Loading...
01-23-07 BZA Agenda e e e Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, January 23, 2007 7pm 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers I. Approval of Minutes -December 20, 2006 II. The Petitions are: 1430 June Avenue South (07-01-01) City of Golden Valley. Applicant Decide appeal of alleged error made in interpretation of Chapter 11.21, Subdivision B regarding height limitations for the property at 1430 June Avenue South. III. Other Business IV. Adjournment . . . Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals December 20,2006 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Wednesday, December 20,2006 at the Brookview Community Center, 200 Brookview Parkway, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Boudreau-Landis called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. Those present were Members Boudreau-Landis, Morrissey, Nedervel Planning Commission Representative McCarty. Also present were PI and Development Mark Grimes, Planning Intern Teresa Murphy ;&fI Assistant Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes - November 28, 2006 MOVED by Sell, seconded by McCarty and motion ca November 28, 2006 minutes as submitted. o approve the II. The Petitions are: 4125 Beverly Avenue (06-12-2 Brad Colehour, Applicant "Request: Subd. 10(A)(2) Rear Yard Setback . 'ed 22 ft. to a distance of 8 ft. at its closest rear yard (south) property line. construction of a new home with an attached existing home will be demolished.) er from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(3)(c) Side Yard Setback Requirements . 3 ft. off the required 7 ft. to a distance of 4 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (west) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new home with an attached garage. (The existing home will be demolished.) Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd.10(A)(3)(c) Side Yard Setback Requirements . 7 ft. off the required 11ft. to a distance of 4 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (east) property line.' Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals December 20, 2006 Page 2 . Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new home with an attached garage. (The existing home will be demolished.) Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 9 Building Lot Coverage Requirements Nederveld referred stated that they hav a variance for receive a varia the requir . 9% more than the allowed 40% of lot coverage. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new home w' garage. (The existing home will be demolis Grimes explained that the applicant is requesting several v construction of a new home. He stated that originally the app variance, but upon staff review it was realized that se I m required. He stated that this is a 40-foot wide lot a including the home directly to the east. the sting one were in this area . Grimes explained that the side yard setbac 10% of the lot width on the north or wes east side. In this proposal however, th feet in depth along a side yard pro one foot for each additional ten ~ requirements for this project ar the applicant originally inte to demolish it and build de lot are required to be lot width on the south or e would be greater than 40 yard setback is increased by which means that the side yard setback and 11 ft. on the east. He added that grade e existing home, but has now decided 4121 Beverly Ave, just to the east of this home, and . r yard setback. He asked if that property had received said yes, the property at 4121 Beverly Ave did ga e, but the side yard setbacks at that time conformed to ing code. o r Drive, explained that the house at 4121 Beverly Ave ort and that he bought the house and rebuilt it. He added that the age at 4125 Beverly Ave is just about the only that that can be done garage on the property. McCarty asked if all of the garages along the alley are set back the same distance. Jafvert said the garage locations vary because the alley narrows and curves. . Grimes said that he originally had some concern about cars being able to park in front of the proposed new garage and not hang out into the alley, but since the alley ends at this property, he doesn't feel it will be an issue. Sell added that the applicants won't be able to pull straighlinto the driveway they will have to drive in at an angle. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals December 20, 2006 Page 3 . Neil Kieler, 4121 Beverly Ave, stated that they also have a short driveway apron and they can't park straight in front of their garage either. Boudreau-Landis asked if hardscape counted toward the 40% of building lot coverage allowed. Grimes said no, just the building space counts toward the buildi~g lot coverage. Edelbert, asked if the concrete wall on the east side of the considered part of the principle structure. Grimes said yes, b home, the Building Official considers it to be a part of prin therefore it should meet the side yard setback require wall is not attached to the house and that it is re into the structure of the house. Grimes reiterat it is to be considered a structure because the p house. Jafvert stated that several of thenei rebuild it because it is in such ba him to purchase the house and Karl Edelbert, Architect for the project, stated that he thinks the variance 49% lot coverage is incorrect because the footprint of the house is 1, and the lot size is 4,400 square feet. Grimes agreed and said the v r regarding the lot coverage should be removed from the agenda. . Grimes asked the applicant Brad Colehour, Applicant hopefully by mid-Janua e IS In nding to demolish the existing house. d like to demolish the existing house soon, se has a basement. Colehour said yes and explained ill also be demolished. Morrissey asked the applicant 'sting basement and stay on his own property when property line on the west side. Grimes explained that the obtain a grading and erosion control permit before they u-Landis said he thought the grade would be working with the . at the proposed new house would actually be setback further from the side yar rty lines than the existing house currently is because the setback requirements are greater for a longer house. Grimes said that from a planning perspective this proposal is not the only one like it that the City is going to see in the future. He explained that there are many 40-foot wide lots in Golden Valley so there will no doubt be more proposals from homeowners for homes that are greater than 40 feet in depth and more than 900 to 1,000 square feet. He added that the zoning code requires homes to be at least 22 feet wide. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals December 20,2006 Page 4 . Sell stated that the City can't deny the use of this property. He said there has to be a way to allow a house to be built on these types of .properties that makes sense. He said he would be willing to support the variances as requested. Morrissey referred to an email received by the neighbor to the west who "forcefully objects" the proposal because it will leave only 4' from the proposed new house to the property line. Jafvert said there is only 4' along the west property line currently. He said he has talked to a lot of people in the neighborhood who think this prop ew house would be an improvement over what is currently there and want to se ebuilt. Nederveld asked if would only be Ie t the rear yard v that was he this McCarty said when he first saw this proposal he thought it was t looked at the property he realized it's not an unusual structur area. Morrissey said she likes the design of the proposed n hou improvement to the property but she thinks it is too muc that looks better than what is- there now is not a better about the requested variance requests n been removed from the agenda. . Kieler said that the footprint of this pro He said that the proposed garage w dictates that. Imost identical to his home. 1;1~!~ijer to the alley, but the alley itself Edelbert referred to the ho'u further toward the alley. and try to make it fit in w explai d why he pushed the garage back t he designed the home to maximize the light ere to meet all of the setback requirements if they uare foot home. He said he'd be willing to approve the garage because it is consistent with the variance roperty to the east. Edelbe sides of the home have to be set back further away from the pr erty Ii s said that because both sides of the home are greater than 40 feet in th the increases. Jafvert said that rules like that make houses hard to sell. that the Planning Commission is in the process at looking at some possible ues regarding redevelopment and discussed the possibility of requiring side wall articulation, but that is not what the current code states. Sell said the existing home is 4 feet from the west property line, so nothing will change in that regard. . Morrissey asked if the Board is prepared to'say to anyone who purchases a 40-foot wide lot that they can automatically receive a variance. Grimes stated that the City Attorney has said that each variance request is looked at on its own merit. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals December 20, 2006 Page 5 . Morrissey said that if the Board believes that a 40-foot wide lot is a hardship and they want to consistently apply that, they are then potentially setting up houses that will be 8 feet apart. Grimes said that is why the Board has a Planning Commission representative on it. This allows the Planning Commission representative to go back to the Planning Commission to discuss the Board's concerns. Morrissey said that if she bought a 40-foot wide lot knowing or not that the person next door could build a 67-foot deep house, two stories high, four feet away from the property line, it would not make her happy. Landis asked the Board what they feel the hardship is in this case. hardship is that the lot is only 40 feet wide. Grimes agreed that i reasonable home on a 40-foot wide lot. arage 5 feet from the rear n would appear the same. would not allow you to get Edelbert reiterated that the house being proposed is what w stated that the applicants could build a smaller house this and not sell because it would be too small. Morrisse concerns but none of them are a legal basis for . Grimes explained that the applicant could build alley with 10 feet of separation from the Edelbert stated that the alley slopes s into the garage if it were detached. Boudreau-Landis said he think can not consider aesthetics explained to the applican requested variances an request that the Bo d ta come back with a r should change4~n making an uglyTY: . . :,~at for the neighborhood but the Board go by the ordinances in the zonin~ code. He could either have the Board vote on the ~ appealed to the City Council, or he could uested variances in order to allow the applicant to Ibert said he is not clear on what specifically they hour said he is trying to do the community a favor by an. variances as requested. The motion died due to the lack of . rd to give the applicant some specific direction. He said it is not ake them guess what the Board wants changed. McCarty said he felt that the . ould be alright with everything but the west side of the proposed new house. He suggested to the architect that he do something to break-up that 67 -foot long, 2 story high, western wall of the house. Grimes told the applicants that if they feel strongly that they need a 26-foot wide house they should let the Board vote on the requested variances and if they are denied they should appeal the decision to the City Council. Nederveld agreed and explained that the Board has a narrow set of guidelines which they operate under. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals December 20, 2006 Page 6 Boudreau-Landis suggested moving the whole house one foot to the east. Kieler said that would just shift the problem to the east side of the lot. Nederveld suggested just approving the rear yard setback to allow for the garage and asked the applicant if that would be helpful. Edelbert said that would be helpful. MOVED by Nederveld, seconded by Morrissey and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request for 14 ft. off the required 22 ft. to a distan ft. at its closest point to the rear yard (south) property line. MOVED.by Morrissey, seconded by Nederveld and motion carri following variance requests. Sell voted. no. e . 3 ft. off the reqljired 7 ft. to a distance of 4 ft. at its closes (west) property line to allow for the construction of ew garage. . 7 ft. off the required 11 ft. to a distance of 4 (east) property line to allow for the cons garage. t pOlt to the side yard ome with an attached 900 Angelo Drive (06-12- Jeffre and Tamm Sc Request: n 11..21, Subd. 10(A)(3)(a) Side Yard ts required 15 ft. to a distance of 7 ft. at its closest side yard (south) property line. w for the re-construction of an existing deck. e applicant is requesting the above variance in order to remove 'an s built without a permit and replace it with a new one. He referred e property and noted that it is an odd shape. He said he thinks that the k some of the property in the past. He added that it would be very difficult to ny kind of addition on this property without requiring a variance and that the proposed deck would really be hidden from view. Jeffrey Schweigert, Applicant, explained that he is not changing the shape of the deck he is just planning to raise it up approximately 1 % feet so it will be level with the sliding glass doors leading to the deck. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals December 20, 2006 Page 7 . MOVED by Sell, seconded by Morrissey and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request for 8 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 7 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. III. Other Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 pm. . . . 1430 June Avenue South . 07-01-01 City of Golden Valley, Applicant . See Large Size Plans and/or Survey in Planning Department . . . Hey Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: January 18, 2006 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Decide Appeal of Interpretation of Zoning Code Related to Height of Structure in the R-1 Zoning District by City Administrative Officer The City staff. has received a complaint by a citizen regarding the interpretation of the Zoning Code as it relates to the height of buildings in the R-1 (Single-Family) zoning district. Section 11.90, Subd. 4(B)(1), states the following regarding the role of the BZA: To decide appeals where it is alleged that an error has been made in any Order, requirement, decision or determination and/or interpretation made by a City Administrative officer in enforcement and administration of this Chapter. The complaint is that the house currently under construction at 1430 June Ave. S. in the South Tyrol neighborhood exceeds the maximum 30 ft. in height permitted in the R-1 zoning district. City staff (both the Planning Director and Building Official) interpret the zoning code in a manner that believes that this house does not exceed the 30 ft. height requirement after reviewing the building plans submitted with the building permit application in June 2006. If the BZA agrees that the staff correctly interpreted the zoning code, the decision of the City Administrative officers stand. If the BZA does not agree with the interpretation of the height requirement by City staff, this matter will be forwarded to the City Council for a final decision. The height of structures in the R-1 zoning district is defined in Section 11.21, Subd. 10(B). It states the following: Height Limitations. No principal structure shall be erected in the R-1 Zoning district to exceed a height of two and a half stories or 30 ft. as defined in the City's Building code, whichever is less. (This height limitation was added to the zoning code in 2004. Prior to that time, the only height restriction was that houses could not exceed three stories in height. Because the height of. stories was not specified, there were concerns that houses could be constructed that were very tall. This new section put in an overall limit of 30 ft.) In this case, a building permit was issued on June 27, 2006. As part of this permit, building plans and elevations were submitted. . . . The Inspections Department and Planning Department reviewed the plans and determined that the height requirement of 30 ft. was met. The elevation sheet of the plans is attached for your review. This sheet was used when determining the height. In determining the point where the height is measured from in the R-1 zoning district, the staff has adopted and consistently used a definition used by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The DNR has a height limitation for houses along shorelines of lakes and rivers in Minnesota. This DNR regulation came to the City's attention when houses were being constructed along Sweeny Lake in the Hidden Lakes Development. In order to determine the overall height of a house, the DNR uses the following definition: Height of building. "Height of building" means the vertica.1 distance between the highest adjoining ground level at the building or ten feet above the lowest ground level, whichever is lower, and the highest point of a flat roof or the average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. A copy of the DNR handout is attached that clearly illustrates how the height is determined using this definition. This practice has been adopted by the City to determine if the 30 ft. height is met due to the many sloped lots in the City. In research done by City staff about building height, this is a common method used by other cities. On the attached building elevation submitted with the 1430 June Ave. S. house, three points are highlighted-the highest adjoining ground level, the lowest ground level and 10ft. above the lowest ground level. As stated in the definition above, the 30 ft. is measured from 10ft. above the lowest ground level. In this case, the height of the house is then 30 ft. high to the average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. The person making the complaint measures the height of the 1430 June Ave. S. house from the highest adjoining ground level or the floor of the basement level. Using this as the starting point to measure, the height is around 32 ft. Building Official Gary Johnson will attend this meeting to answer questions about the City's practice in determining the height of structures. It should be pointed out that the dwelling was constructed under the 2000 International Residential Code (lRC). The IRC does not address building heights. The dwelling height is regulated by the Golden Valley Zoning Ordinance. Attachments Location Map (1 page) DNR Height Drawing (1 page) Photos (6 pages) Building Elevation Plan (1 oversized page) 1lIOO 4440 4410 4111 4400 4330 43tA) uw U40 ... TYROl. CRST 1315 4335 4n& 1323 1310 4315 1401 1AOO 1401 \ 451!) 4430 4420 I)()tJGLAS AVE 1545 4515 444S 4435 4425 4415 434S 4335 4325 4315 (j) Ma;tcr<<Udlll\$lhf$MS.- ~;tCi-t.:OCMsGtSa1S /) 211111 . l~/~LIL~~~ l~:L~ b~l"L''j'' UN~~~NI~AL~~~lUN j-'A~~ ~LI tl'<: . "HEIGHT OF BUILDING" IN SHORELAND DISTRICT. Average height ofbigbest gable -- Height of Structure . [A] 10 feet aboV'e lowest ground \eveI\ ~ - ----. ,.-. \ \ [B] Highest adjoining ground level at building, *Use this elevation because it is lower than [A]. . MN Rules> part 6120.2500 . Subp. 7a. Height of building. "Height of building" means the vertical distance between the highest adjoining ground level at the buildipg or ten feet abov~ the lowest ground level, whichever is lower, and the highest point of a flat roof or average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. ./ -" -. .' . ~. .f' " ~ ~ " ~"t""".i.:. .. l -'"-:> , , . l - , ..I .. 1, '- ~ ..~~ <.~ --". -.....,.,,..,. ,"~. ;;,. . , ~ ... ~ ?,!iIj~~~~ ... ,.~~..;. ,.~ ~":~'~ ~9- 0:: ,~ ..) ~ .~'" ...-- .- -"':. . " ~ .;. di!'- "';. ..... ~ ,..~. .<- ... '- ~ . ~. . ~ -'.,.'.~ :::;;,':- .,'- ....,~ --"'.. ~- ..~.... ~, .... .' - ~ "".'j L. ~ ..,'.. .... _~"'_ . . ...~~ ~~ ~,- ~ ... .. ":'>:-~ .. . ... - -...::. .~ -:. . . - ...... .' .., ;;...-"",: .." ~ ~ - .,,:=.. ~ .Ja ~ -. ,- '" .~ .~ . . ,. ...." ,",' i- o#.~... .. .... '" c . ,,-.* .\4:. ~ .t' <i/o. ~ .~-.~~~ ..~ ~ I .~ :'t' 7iw ~ .. D ~~~- -:?j"~.;... . ~ .. '"' ' r-.. ", ,.