Loading...
bza-agenda-sep-26-23City of Golden Valley    BZA Regular Meeting  August 22, 2023 – 7 pm       2  creating any new impacts in terms of outdoor living space. Staff does find this request  reasonable.   The home’s original footprint and angled orientation to its property lines creates challenges  with a conforming addition. Staff believe the site does exhibit unique circumstances.   The addition would not be visible from the street and the design considers the existing  home’s façade. Many other homes in the surrounding area also have non‐conforming  setbacks due to their early construction in the 1940’s. Staff believes the proposed use would  not alter the essential character of the area.    Other Considerations  Staff assesses whether the request represents the smallest feasible variance or if there are other  options available:   Maintaining the existing patio is an option but without the benefits of a roof or ability to  enclose the outdoor space    Recommendations  Staff recommends approval of a variance of 6” off the required 25’ to a total distance of 24’6” from a  rear property line for a home addition.    Commissioner Segelbaum reviewed the apron, overhang, and eaves in the plan. He asked if the  apron and step grade were relevant to the request. Staff stated that they’re looking at the area with  the structure, specifically. The zoning code allows roof eaves to extend into the setbacks and 25sq  feet of stairs to exceed the setback requirement. Staff clarified further exceptions to the setback  requirement. Segelbaum noted the step extension and potential future confusion and asked staff if  there was a way to clarify approval to ensure the applicants maintain compliance in the future. Staff  clarified approvals are limited to the plan as approved.     Chair Carlson invited the applicant to speak.   Traci Toomey & Frank Beeck, applicants, discussed the plan to align with the previous additions.  They discussed the character of the home and the importance to maintain the harmony of the  architecture. The applicants contacted the neighbors and have received approval from all of them on  the design.     Chair Carlson opened the public hearing 7:18pm.  There were no in person comments  There were no online/remote comments.   Chair Carlson closed the hearing at 7:20pm.    Chair Carlson opened the Board discussion.   Orenstein noted the criteria was met and staff analysis shows that. Chair Carlson echoed this statement  and added he agrees with staff assessment. Commissioner Segelbaum noted the enhancement the  request will provide and acknowledged the minimal variance requested. The request appears to be due  City of Golden Valley    BZA Regular Meeting  August 22, 2023 – 7 pm       3  to the relative property line and not a hardship caused by the homeowner. He added he agrees with the  staff assessment.       MOTION made by Chair Carlson, seconded by Orenstein to adopt staff findings and approve the  variance of 6” off the required 25’ to a total distance of 24’6” from a rear property line for a home  addition.  Motion carried     2. Address: 1000 Tyrol Trail  Applicant: Mike Huhn  Requests:  A variance of 2.22’ off the required 35’ to a total distance of 32.78’ from the front  property line for an attached garage.    Lia Siro, Planning Intern, introduced the applicant’s request and added the goal is to allow the  property owner to expand an existing attached garage. Staff noted the property location in the City  as well as provided a background history on the property and home. There is an existing two‐car  attached garage and currently a 6.5‐foot clearance at the garage door opening and a 5.6 foot  clearance at the end of the garage door tracks. The existing principal structure above the garage is  supporting the home’s structural integrity. Staff pointed out the topography at the north property  line (approximately a 14‐foot slope).    Practical Difficulties   Given the topography at the north lot line and the size of the existing garage, which would be  viewed as insufficient by today’s standards and the principal structure currently above the  attached garage, staff believes it is reasonable to construct an expanded attached garage. The  garage expansion is reasonably scaled to what applicants are trying to achieve, the overall  encroachment into the setback is minor. Overall staff finds this request reasonable.   The lot’s curved front property line and topography causing a sloped driveway creates a  unique circumstance not created by the owner in regards to future additions. Staff believe  the site does exhibit unique circumstances.   The garage addition will be closer to the front property line with more visibility from Tyrol  Trail and is being completed by‐right. A number of properties along Tyrol Trail have two‐car  garages that are located as an addition onto or under the principal structure. Staff believes  that the requested variances will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood and  city.    Other Considerations  Staff assesses whether the request represents the smallest feasible variance or if there are other  options available:  City of Golden Valley    BZA Regular Meeting  August 22, 2023 – 7 pm       4   Existing garage currently sits within the 35’ setback. The garage is insufficient by today’s  standards and needs to be replaced, which could be done without a variance, but would not  address the height challenges and safety concerns present.    Applicant could meet 35’ setback by demolishing existing structure but this would significantly  increase the budget and labor of the project as it would require removing the existing case‐in‐ place structure of the garage that supports the home above.      Recommendations  Based on the factors above, staff recommends approval of the variance request for 2.22’ off the  required 35’ to a total distance of 32.78’ from the front property line for an accessory addition.     Staff and members discussed the lot line, front setback, and clearance on the current garage  opening. The new garage with have a depth of over 23ft and Commissioner Segelbaum asked how  that number came to pass. Staff responded that 23.8” is standard but 24” is ideal and the depth  allows for parking and an additional foot or so for storage and space to exit the vehicle while parked.  The existing garage columns will also limit the ability to expand beyond that.     Chair Carlson invited the applicant to speak.   Jack Bertram, architect for applicant, stated that the previous architect used a cast in place beam  which limits any future modifications without completely removing the existing structure. Through  extensive design, the current proposal came about so the existing garage could be used, the owner  would gain ceiling height, and the garage would remain in line with the deck (also cast in place). The  goal was to use as much of the existing garage as possible without altering the look or feel of the  home. The addition of the garage does allow the deck above to be expanded and the applicant  believes this increases curb appeal.  The conversation continued around garage height, door opening, and potential future needs.     Chair Carlson opened the public hearing 7:43pm.  There were no in person comments.  Remote callers were invited to speak.     Debbie Chmielewski  1001 Tyrol Trail  I reside across the street and our home faces the home seeking the variance. My husband and I do not  object to this request and we see value in allowing them to extend the garage and above porch.     Chair Carlson closed the hearing at 7:45pm.    Chair Carlson opened the Board discussion.   Greiter commented that the request makes sense and supports staff analysis. Commissioner  Segelbaum commented that the two‐car garage request, even in the front yard setback, is often  granted. He went on to note the practical difficulties and is in favor of granting the request.     City of Golden Valley    BZA Regular Meeting  August 22, 2023 – 7 pm       5  MOTION made by Chair Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Segelbaum to adopt staff findings and  approve the variance of 2.22’ off the required 35’ to a total distance of 32.78’ from the front  property line for an attached garage as described in the plan.  Motion carried     There was not a Council update.     3. Adjournment  MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Chair Carlson and the motion carried unanimously to  adjourn the meeting at 7:48 pm.  Motion carried.                                                                                                         ________________________________                                                                                                  Chris Carlson, Chair  _________________________________  Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant  2 Summary of Requests Chapter 113-88 of zoning code handles the Single-Family Residential zoning district. Under Subd. (e)(1)(b) Principal Structure Rear Setback the required rear setback from the property line is established as 25 feet. As noted above, the existing deck as well as a portion of the home already encroaches within this rear setback. In the case of the home itself, its original footprint was made conforming with code via zoning code’s blanket allowances for structures built before 1982 (this lays out a minimum rear setback of 10’). Because the original deck is considered legally non-conforming via the 1993 variance, this expansion requires a new approval even though the proposed deck does not increase the encroachment or bring the deck any closer to the property line. The closest point to the rear setback would still be the NE corner of the deck, being 17’ from the rear property line. The applicant is hoping to add additional outdoor living space in the area that currently has a spiral staircase down to ground level, and then add a new switchback staircase to maintain access to the backyard from the deck. They note that they have concerns about the safety of a spiral staircase for their children and for use as an exit from the home in case of an emergency. City Environmental staff note that the addition does avoid the existing floodplain in its entirety as well. 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 both the purpose of the Zoning Code and the Single-Family Zoning District chapter, in that it does not change the intent of the lot to serve as a single residential property. Staff also finds the request reasonable in light of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which has among its goals, “Support the rehabilitation and reinvestment of the housing stock as structures continue to age.” And to “Minimize the risk of flooding along Bassett Creek, its tributaries, and other flood-prone areas.” In order to constitute practical difficulties: 1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner. The deck addition does not bring the existing structure any closer to the rear property line, and the desire to build a safer staircase makes sense. Staff does find this request reasonable. 2. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that is not caused by the landowner. The irregular shape of the lot has already necessitated a variance in the past to utilize the backyard. Additionally a large portion of that backyard space is further encumbered by the presence of a floodplain, which this project manages to avoid. Staff believes the site exhibits unique circumstances. 3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. As noted in the application, this deck addition would not be visible from the street, and the addition still has sufficient spacing from the neighboring properties. Staff believes that the requested variances will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood and city. 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. • Existing deck could be replaced, but would be limited to its current size and design Recommendations Staff recommends approval of a variance of 8’ off the required 25’ to a total distance of 17’ from the rear property line for a deck addition. 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 Variance is required given the size and shape of back lot, extending the deck along the home provides more safe space for the family to utilize the deck. I, the home owner, intend to make this our "forever home" and need space for multiple children and adults to safely navigate and utilize the deck. The current spiral staircase needs to be replaced with a larger, more safe staircase for children and to provide a way to enter the back yard/exit the deck quickly and safely in case of emergency. Our back lot is fairly small and a unique shape, requiring a variance in order for us to replace the current deck and add a more safe/usable staircase. No adjustments have been made to the property by the current owner, given the size and shape of the lot/property line, a variance is required to replace the current deck The deck is not visible from the front of the home, so will in no way impact the character of the neighborhood or Golden Valley. There is a large maple tree in the back yard, which will in no way be altered, that provides privacy from the deck to the neighbors in the back, ensuring no impact to the character of their space as well. The deck replacement will be more usabe and asthetically pleasing, adding value to the home.