The URL can be used to link to this page

bza-agenda-nov-23-21 REGULARMEETINGAGENDA BoardofZoningAppealsmeetingsarebeingconductedinahybridformatwithinͲpersonand remoteoptionsforattending,participating,andcommenting.Thepubliccanmakestatementsin personatthismeetingduringthepubliccommentsections. RemoteAttendance/CommentOptions:Membersofthepublicmayattendthismeetingbyvia Webex,orbycalling1Ͳ415Ͳ655Ͳ0001andenteringaccesscode177 452 4723.Membersofthe publicwishingtoaddresstheBZAshouldcontactstaffliaison,AmieKolesar–PlanningAssistant, atakolesar@goldenvalleymn.govorat763Ͳ593Ͳ3992. 1. CalltoOrder 2. ApprovalofAgenda 3. ApprovalofMinutes October26,2020,RegularMeeting 4. Address:1875KylePlace Applicants:AllisonAdrianandSpencerGerberding Request:13feet9inchesofftherequired15feettoadistanceof1foot3inchesforadeckfromthe sidepropertyline §113Ͳ88,SingleͲFamilyZoningDistrict,Subd.(f)(1)(c)(1)SideSetbackRequirements 5. Address:3017MajorAveN Applicant:MikeSmith Request:11feetofftherequired12.5feettoatotaldistanceof1.5feetoffthesidepropertyline §113Ͳ88,SingleͲFamilyResidential(RͲ1)ZoningDistrict,Subd.(f)(1)(c)(2)PrincipalStructureSide Setback 6. Address:448WestwoodDrN Applicant:ScottCrooker Requests:19.4feetofftherequired35feettoatotaldistanceof15.6feet;24squarefeetoverthe allowed1,000squarefeetforaccessorystructures §113Ͳ88,SingleͲFamilyResidential(RͲ1)ZoningDistrict,Subd.(f)(1)(a)PrincipalStructureFront Setback §113Ͳ88,SingleͲFamilyResidential(RͲ1)ZoningDistrict,Subd.(g)(3)AccessoryStructureArea Limitations November23,2021–7pm HybridMeeting CityofGoldenValley BZARegularMeeting November23,2020–7pm 2 7. Address:2445NevadaAveN Applicant:TRProcessing Request:toallowmechanicalequipmentandasidewalktobelocatedwithintherequired10foot landscapedbufferzoneinasideyard §113Ͳ95,IndustrialZoningDistrict,Subd.(h)(b)(4)SideandRearSetbackRequirements 8. Adjournment REGULARMEETINGMINUTES ThismeetingwasconductedinahybridformatwithinͲpersonandremoteoptionsforattending, participating,andcommenting.TheCityusedWebextoconductthismeetingandmembersof thepublicwereabletomonitorthemeetingandprovidecommentbycallingin. CallToOrder Themeetingwascalledtoorderat7pmbyRichardOrenstein. RollCall Memberspresent:ChrisCarlson,NancyNelson,RichardOrenstein,KadeArmsͲRegenold–Youth Member,SophiaGinis–PlanningCommissioner,LaurenPockl–Planning Commissioner Membersabsent:None Staffpresent: MylesCampbell,Planner;JasonZimmerman,PlanningManager ApprovalofAgenda MOTIONmadebyNelson,secondedbyOrensteintoapprovetheagendaofOctober26,2021,as submitted. Motioncarried,4Ͳ0. ApprovalofMinutes MOTIONmadebyOrenstein,secondedbyCarlsontoapprovetheSeptember28,2021meetingminutes. Motioncarried,4Ͳ0. 1. Address:1537AquilaAveN Applicant:LynnCooper Requests: §113Ͳ88,SingleͲFamilyZoningDistrict,Subd.(g)(2)AccessoryStructureAreaLimitations Toallow100sqftoverthemaximumof1,000sqftallowedforaccessorystructurearea. §113Ͳ88,SingleͲFamilyZoningDistrict,Subd.(g)(3)AccessoryStructureHeightRestrictions Toallow1footand1.5inchesoverthemaximumof10ftallowedfortheheightofadetached accessorystructure. JasonZimmerman,PlanningManager,reviewedthepropertyandtheapplicant’srequestfora variancetoconstructasecondgarageinherrearyardwiththedesiredfootprintandatthedesired height.Staffreviewedthelocationofthehome,it’slocationwithinthecityandproximitytothe GeneralMillsResearchNatureArea.Thecurrentgarageisdetached,wasbuiltin1972,andis672sq October26,2021–7pm CityofGoldenValley BZARegularMeeting October27,2021–7pm 2 ft.Thehomeownerhastwotraveltrailersandwouldliketoreplaceacurrenttemporaryshedwitha secondgaragetostorethetrailers. Zimmermanwentontodiscussthecitycoderequirements,thetworequestsmadebytheapplicant, andtheCity’sComprehensivePlan. PracticalDifficulties 1. Detachedaccessoryspaceforstorageofvehicles,equipment,andotheritemsisa reasonableuseonasingleͲfamilylot.Thepropertyislargeenoughthatallrequiredsetbacks couldbeobservedshouldthesecondgaragebeconstructed.Therefore,staffbelievesthe variancerequestsproposetousethepropertyinareasonablemanner. 2. Inthiscase,theneedforvariancesisduetothetwotraveltrailersownedbytheapplicant. Ratherthanhavethemsitoutdoors,shewouldpreferthemtobeenclosed;neighborshave expressedsupportforthisaswell.However,thepersonalchoicestoownmultipletrailers, variousbicycles,andotherequipment,aswellasstorethemonthelotinanenclosed structure,causetheneedfortheadditionalsquarefootage.Theheightofthelongertravel trailernecessitatestherequestforastructurethatistallerthatwhatcodeallows.These circumstancesarecausedbythelandownerandarenotuniquetotheproperty. 3. Whilenotentirelycommon,therearecertainlyexamplesofsingleͲfamilylotswithmore thanonegarageorotheraccessorystructure.Infact,aneighborofthesubjectpropertyhas twogarages.Giventhesizeofthelotandtherelativelysmalladditionalareaandheight beingrequested,staffbelievestheproposedusewouldnotaltertheessentialcharacterof thearea. OtherConsiderations Staffassesseswhetherthevariancerepresentsthesmallestfeasiblevarianceorifthereareother optionsavailable: x Onefactorindeterminingtheamountofadditionalsquarefootagerequestedistheavailability ofaneasyandaffordable“garageinabox”optionfromalocalhomeimprovementstore.The applicantindicatedthatthe400squarefootversionwasthesmallestoptionavailable–a custombuiltstructuremightbeabletobetailoredtoremainunderthemaximumamountof accessoryspacewhilestillenclosingbothtrailers.Itshouldbenoted,however,thattheheight ofthelargertrailerwouldstillrequirea10Ͳfootgaragedoorandavariancefromthemaximum heightrestrictions. Recommendation Basedonthelistedfactors,staffrecommendsdenialofthevariancerequestfor100squarefeet overthemaximum1,000squarefeetallowedforatotalof1,100squarefeetofaccessorystructure area,andrecommendsdenialofthevariancerequestfor1foot1.5inchesoverthemaximumof10 feetallowedfortheheightofadetachedaccessorystructure.(Nouniquecircumstances.) CityofGoldenValley BZARegularMeeting October27,2021–7pm 3 TheChairinvitedtheapplicanttopresent. LynnCooper,Applicant,statedshereceivedaletterfromtheCitystatinghertrailercouldnotbein therearyardunlessitwascoveredandthatwasthecatalystforthisprocess.Inorderto accommodatethis,theapplicantputupatemporarystructureandhasneighborscomplaining.To clarify,theapplicantstatedthat“popupgarage”isn’tatemporarystructurebutisacompleteand permeantstructurethatrequiresabuildingpermit. TheChairaskedaboutacustomgarageandtheapplicantlistedtheheightandsizerequirements shewouldneedtomeetherneedtocoverbothtrailers.Theapplicantreiteratedthatsheneedsa 10fthighgaragedoortofithertrailerin,thustheneedforan11ftand1.5”highgarageinorderto havealoadbearingwalltheappropriatesize.Thegaragewillmatchtheexistingandhaveaslab. TheChairopenedthepublicforumat7:15pm. Therewerenoinpersonoronlinecommenters. TwoneighborswrotealettertoCitystaffstatedtheywerenotopposedtothevariance.Staff displayedthisletterandtwosignatures. TheChairclosedthepublicforumat7:17pm ChairOrensteinopenedthediscussionforquestions.Membersaskedabouttrailerlocation regulationswithinthezoningcode.Staffrespondedthatatrailermaybeinthefrontyardifit’son adriveway.Atrailermaybeinthesideorrearyardaslongasit’s5ftfromthepropertylineand screenedfromview.Thiscouldbeashedbutisoftena6ftfenceorvegetation.Staffdoesn’tseek theseviolationsoutbutifthereisacomplaint,staffwilladdressit. Boardmembersdiscusseddetailsofscreening,heightrequirements,accessorystructurefootprint requirements,andiftheissuerequiringavarianceiscausedbythepropertyownerornot. Memberswentontodiscussifallthreerequirementsforapprovalweremet,andiftheapplicant researchedallalternativeoptions. Theapplicantspokeupthatherneighborcomplainedabouthertrailerbeingintherearyard withoutbeingscreened.Theapplicantthenplacedthepopupshedtocoverthetrailerandthe sameneighborthencomplainedabouttheglareofftheshed.Sheaddedshe’stryingtofinda reasonablesolutionthatfitsherneedwhilealsokeepingherneighborhappy. AMOTIONwasmadebyOrensteinandsecondedbyCarlsontofollowstaffrecommendationand denythevariancerequestsfor100squarefeetoverthemaximum1,000squarefeetallowedfora totalof1,100squarefeetofaccessorystructurearea. Motioncarried,5Ͳ0. AMOTIONwasmadebyOrensteinandsecondedbyNelsontofollowstaffrecommendationand denythevariancerequestfor1foot1.5inchesoverthemaximumof10feetallowedfortheheight ofadetachedaccessorystructure. Motioncarried,4Ͳ1. CityofGoldenValley BZARegularMeeting October27,2021–7pm 4 2. Address:2933QuailAveN Applicant:MattHarambasic Requests: §113Ͳ88,SingleͲFamilyZoningDistrict,Subd.(f)(1)(a)PrincipalStructures–FrontSetback Toallow2.8feetofftherequired35feettoadistanceof32.2feetforafrontyardsetback. §113Ͳ88,SingleͲFamilyZoningDistrict,Subd.(f)(1)(c)(1)PrincipalStructures–SideSetbacks Toallow0.4feetofftherequired15feettoadistanceof14.6feetforasideyardsetback. JasonZimmerman,PlanningManager,discussedtherequestswouldallowthehomeownerto rebuildanattachedgaragewiththedesireddimensions.Staffreviewedthelocationofthehome,its locationwithinthecity,andtheuniquelayoutofthelotandthegarageinrelationtothehomeand lot.Thehomeownerwouldliketorebuildasthegarageisstructurallyunsoundandmustberebuilt butthehomeownerwouldlikeaslightlydifferentfootprint.ThegarageiscurrentlynonͲconforming andwhilethegaragewouldcomeintocompliance,asmallportionwouldbe32.2feetfromthe propertyline. PracticalDifficulties 1. RebuildingastructurallydeficientattachedgarageisareasonableuseforasingleͲfamilylot. Theapplicantisproposingtopushthenewstructurefurtherfromthefrontpropertyline, thoughitwouldstillbeafewfeetwithinthefrontyardsetback,improvingtheconditionfrom thestreet.Therefore,staffbelievesthevariancerequestsproposetousethepropertyina reasonablemanner. 2. Theapplicantpurchasedahomewithanexistingnonconformingsituationand,withthe reconstructionoftheattachedgarage,wouldactuallybeimprovingthenonconformityby locatingthebulkofthenewbuildoutsideofthefrontyardsetback.Asthemainportionofthe homeisnotbeingrebuilt,stafffindsthelandownerisnotcausingtheuniquecircumstances thatrequirethefirstvariance. Withtheexpansionoftheprincipalstructuretothesouth,however,theapplicantischoosing toaddinteriorspace(thoughheintendstokeepthegaragewidthtoastandard24foottwoͲcar dimension).Theadditionofthisspaceiswhatcausesthesoutheastcornerofthelottoextend slightlyintothesideyardsetback.Whiletheintrusionintothesideyardisveryslight,itarises becauseoftheactionsofthelandownerandthereforestaffbelievethecircumstancesrelated tothesecondvariancearenotuniquebutcouldbeavoided. 3. Giventheimprovementtothenonconformingfrontyardsetback,andtheminorintrusioninto thesideyardsetback,staffbelievestheproposedusewouldnotaltertheessentialcharacterof thearea. CityofGoldenValley BZARegularMeeting October27,2021–7pm 5 OtherConsiderations Staffassesseswhetherthevariancerepresentsthesmallestfeasiblevarianceorifthereareother optionsavailable: x Theapplicantcouldchoosetoreducetheamountofinteriorspacebeingaddedinorderto keepthenewgarageoutofthesideyardsetback.Alternatively,thewidthofthegaragecould bereducedslightly.However,staffdoesacknowledgethatkeepingthegarageat24feetof widthmaintainsastandardsizeforatwoͲcargarageandavoidsconstructionwaste,andthat theamountofthestructurethatextendsintothesideyardsetbackisveryminimal. Recommendation Basedonthefactorsabove,staffrecommendsapprovalofthevariancerequestfor2.8feetoffof the35feetrequiredtoadistanceof32.2feetforafrontyardsetback,anddenialofthevariance requestfor0.4feetoffofthe15feetrequiredtoadistanceof14.6feetforasideyardsetback.(No uniquecircumstances.) ChairOrensteinopenedthediscussionforquestions.Membersdiscussedthecoderequirements forsetbacksandhowsideyardsetbacksaredetermined.TheyreviewedstandardsizesforatwoͲ cargarageandwhenastructureisrebuilt,thattheexpectationisitisbroughtintocomplianceor requiresavarianceifitwaspreviouslylegallynonͲconforming. TheChairinvitedtheapplicanttopresent. MattHarambasic,Applicant,statedthathisgoalforthispropertyistoincreaseefficiencyand longevity.Applicantwentontodiscussthedetailsofthegarageandvariance.Thegarageisnot structurallysound,accordingtostructuralengineers,andcarscannotbeparkedinthegarageat thistime.MemberGinisaskedtheapplicantwhat’shappeningintheinterioroftheprojectthat necessitatesthe0.4feetintothesetback.Theapplicantrespondedthatminimizingconstruction wasteisamaingoalandthisallowsforequal8ftincrements,whichinturnreducesmaterialwaste. Giniswentontoasktheapplicantwhytheywereincludingsomelivablespaceintheremodel.The applicantexplainedthattheconcretewall,sharedbythegarageandhome,istheissueasthe footingsarenotsound.Thehousecan’texistasiswithoutthefootingsandthatwall. TheChairopenedthepublicforumat7:55pm Therewerenocommentsnorwasstaffcontactedinadvancebyanyone. TheChairclosedthepublicforumat7:57pm Membersdiscussedtheuniquecircumstances,useofthelot,andaddingconditionstoapossible approval.TheyalsodiscussedthelengthofastandardtwoͲcargarage,rebuildingwallsand potentiallydemoingthehome’sinterior.Thegaragewasoriginallydetachedandaseparatebuilder attachedthegaragetothehouse.Memberspointedoutthatthehomeownerisincreasingthe CityofGoldenValley BZARegularMeeting October27,2021–7pm 6 frontyardsetbackbutthisincrease,causedtheneedforthesideyardsetbackvariancerequest duetothehomebeingbuiltatanangleontheproperty. AMOTIONwasmadebyOrensteinandsecondedbyNelsontofollowstaffrecommendationsand approvethevariancerequestfor2.8feetoffofthe35feetrequiredtoadistanceof32.2feetfora frontyardsetback. Motioncarried,5Ͳ0. AMOTIONwasmadebyOrensteinandsecondedbyNelsontoapprovethevariancerequestfor 0.4feetoffofthe15feetrequiredtoadistanceof14.6feetforasideyardsetbackasshownon thesubmittedplanswiththeapplication. Motioncarried,5Ͳ0. 3. Address:6440WayzataAve Applicant:SpireCreditUnion Requests: §113Ͳ151,OffͲStreetParkingandLoading,Subd.(b)(9)(a)ExternalLandscaping Toallow23feetofftherequired35feettoadistanceof12feetatitsclosestpointtotheproperty line. MylesCampbell,Planner,discussedthegoaloftherequestisforavariancefromtheminimum requiredexternallandscapingforoffͲstreetparking.Staffgaveafullbackgroundontheproperty, previoususes,andthatthelotiscurrentlyalmostallimpervioussurface.Hewentontoreviewthe subdivisionandCUPrequestsgoingbeforeCityCouncillaterinthemonth. Campbellcomparedtheexistingsitewithwhatisbeingproposed,reviewedtheparkingand circulationproposalsaswellasSpire’sparkingcalculations. PracticalDifficulties 1. Whileabovetheminimumparkingrequired,theapplicanthasprovideddatafromotherbranch locationstodemonstratetheneedforadditionalparking.Theamountoflandscapingproposed isstillasignificantimprovementovertheexistingconditions.Thevariancerequestis reasonable. 2. Thesiteisbeingcompletelyredeveloped,offeringfullopportunityforsiteplanning,andthe site’ssubdivisionisalsocontributingtothelackofspaceforsurplusparkingtheapplicantis seeking.Staffdoesnotbelievetheseconstituteuniquecircumstancesinsupportofavariance. 3. Theproposeddevelopmentonthewholewillincreasetheamountofgreenspaceonthesite. Theproposedsetbackwouldstillbemoresubstantialthanthoseprovidedatadjacent propertiesandothersinthisarea.Assuch,staffbelievestheproposedusewouldnotalterthe essentialcharacter. OtherConsiderations Staffassesseswhetherthevariancerepresentsthesmallestfeasiblevarianceorifthereareother optionsavailable: CityofGoldenValley BZARegularMeeting October27,2021–7pm 7 x WhiledataisprovidedbasedonotherSpirelocations,staff’sfirstpreferencewouldbetoleave thisareaunpavedinitiallytoallowtimetoevaluatesiteͲspecificoperations.Iftheparkinglotis demonstratedtoneedadditionalparking,avariancecouldberevisitedandhavestronger groundsforapproval.Ifnotneededtosupportoperations,additionalgreenspaceispreserved. Recommendation 1. Staffrecommendsdenialofthevariancerequestof23feetofftherequired35feettoa distanceof12feetatitsclosestpointtothepropertylinefor7parkingspaces. 2. Staffwouldrecommendapprovalforthe5feetofftherequired35feettoadistanceof30feet forthedriveaisleatitsclosestpointtothepropertyline. TheChairinvitedtheapplicanttopresent. PatMcCann,Applicant,introducedhimselfandwentintoexplainingtheparkinglotentrances, parking,andbuildingentrancesformembersandstaff.Membersandtheapplicantdiscussedthe needforparkingrequested,limitationsfromthedrivethrough,andsetbackcompliance.Members discussedalternativesforparkingspacesandtheapplicantbroughtinHTGArchitect,JoshLongo, todiscusssomeofthosedetailsasreviewedwithstaffpriortotheBZAmeeting. Therewerenopubliccommentsonthisitem. AMOTIONwasmadebyOrensteinandsecondedbyCarlsontofollowstaffrecommendationsand approve5feetofftherequired35feettoadistanceof30feetforthedriveaisleatitsclosestpoint tothepropertyline. Motioncarried,5Ͳ0. AMOTIONwasmadebyNelsonandsecondedbyOrensteintotablethevariancerequestof23 feetofftherequired35feettoadistanceof12feetatitsclosestpointtothepropertylinefor7 parkingspaces. Motioncarried,5Ͳ0. 4. Adjournment MOTIONmadebyOrenstein,secondedbyCarlsonandthemotioncarriedunanimouslytoadjournthe meetingat8:50pm. Motioncarries,5Ͳ0 ________________________________ RichardOrenstein,Chair _________________________________ AmieKolesar,PlanningAssistant 1 Date:November23,2021 To:GoldenValleyBoardofZoningAppeals From:JasonZimmerman,PlanningManager Subject:1875KylePlace AllisonAdrianandSpencerGerberding,Applicants Introduction AllisonAdrianandSpencerGerberding,propertyownersof1875KylePlace,areseekingavariance fromtheCityCoderelatedtoasideyardsetbackinordertomakeanewlyconstructedattached decklegal.Theyarerequestingthefollowing: VarianceRequestCityCodeRequirement Theapplicantisrequesting avarianceof13feet9 inchesofftherequired15 feettoadistanceof1foot 3inchesforadeckfrom thesidepropertyline. §113Ͳ88,SingleͲFamilyZoningDistrict,Subd.(f)(1)(c)(1)Side SetbackRequirements Inthecaseoflotshavingawidthof100feetorgreater,theside setbacksforanyportionofastructure15feetorlessinheightshall be15feet. Background 1875KylePlaceisa61,199squarefootsingleͲfamilyresidentiallotonthenorthshoreofSweeney Lake(thoughoverhalfofthelotareaextendsintothelake).ThelotcurrentlycontainsasingleͲ familyhomebuiltin1961andanattacheddeckthatwasconstructedinearly2021withoutCity revieworbuildingpermits.ThelotisconstrainedtothesouthbytheShorelandOverlayDistrict, whichextends75feetfromtheordinaryhighwatermark,andasanitaryeasementwhichprotectsa 36inchMCESGravityline. TheconstructionofthedeckwasobservedandreporttotheCitybyneighbors,whowere concernedabouttherequiredsetbackfromthelake.Staffcontactedthepropertyownersto establishthelocationofthedeckinrelationtotheShorelandOverlayDistrict,thesanitary easement,andthesideyardsetback.TheCity’sBuildingOfficialisalsoconcernedaboutBuilding Codecomplianceasneitherthedecknorthefootingswereinspected. 2 ThispropertyandthesurroundinglotstothenorthandwestarezonedSingleͲFamilyResidential(RͲ 1).ThelottotheeastcontainstheMinneapolisClinicofNeurologyandiszonedOffice. SummaryofRequest TheapplicantacknowledgesthatthenewdeckisinconflictwiththeShorelandOverlyDistrictand sanitaryeasementandhasagreedtoreducethesizeofthestructuretoavoidanyviolations.Thedeck currentlyextendstowithin1foot3inchesoftheside(east)propertyline.Theownersarerequestinga variancetoallowthisconditiontoremain. Inofferingsupportforthisrequest,theapplicantsstatethatthelargedistancetotheofficebuildingto theeast(approximately155feet)andthebufferofmaturetreesthatexistsbetweenthetwoprovide privacyandavoidspotentialimpacts.Theapplicantshaveprovidedlettersofsupportfromthethree homestothewestaswellasfromtheMinneapolisClinicofNeurology. Theownershaveindicatedtheyarewillingtopartiallydisassemblethedeck,ifneeded,inordertoallow theproperbuildinginspectionstotakeplace. Analysis Inreviewingthisapplication,staffhasmaintainedthepointsofexaminationtotheconsiderations outlinedinMinnesotaStateStatute462.357–thattherequestedvarianceisinharmonywiththe generalpurposesandintentoftheZoningChapter,thatitisconsistentwiththeCity’s ComprehensivePlan,andthatapropertyexhibit“practicaldifficulties”inorderforavariancetobe granted. StafffindsthatthevarianceisgenerallyinlinewiththepurposeoftheZoningCodeaswellasthe purposeoftheSingleͲFamilyZoningDistrict,whichistoprovidefordetachedsingleͲfamilydwelling unitsatalowdensityalongwithdirectlyrelatedandcomplementaryuses.Therequestwouldnot allowforadditionalunitdensityintheneighborhoodandallowingthedecktoremainwithinthe sideyardsetbackwouldnothaveanegregiousimpactonthewelfareoftheneighboringproperty. IntheCity’s2040ComprehensivePlan,oneofthestatedobjectivesoftheLandUseChapteristo protectexistingresidentialneighborhoods.Stafffeelsthatthisrequestwouldnotcauseharmtothe neighborhoodatlarge. Inordertoconstitutepracticaldifficulties: 1. Thepropertyownermustproposetousethepropertyinareasonablemanner. SingleͲfamilypropertiesoftenutilizedecksinordertobeabletoenjoybeingoutsidefora largeportionoftheyear.Propertiesthatsitadjacenttoalakeareperhapsevenmoresuited tohavespacestoenjoytheoutdoors.Therefore,theabilitytohaveadeckoverlooking SweeneyLakeappearstobereasonable.However,theapplicantsalreadyhaveadeckfacing thelakeand,withtheconstructionofthelargenewdeck,havegonewellbeyondthe constraintsimposedbythesideyardsetbackthatallotherhomesonSweeneyLakemust 3 follow.Enoughspaceexiststotheeastofthehometoconstructaconformingdeckshould thepropertyownersfeelthecurrentdeckisnotlargeenoughtomeettheirneeds,thoughit maynotbeaslargeastheywouldprefer.Therefore,staffbelievestheownersdonot proposetousethepropertyinareasonablemanner. 2. Thelandowners’problemmustbeduetocircumstancesuniquetothepropertythatare notcausedbythelandowner. Theneedforthevarianceisduetotheconstruction–absentCityrevieworpermits–ofa largedeckwithoutconsiderationoftheShorelandOverlayDistrict,thesanitaryeasement,or thesideyardsetback.Whilestaffdoesnotbelievethisactionwascarriedoutwithanyill intent,thefactremainsthattheapplicants’problem(theneedforthevariance)isclearly duetocircumstancesthatwerecausedbytheownersandnotduetocircumstancesunique tothelot. 3. Andthevariance,ifgranted,mustnotaltertheessentialcharacterofthelocality. TherearemanyeyesonthebackyardsofhomesthatabutSweeneyLake,andanumberof concernedresidentsareawareofthelake’sclassificationasanimpairedbodyofwater. Allowinglargestructurestobeconstructedthatmeetzoningrequirementsmaybe unavoidable,butallowingthosethatdoNOTmeetrequirementstoremainonlyaddstothe amountofimpervioussurfacesintheareaandcontributestorunoffintothelake.Giventhe largesizeofthedeck–evenwiththefrontportionremovedtoaccommodatetheShoreland OverlayDistrictandthesanitaryeasement–staffbelievestheproposedusewouldalterthe essentialcharacterofthearea. Additionally,staffassesseswhetherotheroptionsareavailabletomeettheapplicant’sneeds withoutrequiringavariance,orwhethertheproposalrepresentsthesmallestvariancenecessaryto meettheapplicant’sneeds.Thereremainsenoughroomtotheeastoftheexistinghomefora smallerdecktobeconstructedwhileobservingthe15footsetback.Alternatively,thespacethatthe newdeckoccupiescouldbereplacedwithagroundlevelpatio(under8inches)andnotbe constrainedbythesideyardsetback(thoughasetbackof3feetfromthesidepropertylinewould stillneedtobeobserved). Recommendation Basedonthefactorsabove,staffrecommendsdenialofthevariancerequestfor13feet9inchesoff therequired15feettoadistanceof1foot3inchesforadeckfromasidepropertyline. 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 1875 Kyle Place, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Allison Adrian & Spencer Gerberding 1875 Kyle Place, Golden Valley, MN 55422 612-296-9274 sgerbs@gmail.com; alliadrian@gmail.com Joseph Windler and Ann Steingraeber, Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A. 225 South 6th Street, Suite 3500, Minneapolis, MN 55402 612-604-6646 jwindler@winthrop.com; asteingraeber@winthrop.com (same as applicant) We are applying for a side yard setback variance to allow a portion of our existing deck to remain on our home. Our residentialproperty is located at 1875 Kyle Place and is zoned Single-Family Residential (R-1). Pursuant to Golden Valley Code sections113-88(f)(1)(c) and 113-88(f)(5), a 15 foot side yard setback is required for all structures. Our existing deck encroaches intothe side yard setback, and we seek a variance to reduce the setback on the east property line. This variance will allow for thecontinued use and enjoyment of the deck without injuring the public welfare or neighboring properties. The neighboringproperty owners are supportive of the variance. Our property is located on Sweeney Lake and our home is located across the width of the lot. The existing attached deck islocated along the east property line of the lot. At its closest point, the deck is 1 foot, 3 inches from the property line. It doesnot encroach on the neighboring property and exists entirely on our property. Along the east property line, located on both ourlot and the neighboring lot, there is a large grove of mature trees. There are approximately 155 feet between the deck and thebuilding located on the neighboring lot. The east side of our lot is the ideal location for the deck given the existence of aneasement on the south (shore) side of the property. 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 Reasonable use of property located along a lake includes enjoyment of the shore front and its view. It is common for lakesideproperties to have decks for this purpose. Strict enforcement of the 15-foot side yard setback requirement will result indestruction of an existing deck that is both reasonable in size and exists cohesively with the current location of the dwelling,mature trees, and existing easement on the lot. Additionally, the current location of the deck does not prevent reasonable use of the neighboring property to the east. Evenwith its close proximity to the property line, the deck is approximately 155 feet from the building on the neighboring lot and issubstantially separated by the grove of mature trees. There is no encroachment onto the neighboring lot and the deck'sproximity does not affect the neighboring owner's use of the property for its intended business purpose. The location and shape of the existing dwelling on the property, the width of the lot, placement of large trees, and existence ofan easement along the south property line do not allow for a deck to be attached at a different location. By placing the deckalong the east side of the house, it exists cohesively with the current structure. As noted above, the location and shape of the existing dwelling on the property, the width of the lot, placement of large trees,and existence of an easement along the south property line do not allow for a deck to be attached at a different location. Thelocation of the deck on the east side of the property is the only feasible location. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or Golden Valley as a whole. In fact, the deckis a beautiful enhancement of a lake front property within the City. By approving the variance and allowing the existing deck toremain in place, we will be able to use and enjoy the shoreline of the property. The deck's existing location is the mostappropriate location on the lot. The neighboring lot to the east is neither encroached upon nor impaired by the deck's proximityto the property line. The lack of negative impact on the neighborhood is evidenced by the letters of support enclosed with thisapplication. 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. The deck has already been constructed. Demolition of the deck, while removing the need for a variance, would not benefit this property or any of the neighboring properties. Demolition of the deck would also result in a serious financial loss to us, as well as a loss in the use and enjoyment of our property. Demolition would also have negative environmental impacts, adding significant construction materials and debris to the local landfill. Allison Adrian & Spencer Gerberding Spencer Gerberding Digitally signed by Spencer Gerberding Date: 2021.10.28 12:22:42 -05'00'10/28/21 www.tanek.com118 E. 26th Street Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55404P:612-879-8225 F:612-879-81521875 Kyle PlaceDeckscale: as notedGolden Valley, MN 5542207.30.2021as-builta-100 Photographs of the Existing Deck at 1875 Kyle Place, Golden Valley Variance Application 22753826v1 DarrenBenoit 1919 Kyle Place Talia&RobJackson 1915Kyle Place JohnSweet&Erik Brendtro 1905Kyle Place AllisonAdrian& Spencer Gerberding 1875Kyle Place MinneapolisClinicof Neurology 4225 GoldenValleyRoad SweeneyLake Decklocation Largemature 60’sprucetrees Lettersofsupportfromall surroundingneighbors ? '88+5?+56/:? ?>2+?!2')+? 63*+5?%'33+>? ? ? $6?&.64?/:?'>?65)+85? 4?=8/:/5-?/5?9;7768:?6,?:.+?*+)1?7860+):?;5*+8='>?':?:.+?.64+?6,?4>?#=++5+>?'1+?5+/-.(689?22/?'5*? #7+5)+8?':? ?>2+?!3')+?.+8+?/5?63*+5?%'22+>??,/5*?:.+?*+)1?:6?(+?(6:.?'+9:.+:/)'33>?72+'9/5-?'5*?'? 5/)+?,/:?/5?9)'2+?'5*?9:>3+?23?.'77/3>?9/-5?65?'5>?5+)+99'8>?<'8/'5)+?7'7+8=681?8+3':+*?:6?:.+?*+)1? +9:?"+-'8*9? '88+5?+56/:? *'88+5*'88+5(+56/:)64? Date: September 28, 2021 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Myles Campbell, Planner Subject: 3017 Major Ave N Mike Smith, Applicant Introduction Mike Smith, the property owner, is seeking a variance from the City Code to expand the garage on the property. The applicant is seeking the following variances from City Code: Variance Request City Code Requirement The applicant is requesting a variance of 11 feet off the required 12.5 feet to a total distance of 1.5 feet off the side property line § 113-88, Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(c)(2) Principal Structure Side Setback 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. 2 Background 3017 Major Ave N is a single-family home located in the northern part of the City. The surrounding area is also largely zoned single-family residential. The home on-site was built in 1952 as part of the Noble- Grove Addition. The lot is 13,340 square feet and 82 feet in width. The current garage faces onto Major Ave N and is attached to the south side of the home. The applicant hopes to expand the existing garage, which is only a single stall, to allow for two-cars to be parked indoors. Summary of Request The City’s Zoning Code establishes a side setback of 12.5 feet for those lots that are between 65-100 feet in width, as measured at the lot’s front setback. This is to provide adequate open space between homes and prevent crowding of structures. The city also restricts the height of a building at this setback, establishing a building envelope in which a principal structure can be located. This secondary consideration of the building envelope would not apply in this case, given that the home and addition are only a single story and would not exceed the allowed height. The applicant is seeking a variance from the 12.5 foot setback required for a lot of its size. The existing home is already closer at certain points (southwest corner) than what is allowed by current zoning standards, likely due more to changes in code than a mistake at the time of construction. The applicant would like to add an additional garage stall to this side of the home, allowing for two vehicles to be parked indoors year-round. This addition would be approximately 11 feet wide, and would bring the total south side setback to 1 feet 6 inches, or 1.5 feet approximately. This is measured to the closest corner of the exterior wall, although the eaves of the new addition are shown to encroach closer towards that property line. City Code does allow for this sort of encroachment however, as up to 30 inches of eaves can extend outside the building envelope. Due to the angle of the home on the lot, there is no ability to simply make the existing garage deeper and creating a tandem option without also requiring a variance. The new addition would otherwise be flush with the existing garage, and exterior finish would be appropriately matched. No details are provided on the existing landscaping, however based on aerial and streetview photography, it appears one or more mature trees may be impacted by the addition. Other than the existing location of the house, the applicant notes no other unique circumstances with the lot that would necessitate a variance. The City’s Building Official notes that because this structure would be located within 5 feet of the property line, additional measures would need to be taken during construction in order for the structure to not present a fire safety hazard. Minnesota Building Code requirements would require both the interior and exterior walls of the addition (on the south and west sides) would need to be constructed with a minimum of 1-hour fire resistance rating. In addition, given the proximity to the property line, code does not allow any projections from the exterior wall, meaning that the eaves shown in the plan would not actually be allowed within 2 feet of the property line. 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 3 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 both the purpose of the Zoning Code, as it does not impact or change the principal use of the lot as a single-family residence, nor does it allow for additional density of population. Staff also finds the request reasonable in light of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which has as one of its goals to, “Support the rehabilitation and reinvestment of the housing stock as structures continue to age.” Improvements to sites with older garages have been a common home improvement in recent years as patterns of vehicle ownership have changed since the mid-20th century. In order to constitute practical difficulties: 1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner. Improvements to older single-car garages are commonly heard at the Board of Zoning Appeals, and given climate and modern trends in vehicle ownership, these are typically seen as reasonable uses of the property. However, this addition would reduce the side setback to less than 3 feet from the property line, significantly reducing the amount of space between structures and also requiring additional measures for fire protection. Staff believes the proposal as shown does not use the property in a reasonable manner. 2. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that is not caused by the landowner. The existing home’s location and reduced side setback are not the creation of the homeowner, however no other unique circumstance is listed by the property owner. Topography is relatively flat, there are no issues with storm water, and the addition would not avoid the need to remove mature trees. Staff believes the site does not exhibit unique circumstances. 3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality While an older neighborhood with some smaller setbacks than today’s standards, at less than three feet this would be out of the ordinary for a principal structure. This impact would primarily be on the adjacent property owner rather than impacting views from the Right of Way. The lack of an ability to put eaves on at least one side of the home, due to fire safety requirements would also detract from its character. Staff believes the proposed use would 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. While the garage addition is sized such that it could not be easily reduced, staff will note that there is sufficient room to shift the garage forward on the lot. As a result it would not be flush with the home, however this would allow for added separation from the lot line, due to the angle of the structure. Additionally, the lot has ample rear yard space that is not 4 inhibited by steep slopes or floodplain. The applicant could therefore pursue a detached garage similar to many other lots in the neighborhood. Staff will note that other City departments were consulted on this variance. The concerns of the Building Official regarding the structure’s fire safety requirements under the building code have been noted. Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the variance request for 11 feet off the required 12.5 feet to a total distance of 1.5 feet off the side property line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ate: November 23, 2021 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Subject: 2445 Nevada Avenue North TR Processing, Applicant Introduction Matt Rettig, representing TR Processing, is seeking a variance at 2445 Nevada Ave N related to a side yard setback in order to allow mechanical equipment and a sidewalk to be located within the 10 foot landscaped buffer zone in a side yard. He is requesting the following: Variance Request City Code Requirement The applicant is requesting a variance to allow mechanical equipment and a sidewalk to be located within the required 10 foot landscaped buffer zone in a side yard. § 113-95, Industrial Zoning District, Subd. (h)(b)(4) Side and Rear Setback Requirements One-half of the required side and rear yards, as measured from the lot line, shall be landscaped, planted, and maintained as a buffer zone. Background 2445 Nevada Ave N is a 50,150 square foot industrial building constructed in 1966. It sits just south of Medicine Lake Road in the north portion of the Golden Valley and within a well-established industrial area. TR Processing is renovating the building for use as a hemp processing facility. As part of their permitting, they would like to locate mechanical equipment and a sidewalk to serve as an emergency egress route along the north side of the building. City Code sets a side yard setback of 20 feet for industrially zoned properties that abut other industrially zoned properties. One half of this required distance, or 10 feet, adjacent to the property line must be left as a “landscaped, planted, and maintained” buffer zone. The existing building was constructed to a distance of only 15 feet 3 inches from the property line, leaving only 4 feet 9 inches of usable space that is not required to be landscaped. Date: September 28, 2021 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Myles Campbell, Planner Subject: 448 Westwood Drive N Scott Crooker, Applicant Introduction Scott Crooker, the property owner, is seeking a variance from the City Code to build an attached garage. The applicant is seeking the following variances from City Code: Variance Request City Code Requirement The applicant is requesting a variance of 19.4 feet off the required 35 feet to a total distance of 15.6 feet § 113-88, Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(a) Principal Structure 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 24 square feet over the allowed 1,000 square feet for accessory structures § 113-88, Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District, Subd. (g)(3) 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. Swimming pools are not included in this requirement. 2 Background 448 Westwood Drive is a single-family home located in the eastern part of the City. The surrounding area is largely zoned single-family residential, with Highway 55 just a couple blocks north of the property. The home on-site was built in 1948 as part of the Glendale Addition. The lot is 20,043 square and is a corner lot, facing both Westwood and Burntside Drives. The current garage faces onto Burntside and is a tuck under style below the home itself. The applicant notes in their narrative that the existing garage, in addition to being undersized to fit some larger modern vehicles, also has a number of structural issues that prevent its use safely. Summary of Requests The City’s Zoning Code established a number of standards regarding accessory structures, though these are somewhat simplified for structures attached to the principal home. For purposes of code, any accessory structure attached to the home is required to meet the same setback requirements, for a front yard setback, § 113-88, (f)(1)(a), this requires 35 feet off the front property line to the closest point of the home. In the case of 448 Westwood Drive, as a corner lot this 35’ setback applies on both the west and south sides of the property. § 113-88, Subd. (g)(1) limits R-1 zoned lots to 1,000 square feet of total area. This is limit is in place to preserve open space on lots and to reduce the visual clutter of having large or numerous accessory structures. The applicant is seeking variances from these sections of code in order to build a new attached garage on the south side of their home. The applicant notes this new garage would be replacing the existing tuck under garage that has access off of Burntside. This existing garage has a number of factors that has made it unusable for the property owner including: x Undersized garage doors do not allow larger modern vehicles such as an SUV x Chimney footprint limits ability to park in one garage bay x Structural support beam for the floor above has been previously damaged, causing a sag in the exterior wall Given the existing challenges with the existing garage space, the applicant is hoping to convert that area into additional living space and instead to build a new garage better suited to their vehicle needs in line with the main level of the house. They also note that the new addition would allow for the repair of an existing retaining wall and replace an older set of stairs that are in poor condition. 3 This is due to improper grading over the existing driveway, causing issues managing stormwater runoff. The new garage would be located south of the existing home, and a new driveway would be provided from Westwood Drive. One item to note here, if approved, the existing driveway would need to be removed, due to the existing tuck under no longer being considered a garage space. This is a requirement of code in§ 113-88, Subd. (n)(4). The new garage is shown in the plans as being 32’x32’ and the applicant notes they are working with an architect to match the new addition to the home itself. The garage would eb slightly lower than the existing roofline to fit with the home’s façade, however it would still be off that main level as opposed to the current tuck under design. No details are provided as to the exterior finish, although staff would expect it to largely be in line with the existing home. The applicant noted that they did consider other options in looking to replace the garage, but wanted to find a solution that worked with the home’s original footprint, as opposed to moving the home or completely rebuilding it. 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 both the purpose of the Zoning Code, as it does not impact or change the principal use of the lot as a single-family residence, nor does it allow for additional density of population. Staff also finds the request reasonable in light of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which has as one of its goals to, “Support the rehabilitation and reinvestment of the housing stock as structures continue to age.” Improvements to sites with older garages have been a common home improvement in recent years as patterns of vehicle ownership have changed since the mid-20th century. In order to constitute practical difficulties: 1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner. While garage improvements are commonly heard as matters of variance requests, and being able to store vehicles indoors is reasonable given Minnesota winters, at 32’x32’ this is a large garage to allow given the need for a variance. 32’ is wide enough for three vehicles to be 4 parked side by side, and a depth of 32’ is in excess of a typical minimum depth for garages, around 20-24 feet. For recreational vehicles such as trailers and boats, additional depth can be required, however 32’ should still allow more than enough room for such vehicles and storage. Staff believes the proposal as shown does not use the property in a reasonable manner. 2. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that is not caused by the landowner. While having stricter setbacks for principal structures, being a corner lot has not typically been considered a unique circumstance by the BZA, given that hundreds if not thousands exist throughout the city. That said, a mature tree to the east of the existing garage would likely impact the property owner’s ability to expand the footprint that direction without damaging it or necessitating the trees removal. Staff believes the property exhibits unique circumstances. 3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality The applicant is working with an architect to ensure the addition matches with the rest of the home, and notes the orientation of the garage to the side of the home matches that of others in the nearby residential area. That said the reduction a street side setback would put this addition closer to the street than is typical in the area. With the additional 10’ of right- of-way between the property line and the curb, the new addition would be ~ 25.6 feet off the curb. This is a substantial reduction that would put the front setback more closely aligned with some of the historic 50-foot-wide lots east of this property, rather than those that are closer in size to 448 Westwood. Staff believes the proposed use would 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. 32’x32’ is a large garage, and by eliminating one stall, the required variance would be reduced, although a variance would still likely be necessary, even for a garage closer to 24 feet in width. An option such as a tandem-style stall could also reduce the width of the garage while maintaining the three-car capacity, although this would likely require more significant work to bring in soil and properly grade. In addition to these options, the applicant could also repair and remodel the existing tuck under garage, and potentially increase its depth without triggering a variance. Staff will note that other City departments had no comments on the proposed variance. Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the variance request for 19.4 feet off the required 35 feet to a total distance of 15.6 feet. Staff recommends denial of the variance request of 24 square feet over the allowed 1,000 square feet for accessory structures. 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 Scott Crooker 448 Westwood Dr N 55422 This application serves the desire to build a new garage addition onto 448 Westwood Dr N in Golden Valley where the required setback in a R1 zone is 35 feet. With the location of this property on a corner lot currently this prohibits a building permit without a variance. The variance in this situation requires 20 feet from Burntside Dr where the side of the home is located. Background 448 Westwood Drive N is a single-family residential property built in 1948 which is approximately fifty one feet long by thirty feet wide. The lot comprises of .47 acres situated on the corner of Westwood Drive N and Burntside Dr. Adjacent properties are primarily single-family homes. Scott Crooker (the new owner and applicant) is proposing to build a replacement garage on the Westwood side of the home to address issues with the existing tuck under garage originally built with the property. This addition to the home will be i t l thi t t b thi t t f t bli t f hi l d ti l it t j th Mi t li t 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 The replacement garage will serve the needs of the owner by storing vehicles while improving several features of the home (the failing retaining wall, failing staircase). The development of the new garage will also enable the usage of the existing garage to be used as conditioned living space while the new garage will be able to park a modern sized SUV. The usage of the garage will serve for primary residential usage for parking and to enable enjoyment of the summer months to possibly store a boat or recreational vehicle. In addition storing of vehicles such as a lawnmower to maintain the sizable yard. The property while built in 1948 came with a small tuck under garage limiting the space availability and vehicles it can store due to height and width constraints. In addition its location on the lot is limited due to zoning setbacks preventing a variance free building permit. The current garage is also hampered with a failing retaining wall connected to the driveway, improper grading along the retaining wall, and the staircase which is slanted due to improper grading and water management. These conditions were not addressed by previous homeowners however the primary desire for this development will enable parking of a modern sized SUV onto the property ⚶ something the current and future homeowners will be able to enjoy. The property was originally built in the 40s without proper planning for future accommodations for vehicle parking, including vehicle size growth over the years and necessary garage storage. Since its establishment there has been no development or improvements to the property leaving the original features and footprint intact. Integrating the new garage proposal to the home has been central to my desire to remodel and restore beauty to the property. Previous owners left the property needing substantial amounts of repairs from plumbing, electrical, interior and exterior lapses in care. Inve worked tirelessly this summer to address many of these issues to restore the property. Currently, I am still underway to restore the property while completing the electrical and necessary plumbing modifications to bring the home to livable standard. This garage addition to the property will visually integrate to the home complementing the living space ⚶ my architect and I have scoped this garage to be slightly lower than the existing roofline and to fit into the front of the house while enabling same level access to the primary level making it easy for elderly individuals. This garage addition also opens the opportunity to correct the failing retaining wall the shifted staircase ability to increase the 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. Inve worked closely with my architect to identify a suitable location for a proper garage. As the property is not getting tore down and I elected to maintain its original footprint and character for the neighborhood I am bound to the conditions and location of building features the original homeowner developed in 1948. Methods to build a proper garage would possibly require movement of the building, tear down and redevelopment, and or other considerable construction options which would likely impact the character and the neighborsn enjoyment of their property through visual impacts to the neighborhood and sound implications stemming from construction. With the current footprint of the building despite which corner or location to specify a garage a variance would be required to size the garage according to todayns standards Scott Crooker 11/2/20 ∆∆EXISTING LOT COVERAGE:TOTAL LOT AREA: 20,104.7 SQ. FT.EXISTING STRUCTUAL COVERAGE:HOUSE/GARAGE - 1,709 SQ. FT.CONCRETE- 305 SQ. FT. BITUMINOUS- 1,228 SQ. FTRETAINING WALL- 73 SQ. FT.3,315 SQ. FT.TOTAL % HARD COVER= 16.49%11/1/2021 2 This property and the lots to the north, east, and south are zoned Industrial. On the far side of the railroad tracks, to the west, there is a neighborhood of single-family homes. Summary of Request The applicant states that the nature of the proposed business requires a special type of HVAC equipment and that because of the solar energy system installed on the roof, and the capacity of the existing structural design, the best place to locate the equipment is to the north if the building. In addition, new egress points along the north wall will require a sidewalk be installed to connect to Nevada Ave. The proposed layout calls for both of these items (the equipment and the sidewalk) to be located within the required 10 foot landscaped buffer zone. In offering support for this request, the applicant states that the proposal would not impact the front façade of the building, as viewed from the street, and that a location on the roof is not a good option “due to the lack of space remaining on the roof due to the large green energy solar system.” He is proposing to screen the view of the equipment with a security fence to minimum visual impacts. 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 Industrial Zoning District, which is to provide for the establishment of industrial and manufacturing development and uses along with directly related and complementary uses which, because of the nature of the product or character of activity, requires isolation from residential and commercial areas. The request is consistent with the types of uses envisioned at this location and, given the industrial nature of the adjacent property, would not have an egregious impact. In the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, one of the stated objectives of the Land Use Chapter is to support non-residential growth opportunities while respecting adjacent properties. Staff feels that this request would not cause harm to the adjacent property. However, the removal of pervious areas that are typically protected by zoning regulations go against a stated objective of the Water Resources Chapter, which is to improve quality and reduce quantity of stormwater runoff. In order to constitute practical difficulties: 1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner. The need for new HVAC equipment is understandable given the nature of the new business being proposed. Adapting older buildings for new uses often requires creative problem solving to make the existing conditions work with new demands. Locating the equipment to 3 the north of the building is an understandable preference. Staff believes the owner proposes 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 building in this location is nonconforming with respect to its setback along the north property line. Instead of leaving 20 feet of distance, the north wall is only 15 feet 3 inches from the property line. This is not the fault of the current property owner, and does limit the space to the north within which equipment and other items can be located. However, the applicant is choosing to use this location for the HVAC equipment when it could be located on the roof, albeit at a greater cost. While there are solar panels installed on the roof, they are centrally located and take up small fraction of the available space. If the equipment were to be placed on the roof, there would be enough space remaining in the side yard to install the sidewalk without needing a variance from the City. Therefore, staff believes the applicant’s problem (the need for the variance) is caused by decisions being made by the owner. 3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. Similar to many other industrial areas, this part of the city has a character that is generally defined by large buildings, significant impervious areas, and equipment installed and visible from the street. The addition of the HVAC equipment being proposed – along the side of the building and behind a fence – 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. Staff believes enough room is available on the roof to install the HVAC equipment, thereby making room for the required sidewalk outside of the landscaped buffer zone and eliminating the need for any variances. Recommendation Based on the factors above, staff recommends denial of the variance request to allow mechanical equipment and a sidewalk to be located within the required 10 foot landscaped buffer zone in a side yard. NEVADA AVE. N.MINEAPOLIS NORTHFIELDSOUTHERN R.R.50'-8"50'-7"15'-3"35'-0"35'-0"20'-0"20'-0"EXISTING PARKINGSPACE - 4EXISTING PARKINGSPACE - 5EXISTING PARKINGSPACE - 16EXISTING PARKINGSPACE - 21EXISTING ADAPARKING SPACE - 25'-7"9'-0"5'-7"9'-0"9'-0"18'-0"9'-0"18'-0"9'-0"18'-0"setback linePROPERTY LINE 491.96'PROPERTY LINE 417.55'PROPERTY LINE 300'PROPERTY LINE 309.29'setback linesetback linesetback line setback line setback linesetback lineEXISTINGLANDSCAPEEXISTINGLANDSCAPEEXISTINGLANDSCAPEEXISTINGLANDSCAPEMADISON AVE. W.SUITE25'-0"40'-0"H-235'-3"STEEL MID-RAILCLAMPSCORNER/ENDPOST O.D. OFLINE POSTCHAIN LINK FABRIC (1/2" MESH SIZE)TRENCH AND BURY 6" IN GROUNDTENSTION WIRE (6 GA AZ) OR RAIL ON BOTTOM4" LINEPOST10'4'12" DIA.FRONT VIEW3/4" ROUNDTRUSS RODWITHTURNBUCKLETOP RAILALUMINIZEDSTEEL TIES -12" SPACINGBRACECONCRETE: 3500 PSI.10' O.C.NORHT1/32" = 1'-0"1SITE PLANSITE PLAN GENERAL NOTESNDrawn By:Reviewed By:Project No:Date:2445 NEVADA AVENUE N,GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 554272114006/16/2021No:RevisionDateSheet No.:Sheet Title:TR PROCESSINGMODULAR LAB2 Field Conditions 07/26/2021FOFH3 Owner Changes 08/12/20214 City Comments 09/03/2021Project Number: | Project Manager:7328 E Stetson Dr., Scottsdale, AZ 85251P: 480.626.7072 | ardebilieng.comFH211405 Fire Changes 10/25/20211. GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALLDIMENSIONS ON DRAWINGS FOR CONFLICTS PRIORTO CONSTRUCTION. SCHEDULE BLUE STAKEINSPECTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THEOWNER, ARCHITECT AND APPROPRIATE ENGINEEROF ANY DISCREPANCIES.2. GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO COMPLY WITH ALLREQUIREMENTS OF THE SOILS REPORT.3. PEDESTRIAN PAVING TO BE 3" THICK WITHCONTROL JOISTS AT 48" OC IN BOTH DIRECTION.4. FOR BUILDING LOCATION, DIMENSIONS ANDSETBACKS, REFER TO CIVIL AND ARCHITECTURALDRAWINGS.5. NO STRUCTURAL OF ANY KIND IS TO BECONSTRUCTED ON OR PLACED WITHIN THE PUBLICUTILITY EASEMENTS, EXCEPT WOOD, WIRE, ORREMOVABLE SECTION TYPE FENCING, PAVING,GRASS AND ROCK LANDSCAPING. THE GENERALCONTRACTOR SHALL BE REQUIRED TO REPLACEANY OBSTRUCTIONS OR PLANTING THAT MUST BEREMOVED DURING THE COURSE OF MAINTENANCE,CONSTRUCTION OR RECONSTRUCTION OF THEPUBLIC UTILITIES. VERIFY WITH THE LOCALAGENCIES.6. COORDINATE WITH WATER METERS AND WATERLINES (DOMESTIC, LANDSCAPE, AND FIRE LINE),GAS METERS AND GAS LINES, SEWER LINES ANDCONNECTIONS, COMMUNICATIONS LINES,ELECTRICAL LINES, METERS AND CONNECTIONSWITH CIVIL, ELECTRICAL, FIRE SUPPRESSION ANDPLUMBING PLANS.7. COORDINATE TRANSFORMER PAD LOCATIONS ANDELECTRICAL CONDUITS AND LINES WITH CIVIL ANDELECTRICAL PLANS.8. ANY DAMAGE BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR ORSUB-CONTRACTOR.TO EXISTING ASPHALTICPAVEMENT AND /OR LANDSCAPING SHALL BEREPAIRED AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.9. GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ALLGOVERNMENTAL REQUIRED SIGNAGE NECESSARYFOR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY; FIRE LANESIGNAGE, "DO NOT BLOCK DOOR, ADA SIGNAGE,ETC .A0.1ARCHITECTURAL SITEPLANPARKINGEXISTING PARKING SPACE NUMBER 46EXISTING ADA PARKING SPACE NUMBER 2NO CHANGING TO BUILDING FOOTPRINTSITE DATAPARCEL NUMBER: 2911821210055ADDRESS: 2445 NEVADA AVE. N., GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOTS 9 AND 10, BLOCK 2,ADVERTISING-CREATIVECENTER, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTASITE AREA: 3.148 ACRESBUILDING AREA: 50,150 S.F.SUITE AREA: 26,243 S.F.TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION III-B SPRINKLEREDBUILDING HEIGHT 18 FT (1 STORY )ZONING INDUSTRIALCURRENT OCCUPANCY S-1PROPOSED OCCUPANCY MIXED OCCUPANCY(S-1, F-1, H-2)NTS2CHAINLINK FENCE DETAIL333555555510/25/2021 11:22:38 AM10/25/2021Ihereby certify that this plan, specification, orreport was prepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a duly Licensed Architectunder the laws of the State of Minnesota.Print Name:Signature:Date:License #Blair S. Leach49633