ample room on the property to position this second structure so that it complies with setbacks, but the 400 additional square feet of accessory space would put the property over the 1,000 square feet of accessory space allowed under zoning. In addition, the height of the longer travel trailer would require the garage door to be 10 feet tall, pushing the overall height of the proposed garage to 11 feet 1.5 inches (as measured in line with the City’s definition of height for an accessory structure). In offering support for this request, the applicant states that she has numerous other items that need storage space, including a number of bicycles and patio furniture. She also notes that the 400 square foot “garage in a box” is the smallest one available from local home improvement stores. Analysis In reviewing this application, staff has maintained the points of examination to the considerations outlined in Minnesota State Statute 462.357 – that the requested variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Chapter, that it is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and that a property exhibit “practical difficulties” in order for a variance to be granted. Staff finds that the variance is generally in line with the purpose of the Zoning Code as well as the purpose of the Single‐Family Zoning District, which is to provide for detached single‐family dwelling units at a low density along with directly related and complementary uses. The request would not allow for additional unit density in the neighborhood and the proposed garage would not have any egregious impact on the welfare of neighboring properties. In the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, one of the stated objectives of the Land Use Chapter is to protect existing residential neighborhoods. Staff feels that this request would not cause harm to the neighborhood at large. In order to constitute practical difficulties: 1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner. Detached accessory space for storage of vehicles, equipment, and other items is a reasonable use on a single‐family lot. The property is large enough that all required setbacks could be observed should the second garage be constructed. Therefore, staff believes the variance requests propose to use the property in a reasonable manner. 3 2. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that are not caused by the landowner. In this case, the need for the variances is due to the two travel trailers owned by the applicant. Rather than have them sit outdoors, she would prefer them to be enclosed; neighbors have expressed support for this as well. However, the personal choices to own multiple trailers, various bicycles, and other equipment, as well as store them on the lot in an enclosed structure, are the cause of the need for the additional square footage. The height of the longer travel trailer necessitates the request for a structure that is taller that what code allows. These circumstances are in fact caused by the landowner and are not unique to the property. 3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. While not entirely common, there are certainly examples of single‐family lots with more than one garage or other accessory structure. In fact, a neighbor of the subject property has two garages. Given the size of the lot and the relatively small additional area and height being requested, staff believes the proposed use would not alter the essential character of the area. Additionally, staff assesses whether other options are available to meet the applicant’s needs without requiring a variance, or whether the proposal represents the smallest variance necessary to meet the applicant’s needs. In this case, one factor in determining the amount of additional square footage requested is the availability of an easy and affordable “garage in a box” option from a local home improvement store. The applicant indicated that the 400 square foot version was the smallest option available – a custom built structure might be able to be tailored to remain under the maximum amount of accessory space while still enclosing both trailers. It should be noted, however, that the height of the larger trailer would still require a 10 foot garage door and a variance from the maximum height restrictions. Recommendation Based on the factors above, staff recommends denial of the variance request for 100 square feet over the maximum 1,000 square feet allowed for a total of 1,100 square feet of accessory structure area, and recommends denial of the variance request for 1 foot 1.5 inches over the maximum of 10 feet allowed for the height of a detached accessory structure. Zoning Code Variance Application Page 1 of 3 Street address of property in this application: Applicant Information Name (individual, or corporate entity) Street address Zip Phone Email Authorized Representative (if other than applicant) Name Street address Zip Phone Email Property Owner (if other than applicant) Name Street address Zip Phone Email 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: 5/1/20 t continued Physical Development-Planning Department | 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 763-593-8055 | FAX: 763-593-8109 | TTY: 763-593-3968 | www.goldenvalleymn.gov 1537 Aquila Ave N Golden Valley MN 55427 Lynn Cooper 1537 Aquila Ave N 55427 720-208-6256 lynncooper720@gmail.com same same Need additional sq ft of 100 sq ft so we may add additional 400 sq ft to backyard to build a detached garage and keep my existing detached garage that measures 700 sq ft for a total of 1100 sq ft of detached garages in the backyard need a permanent structure to store my scamp as it's currently in a carport with plastic cover. Prefer permanent structure. Also need space to keep up with my sons and partners hobby of bicycles and bicycle repair. We currently have 11 bikes in my garage and it's taking up too much space so my lawnmower doesn't fit in it now. Would also be nice to store my patio furniture in the winter in a permanent structure as well to prevent snow damage. Will add on a garage in a box from the home improvement store. Also need variance to allow height of 11ft 1.5 inch wall to accomodate the 10 ft garage door opening to be able to fit the scamp trailer in it. 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. Zoning Code Variance Page 2 of 3 t continued addition of proposed garage will be asthetically pleasing, it's a garage in a box from the home improvement store existing garage is quite large at 700 sq feet and just need another 400 sq ft as this is the smallest garage in a box available in the home improvement store existing garage is too small neighbor nextdoor already has 2 garages in their backyard so it will be similar to match existing neighborhood Also, the garages in the store don't allow for a 11 ft 1.5 inch wall height to accomodate the 10ft garage door opening 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 a 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 is 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) ☐ ☐ Application fee: $200 for Single-Family Residential, $300 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 con- struction 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. Applicant Name (please print): __________________________________________________ Signature: X________________________________________________________ Date: ______________ Authorized Representative (if other than applicant) Name (please print): __________________________________________________ Signature: X________________________________________________________ Date: ______________ Property Owner (if other than applicant) Name (please print): __________________________________________________ Signature: X________________________________________________________ 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 proper- ties 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. Zoning Code Variance Page 3 of 3 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. Smaller garage, but they don't sell those in a garage in a box from the HomeDepot/Menards/etc Lynn Cooper same same 10/6/21 int): _______________ __________________ LEsAU DESCRIPTION Lot 1, Block 3, "GLENWOOD VIEW",'according to the recorded plat thereof, and that part of adjoining vacated 15th Avenue ! t6 North as dedicated in the original plat of said "GLENWOOD VIEW" lying between the the northerly extension of the east and west lines of said Lot 1. j O o Denotes iron monument Proposed lowest floor elev. I o Denotes offset stake Proposed top of foundation elev. _ x 000.o Denotes existing elev. BENCH MARK: 000.o) Denotes Proposed elev. Denotes surface drainage Proposed garage floor elev.= hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of File No, the boundaries of the above described land and of the location of all buildings, S fDEMAR.S - GABRIEL if any, thereon, and all visible encroa ments, if any, frcftn or on said land. LAND SURVEYORS, INC.2, Book — Page As surveyed b me this day of 19 3030 Harbor Lane No. Plymouth MN 55441 Phone: (612) 559- 0908 Scale Minn. Reg.No.90(o 4, / N = 30' CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR: Rori Jacobs s'F sr /bis' 28.9' moi .. i l , a.- a_ i r i N ./' 1 a - . (' 23.8 0- 24. ol t3 lo o tj 0,1537 nolM 00- c 29.0 is.s o. Qr k. F Gay • N a CONCRETE °° : DRIVE WAY% -,,L-, •: It 2s.o 48.3- 0 J S-F LEsAU DESCRIPTION Lot 1, Block 3, "GLENWOOD VIEW",'according to the recorded plat thereof, and that part of adjoining vacated 15th Avenue ! t6 North as dedicated in the original plat of said "GLENWOOD VIEW" lying between the the northerly extension of the east and west lines of said Lot 1. j O o Denotes iron monument Proposed lowest floor elev. I o Denotes offset stake Proposed top of foundation elev. _ x 000.o Denotes existing elev. BENCH MARK: 000.o) Denotes Proposed elev. Denotes surface drainage Proposed garage floor elev.= hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of File No, the boundaries of the above described land and of the location of all buildings, S fDEMAR.S - GABRIEL if any, thereon, and all visible encroa ments, if any, frcftn or on said land. LAND SURVEYORS, INC.2, Book — Page As surveyed b me this day of 19 3030 Harbor Lane No. Plymouth MN 55441 Phone: (612) 559-0908 Scale Minn. Reg.No.90(o 4, / N = 30' 1 Date: October 26, 2021 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Subject: 2933 Quail Avenue North Matt Harambasic, Applicant Introduction Matt Harambasic, property owner of 2933 Quail Avenue North, is seeking two variances from the City Code related to a principal structure in order to rebuild an attached garage. He is requesting the following: Variance Requests City Code Requirements The applicant is requesting a variance of 2.8 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 32.2 feet for a front yard setback. § 113‐88, Single‐Family Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(a) Principal Structures – Front Setback The required minimum front setback shall be 35 feet from any front lot line along a street right‐of‐way line. The applicant is requesting a variance of 0.4 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 14.6 feet for a side yard setback. § 113‐88, Single‐Family Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(c)(1) Principal Structures – 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 2933 Quail Ave N is a 23,239 square foot single‐family residential lot in the northeast portion of the city. The lot contains a single‐family home built in 1952 with an attached two‐car garage facing the street. The garage is currently in a legally nonconforming location with respect to the front yard setback since it sits only 31.9 feet from the front property line. The homeowner, Matt Harambasic, has been told that the garage is structurally unsound so he is proposing to rebuild it in its current location but with a slightly different footprint. This property and the surrounding lots are zoned Single‐Family Residential (R‐1). 2 Summary of Request When the applicant purchased this home in 2020, he was aware that the garage was deemed structurally unsound and would need to be rebuilt. The current garage is built at a slight angle to the home, following the curve of Quail Ave. At its closest point, it is only 31.9 feet from the front property line (a legally nonconforming situation). In order to simplify the construction, the applicant intends to straighten this angle as part of the rebuild, actually pushing a majority of the garage outside of the front setback. A small portion of the new construction would still be within the front setback, though it would be further from the front property line that other portions of the existing home. A variance is needed make the remaining 32.2 foot setback legal. In addition to straightening the garage, the applicant would like to expand the principal structure to the south towards the side property line. While he would retain only a two‐car garage, the expansion of other interior spaces would push the nearest corner of the garage to within 14.6 feet of the property line – within the 15 foot side yard setback. The garage is intended to be a standard 24 foot wide space. He has stated that using this 24 foot dimension would allow construction to occur in standard 8 foot increments, reducing construction waste. Also, only a small sliver of the southeast corner of the structure would be within the side yard setback. Analysis In reviewing this application, staff has maintained the points of examination to the considerations outlined in Minnesota State Statute 462.357 – that the requested variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Chapter, that it is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and that a property exhibit “practical difficulties” in order for a variance to be granted. Staff finds that the variance is generally in line with the purpose of the Zoning Code as well as the purpose of the Single‐Family Zoning District, which is to provide for detached single‐family dwelling units at a low density along with directly related and complementary uses. The request would not allow for additional unit density in the neighborhood and the rebuilt garage, as proposed, would not have a negative impact on the welfare of neighboring properties. In the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, one of the stated objectives of the Land Use Chapter is to protect existing residential neighborhoods. Staff feels that this request would not cause harm to the neighborhood at large. Additionally, in the Comprehensive Plan’s Housing Chapter is an objective to support the rehabilitation and reinvestment of the housing stock as structures continue to age. This type of reinvestment in mid‐century homes helps to keep these properties in good repair and increase their usability by residents. In order to constitute practical difficulties: 1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner. Rebuilding a structurally deficient attached garage is a reasonable use for a single‐family lot. The applicant is proposing to push the new structure further from the front property line, 3 though it would still be a few feet within the front yard setback, improving the condition from the street. Therefore, staff believes the variance requests propose to use the property in a reasonable manner. 2. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that are not caused by the landowner. The applicant purchased a home with an existing nonconforming situation and, with the reconstruction of the attached garage, would actually be improving the nonconformity by locating the bulk of the new build outside of the front yard setback. As the main portion of the home is not being rebuilt, staff finds the landowner is not causing the unique circumstances that require the first variance. With the expansion of the principal structure to the south, however, the applicant is choosing to add interior space (though he intends to keep the garage width to a standard 24 foot two‐car dimension). The addition of this space is what causes the southeast corner of the lot to extend slightly into the side yard setback. While the intrusion into the side yard is very slight, it arises because of the actions of the landowner and therefore staff believe the circumstances related to the second variance are not unique but could be avoided. 3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. Given the improvement to the nonconforming front yard setback, and the minor intrusion into the side yard setback, staff believes the proposed use would not alter the essential character of the area. Additionally, staff assesses whether other options are available to meet the applicant’s needs without requiring a variance, or whether the proposal represents the smallest variance necessary to meet the applicant’s needs. In this case, the applicant could choose to reduce the amount of interior space being added in order to keep the new garage out of the side yard setback. Alternatively, the width of the garage could be reduced slightly. However, staff does acknowledge that keeping the garage at 24 feet of width maintains a standard size for a two‐car garage and avoids construction waste, and that the amount of the structure that extends into the side yard setback is very minimal. Recommendation Based on the factors above, staff recommends approval of the variance request for 2.8 feet off of the 35 feet required to a distance of 32.2 feet for a front yard setback. Based on the factors above, staff recommends denial of the variance request for 0.4 feet off of the 15 feet required to a distance of 14.6 feet for a side yard setback. Zoning Code Variance Application Page 1 of 3 Street address of property in this application: Applicant Information Name (individual, or corporate entity) Street address Zip Phone Email Authorized Representative (if other than applicant) Name Street address Zip Phone Email Property Owner (if other than applicant) Name Street address Zip Phone Email 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: 5/1/20 continued Physical Development-Planning Department | 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 763-593-8055 | FAX: 763-593-8109 | TTY: 763-593-3968 | www.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. Zoning Code Variance Page 2 of 3 continued 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 a 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 is 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) ☐ ☐ Application fee: $200 for Single-Family Residential, $300 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 con-struction 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. Applicant Name (please print): __________________________________________________ Signature: X________________________________________________________ Date: ______________ Authorized Representative (if other than applicant) Name (please print): __________________________________________________ Signature: X________________________________________________________ Date: ______________ Property Owner (if other than applicant) Name (please print): __________________________________________________ Signature: X________________________________________________________ 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 proper-ties 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. Zoning Code Variance Page 3 of 3 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. 1 Date: October 26, 2021 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Myles Campbell, Planner Subject: 6440 Wayzata Boulevard Spire Credit Union (Pat McCann), Applicant Introduction Josh Longo, HTG Architects, on behalf of Spire Credit Union, is seeking a variance from the City Code related to setbacks for off‐street parking in order to provide for 7 parking spaces. He is seeking the following variance from City Code: Variance Request City Code Requirement The applicant is requesting a variance of 23 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 12 feet at its closest point to the property line. § 113‐151, Off‐Street Parking and Loading, Subd. (b)(9)(a) External Landscaping Landscaping; Internal and External. The minimum required landscaped areas, within which there shall be no parking or drive aisles (except driveway access from street) in R‐3, R‐4, Institutional, Office, Commercial, Light Industrial, and Industrial Zoning Districts, shall be: a. External Landscaping. 1. Front yard: 35 feet. Background 6440 Wayzata is a commercially zoned property located just north of Interstate 394. The existing property has access via the Wayzata Boulevard frontage road. The lot was platted in 1980 as part of the Florida Restaurants Addition and has previously been the location of varying restaurant uses over the years. The applicant is in the process of gaining subdivision and conditional use approval from Planning Commission and City Council to redevelop the site as a branch location for Spire Credit Union. The majority of the redevelopment actions are being reviewed by these bodies, however the applicant has identified the need for additional parking on‐site and as such are 2 requesting a variance to reduce the required landscaped setback between the right‐of‐way (Wayzata) and the parking lot. Summary of Request City Code requires that for any off‐street parking in a Commercial Zoning District, a minimum landscaped setback of 35 feet be maintained in the front yard of such a use. This is to provide for some minimum greenspace along public right‐of‐way, as the zoning district does not otherwise set a maximum impervious surface cover. The applicant is proposing to reduce this landscaped area in order to allow for 7 additional parking spaces. At its closest point, the block of parking spots would be 12 feet off the front property line along Wayzata. Due to its angled design, these would gradually move away from the property line to provide additional space; however, at their furthest point they would still be 24.1 feet off the property line, 10.9 feet off the minimum requirement. With the seven additional spaces the entire credit union site would have 31 spaces total, with 2 of those spaces being handicap accessible. This is in excess of the minimum required for a financial institution facility of this size. Code requires 1 space per 300 sq.ft. of gross floor area; at 5,050 sq.ft. this would mean a minimum requirement of 17 spaces. However, the applicant notes in their application and in conversations with staff that the additional parking is requested due to operational evidence from other branches. An exhibit demonstrating the need for parking from the applicant is attached with this memo. Beyond these parking spaces the redevelopment project otherwise meets the criteria for a commercially zoned property as established by the zoning code. Additional conditions or requirements may be required as part of the subdivision or conditional use approval, however these would depend on the actions of the City Council. Regardless, these conditions should not impact the variance request in front of the Board tonight. 3 Analysis In reviewing this application, staff has maintained the points of examination to the considerations outlined in Minnesota State Statute 462.357 – that the requested variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Chapter, that it is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and that a property exhibit “practical difficulties” in order for a variance to be granted. Staff finds that the variance is generally in line with the purpose of the Zoning Code as well as the purpose of the Commercial Zoning District, which is to provide for the establishment of commercial and service activities which draw from and serve customers in the community and are located in areas which are well served by collector and arterial streets. The new redevelopment would be replacing a currently vacant and aging property with a new use and additional improvements to the site. The property is well served and located in a busy commercial area along I‐394. In the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the Retail/Service land use is targeted for the provision of goods and services, which encompasses a larger variety of establishments such as shops, restaurants, medical offices, and entertainment facilities. The new facility would provide an opportunity to redevelop a site that is mostly hard surface today, and meet the land use objective encourage development that serves the daily needs of Golden Valley residents. In order to constitute practical difficulties: 1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner. While above the minimum requirement for parking already, the applicant has provided details on the need for the additional spaces. Staff’s first preference would be to leave these spaces unpaved until the specific branch has been in operation and demonstrated a need for the spaces, however the request is at least based on the experience at comparable Spire locations. Even with the variance, the landscaped buffer provided is still an improvement over the site today, which is surfaced with hardcover straight to the property line. Staff believes the request is reasonable. 2. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that are not caused by the landowner. Given that the existing site is being completely redeveloped, staff finds it difficult to say there is a unique circumstance that necessitates the reduction in landscaping along Wayzata. The parking being requested is in excess of the minimum required, despite being needed from an operations perspective. The subdivision of the property into two parcels is also contributing to the lack of space for additional parking. Staff does not believe there are unique circumstances that are the cause of the problem. 3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposed redevelopment would on the whole increase the amount of greenspace and pervious surface on the site compared to it today, nearly the entirety of the existing parcel is 4 hard surface. It would also be better than the amount of greenspace provided at adjacent properties along Wayzata. While the variance would represent some reduction in the required landscaping it would still be a marked improvement and therefore, staff believes the proposed use would not alter the essential character of the area. Additionally, staff assesses whether other options are available to meet the applicant’s needs without requiring a variance, or whether the proposal requests the smallest variance necessary to meet the applicant’s needs. As stated above, staff’s preference would be to have this variance be approved only for the portion of drive aisle that is less than 35 feet from the property line and to have the applicant return in the future for the 7 parking spaces once the branch could collect site‐ specific data showing the need for additional parking. Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the variance request of 23 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 12 feet at its closest point to the property line for 7 parking spaces. Staff would recommend approval for the 5 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 30 feet for the drive aisle at its closest point to the property line. ONE WAYENTERDO NOTON E W A Y STOPSTOPSTOPEXITEXITDRIVEUPDRIVEUPDRIVEUPEXITMinneapolisBismarck,©+(5(B<©&(57,)<©7+$7©7+,6©3/$1©63(&,),&$7,2125©5(3257©:$6©35(3$5('©B<©M(©25©81'(5©M<',5(&7©683(59,6,21©$1'©7+$7©,©$M©$©'8/</,&(16('©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©81'(5©7+(©/$:6©2)©7+(67$7(©2)www.htg-architects.com&23<5,*+7 ©©B<©+7*©$5&+,7(&763©5©2©-©(©&©7,668('©6(75(9,6,216'$7(1.5(*.©12.'$7('5$:1©B<&+(&.('©B<©Mainstreet©6Xite©+opkins©M1.©7el ..SPIRECREDIT UNION1(:©B5$1&+©2)),&(©:$<=$7$©B/9'.*2/'(1©9$//(<©M1©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©6(37(MB(5©©(1*,1((5M,11(627$6(37(MB(5©©020' 40'NLEGENDPROPERTY BOUNDARYEASEMENT LINESBUILDING SETBACKPRELIMINARY PLATC0PROPOSED BUILDING6440 WAYZATA BLVDBLDG SETBACKPARKING SETBACKWAYZATA BLVDEDGEWOOD AVEFLORIDA AVEEXISTING BUILDING6480 WAYZATA BLVDEXISTING BUILDING6400 WAYZATA BLVDEXISTING UTILITY EASEMENTIN FAVOR OF CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEYEXISTING UTILITY EASEMENTIN FAVOR OF 6400 WAYZATA BLVDRECIPROCAL ACCESS EASEMENTBETWEEN 6400 & 6440 WAYZATA BLVD35'10'20'10'22'20' 2 0 'PRELIMINARY PLAT OF: SPIRE GOLDEN VALLEYLOT 2BLOCK 1LOT 1BLOCK 1 HTG htg-architects.com 9300 Hennepin Town Road, Minneapolis, MN 55347 952 .278 .8880 Minneapolis | Bismarck Serve | Listen | Learn | Energize | Invest Variance Application - Proof of Parking Exhibit RE: Variance Application for Spire Credit Union – Proposed New Branch 6440 Wayzata Blvd., Golden Valley, MN Minnesota State Statue 462.357 requires that a property exhibit “practical difficulties” in order for a variance to be considered. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to: •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 Spire Credit Union is a rapidly growing entity and has seen annual asset growth of 25% in each of the last two years. It is important that the Credit Union factor accommodations for rapid growth into the capabilities of their new facilities, including the parking. Per the City of Golden Valley’s City Code, the recommend the maximum 125% parking as calculated for a 5,050 sq. ft. financial building is twenty-one (21) stalls. Spire Credit Union will demonstrate below the requested parking numbers are necessary and fall within a request that is a reasonable use. Total proposed parking is thirty-one (31) stalls, of which two (2) are accessible spaces and therefore can not be factored into proof of parking counts, and therefore have not been factored into the calculations. Please see the numbers and calculations included below demonstrating proof of parking for the twenty-nine (29) proposed spaces that would be included in the site plan submitted with the variance application. Employee Parking: Spire Credit Union employs eight (8) full-time branch employees and one (1) full-time investment services representative. To accommodate peak times, in the future the credit union may add as many as two (2) part-time employees. Total need for peak employee parking is eleven (11) parking stalls. Member/ Transactional Parking: The daily average for scheduled appointments, per branch, is fifteen (15) per day. While dependent on the need of the appointment, the length, and the time of the day, a typical maximum of three (3) appointments per hour would necessitate three (3) parking stalls. The other important indicator of required member parking is the average number of transactions per day. Currently the average number of transactions is three-hundred seventy-five (375). Of those total transactions, two-hundred eight-nine (289 or 77%) are handled inside the branch. With eight (8) hours of operation, that works out to an average of thirty-six (36) transactions per hour inside the branch that requiring parking. For an average transaction time of 6 minutes and 3 transaction locations, a minimum of fifteen (15) parking stalls should be provided to accommodate the members conducting transactions. Total Proof of Parking Numbers: Employees 11 Appointments 3 Transactions 15 Accessible Stalls 2__ Total Required Stalls 31 10-12-2021