03-27-07 BZA Agenda
e
e
e
Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
7pm
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chambers
I.
Approval of Minutes - March 15, 2007
II.
The Petitions are:
4223 Glencrest (07-03-04)
Robert & Bridaet Burke. Applicants
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(3)(a) Side Yard
Setback Requirements
. 3.5 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 11.5 ft. at its closest
point to the side yard (east) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage addition.
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 1 0(A)(1) Front Yard Setback
Requirements
. 1.3 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 33.7 ft. at its closest
point to the front yard (north) property line
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage addition
4736 Glenwood Ave. (07-03-05)
Ben Voael & Barb Busick. Applicants
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 1 0(A)(1) Front Yard Setback
Requirements
. 6 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 29 ft. at its closest
point to the front yard (south) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new garage.
e
e
e
1430 June Ave. S. (07-03-06)
Dennis & Gloria DvlonQ, Applicants
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(B) Height Limitations
. 1.5 ft. off the allowed 30 ft. to a distance of 31.5 ft. at its highest
point.
Purpose: To bring the existing home into conformance.
III. Other Business
IV. Adjournment
2
1 r
.
07-03-04
.
4223 Glencrest
Robert & Bridget Burke,
Applicants
.
See Large Size Plans and/or Survey in
Planning Department
.
Planning
763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
March 21 , 2007
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
4223 Glencrest
Robert & Bridget Burke, Applicants
To:
From:
Subject:
Maureen Steele Bellows Architecture, on behalf of the owners Robert & Bridget Burke, has
applied for two variances to allow for the expansion of the existing two-car, attached garage at
4223 Glencrest. The existing garage is approximately 22 ft. wide and 19 ft. deep. This garage
was widened to become a two-car garage from a one-car garage in 1973. In order to widen the
garage to its current 22 ft. (the depth remained 19 ft.), both a side yard setback variance of .9 ft.
(from the required 15 ft. to 14.1 ft.) and a front yard setback variance of 1.3 ft. (from the required
35 ft. to 33.7 ft.) were granted by the BZA.
.
Along with the garage expansion, the owner is planning to expand other parts of the house that
will all meet setback requirements. The proposed attached garage expansion would include
widening the garage to 24 ft. and making it 31 ft. deep compared to the current 19 ft. depth. The
increasing of depth of the garage would create a garage stall depth of around 22 ft. along with
new storage space south of the garage stalls.
According to the applicant's submittal, the hardship is inherent in both the land and structure.
The owner would like to have the new garage meet the minimum standard with for a two-car
garage which results in an encroachment of 3.5 ft. into the required 15 ft. side yard setback and
1.3 ft. into the required front setback. (The front setback request is an extension of the existing
setback for the garage.)
The home was constructed in 1941. The garage was expanded in 1973 and an addition was
constructed on to the west side of the house in 1975.
The proposed project requires the following variances from City Code:
Section 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements. The Zoning Code states
that side yard setbacks in the R-1 zoning district for lots greater than 100 feet in width are 15
feet. The variance request is for 3.5 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 11.5 ft. at its closest
. point to the side (east) property line.
Section 11.21, Subd.10(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements. The Zoning Code states
that the front setback in the R-1 zoning district shall be 35 ft. The variance request is for 1.3 ft.
off the required 35 ft. setback to a distance of 33.7 ft. for the garage addition.
4115
tG
8
4SOS
4409
4m
4313 "-4301
4263
4253
9
4243
17
100
101
208204
100
109
21Z
10lI
117
201
204
201
233
225
221
217
m 209 205
209
:212
210 _u
t 4223. Glencrest Road I
4510 4500 lIS
WESTWOOD LH !
~
208
300
310
309
4224
<1212 41tG 41Ol1
4100
31<11.
<1101
44)0
GUlNcREST RD
408
44)0
409
408
4201
4115
4tG
417
SOB
416
523
SZ9
535
541
510
JANAl~CIR
516
50
516
520
SZ8
532 D6
4511 4501
tOO
641
100
TYROl TRL N
708
709
7'09
100
100
109
717
800
lb.7
.
i
,
I
j
I
j'
1
I
I
I
I
j
I
--~-~-
-
lNl))t,t~VtL. .....JUtlfCiM
t'PM1iIIr~JA1,.. ...< . tOpo<?~~f't:lIC^l
. CfTY.tOTS-'cPLATnNG
. .-,':',,',':,.--,:.' ::-.:,,--: .-
tOtSU~V't$C(J'P.NY
t,A,Nn$t1Bmo.JtS
~..... ". '~)!~l9i'~A.TJmr~HI$8.OT.
U~"'*,'.O '. "w W'crn.()PHlNNBAPClLnl
5U? W. .~r~alihv"y .' Sn.9922
.. Minriell.potb, Mirtne5~taS54'28
ii9lm1fBiftl1 .C!ttrttfttatt
. '#
.. G .LEt.JCQ '\E." s'OT-J2oAD
12.0.0
.
t.~.
II
j;
IJ
j
I
I
f
I"
!
I
!
'.0 I
tf?!
. I
;;1
-I
j
t
I
I '" -~.' . .
I I.... "':
~..' .....1.. .~~..~~,.-..~:::.-!S:-....~~:.:~."-_. _.. ..,."..~",,-..
~<s+-e"'",,",e IZl').O
It 5.~ "e>N.cl '
'--~-'<""'---"""C"--'
:+
~
fil
30'
...
C:J
91 Block 4, .. GLENURBAN"
i~fy .~. .tt..i$ . is ..' tru8<<lDclcorrlic representation
. ....~i#.~~ic>>,me abOve deseribed \;IDd .and
~ ;"'.1:JQiId~$idvisU:1le e:acroadnmmts, if II""
.~llllll:t ..'
~?~~,. ';'dllvf>f<' '4pril 19-23
f
It.<;' !
ij;~~.A.''''~
6911' 19~HO^V~N, .
SltOOKLYN PM;;:, MINN.
MmN.ReG.NO.67013
fN~lC&llIO. 39~O.. '.
F.... ~o. 1~El.....3 ..
SCAL'EI,1 = ~Of ,.
0t>ENO~$' IRON
...:...-..:-
--'-'-n ...
.~ ~.~ r l~ t
r
~-,;j -C:~_~~2 ~ 1
, f', .
\.,
N
, .;;>
f -~
1
\
f".: CITY Of 6Ol.OEtI VAU..EY
783 693 8109
01/31/2IIl7 1&:02 1262 P.OO4/00&
. City of Golden Valley
Board of Zoning Appeals (BZAj
Zoning Code Variance Application
. 3.
1. Street address of property involved in this application:
4lZ~ ~C{2.f20T
2. Appiicant: ~ ~
Name
C4a? ~.f'J ~ ( o?ab ,Mf'J 00510
Address. CIly/StatelZip
g02;404.~ 4024-~D00 CfC;/2,ul:if724
Business Phone Home Phone Celt Phone
W\?J~(b~T
EmaD Address
Detailed description of building(s), addition(s), and alteration(s) involved in this petition. The site
plans and drawings submitted with this petition will be the basis of any variance that may be
approved 8I1d cannot be changed before or after the building. permit Is issued.
4.
I 1C14-( I
P { I. ~
(.4lD~~~~~~
~. e. . 1<<e IYII l~ <OJ;. Ire-! PJeJ)
5. To the best of myknowiedge thestatemenhi foundlnthicS . plication are true andcorrect:.ralSo
understand that unless oonstruction of the action appli to this variance request. if granted,
is not taken within one year, the variance expires.
.
,& 'lWD ~ ~B WHiCt4 V\QlLD ~tLT rl-J #-l
~ttM€:Nf d 2~ ~/" ItJlD ~ lG~O' ~l€ y~
.~~ . (It-!€.~ ~Cf 21':'0" CN TflE.
j{\J~ E}S~.t-\-E0Ii'l 1N{ZJ~~.)
.
.
n ........11 r ur UUI..UI:J't YIU..IL Y
1~ 583 B1D9
01131/2007 16:03
1252 P.OO5/006
_16.
If the applicant Is not the owner of aU property involved in thls application, please name the
owner of this property:
~ .
J2tF: &v-i clr~1- &vk
Signature of owner
Variance Application Submittal:
The following information must be submitted by the application deadline to make a complete
application. If an application Is Incomplete, It will not be accepted:
~ Completed application toRn, including signatures of surrounding property owners.
1 A current or usable survey of the property must be attached. See the handout on survey
requintments.
1 A brief statement-of the hardship which provide grounds for the granting of thl$ variance (see
Fr8quenUy Asked Questions for an explanation of a -.wdshipj. Attach letter. photographs, or
other evidence, if appropriate.
.-L.. You may submit detaUed description of bullding(s), addition(s), and aIteration(s)1nvoIved in this
project. The site plans and drawings submitted with this application will be the basis of any
variance that may be approved and cannot be changed befom or after the. building permit. is
Issued.
_ Variance application fee, as foOawvs: $125 - single family ~dential; $225 - other
Signatunta of SUlTOUnding Property Owners
Note to the va.rIance applicant:
As part of the variance application process, you will need to attempt to obtain the s1gnatuniasof all
surrounding property owners. This Includes all properties abutting the applicant's property and directly
across the street. If on a comer, this means across both streets.
To obtain these signatures, you will need to personally vi&it each of these property owners, tell them
about your project (we encourage you to bring along a mpy of your building plans) and have them
I sign the area, beIow~ The SignatuN is meant only to verify that you have told them ebout your
project and gives them opportunity to comment.
If you have attempted to contact a property owner on two separate occasions and not found 1I1em at
home, you mey simply write something to the effect -made two attempts, owner not home" and then
write their address. City staff will also send a written notice Infonnlng these property owners of the
tfme and place of the BZA meeting.
Note to ~rroundlng property owners:
This is an application by your neighbor for a variance from the City Zoning Code. Please be aware of
any possible effect the granting of this variance colildhave on your property. You w1181so be
receiving a written notice informing you of the time and place of the variance meeting.
I
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
Fru.: CITY OF 6Ol.DEH VAU.EV
763593 8108
01/31/2001 1&:03 1252 P.OD&/OO&
signing this form. you are only ve that ou.have been told aboUt the not that
to the project. If you wish. you maycomme: on
_ nts can contain la~ of the project, objecting to the project or other
statements regarding the projeCt.
PdntName \'M'lWiLO d Se:o#~/elz;Y1e/"
. .v. .'
I = (~ AddnlM S-/F ~41-<-YN
Pdnt Name P okvf d- c... if 0 1
I
Comment
PrlntName
Comment
:l'1 ~ tu6 h ;11oVe
If!~q.~~'-
'fO 0;
-I
~. ~4Z~J Be /VO
t!:.rf*&CC-
Signature
8lanature
PrlntNama .Joe. \Ie, ~ Vl'le1 ~ 'T IW\ ~;"j\ ~-\-of\
~.~~jJ ~~~l &,\e~~b-'~J
PrInt Name
Comment
j ,.
stgnamare
Adell...
Print Name
Comment
Signatute
i
j
. !
AcIdIwa
Print-Name
Comment
SIgnature
Add.....
.
.
.
.
.
e
07 -03-05
..
4736 Glenwood Ave.
Ben Vogel & Barb Busick,
Applicants
~ g.
.
.
Planning
763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
March 22, 2007
From:
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
4736 Glenwood Ave.
Ben Vogel and Barb Busick, Applicants
To:
Subject:
.
Ben Vogel and Barb Busick own and live in the home at 4736 Glenwood Ave. They have
requested a variance in order to allow for the construction of a new attached garage to the
west end of their existing house. Last year, the applicants began the process to subdivide their
property into two lots (Vogel Addition). The attached preliminary plat (survey) indicates the new
lot division that creates the two lots. (The subdivision has received preliminary approval and it
is anticipated that the final plat will be before the City Council by July 2007.) The south lot or
Lot 1 is the location of the existing house. The City Council approval of the preliminary plat
required that prior to the approval of the final plat, the existing detached garage would have to
be removed because it would be located over the new property line between Lot 1 and 2.
The applicants have decided to replace the existing garage with a new 25 ft. by 28 ft. garage
that would be attached to a new entryway/mudroom addition to the house. With the subdivision
of property along a county road, Hennepin County has requested that an additional 7 ft. of
right-of-way for Glenwood Ave. (Co. Rd. 40) be dedicated on the new final plat. This is
standard practice when property is subdivided on a county road. With this additional 7 ft. of
width for Glenwood Ave., the existing house would no longer meet the 35 ft. setback from
Glenwood Ave. Because this is an existing house constructed well before 1982, the front yard
setback is considered to be 25 ft. However, the proposed garage cannot be constructed to
meet the side setback requirement of 15 ft. unless it is built at the "old" 35 ft. setback line. The
applicant believes that a hardship situation was created when the County required the
additional 7 ft. of right-of-way for the road. The new attached garage will be located at about
the same front setback as the existing house or 29 ft. from Glenwood Ave.
The proposed project requires the following variances from City Code:
zs
a 30
2:
4846 I 15 !:
~ <lC
15 18 ...
lit a
5 I
4736 Glenwood Ave.
<l)
._~"
GlENWOOl) AVE
18
4901
II) 101
~
~ 1U
~
U7
201
209
M<p(~w:f1Net.AS- (,.~,C)~GiS:>>:6
.
4817
4711
4709
4700
8
100
108
200
-
300
!l
124 131
132
112
4620
ROANOKE RD
46ZS
4615
4601
20
4W
10
4612
4600
4520
4620
46U :5
OM !
~ 13
<lC
:IE
101
II)
!
I 104
109
209
116
234lj
City of Golden Valley
Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
Zoning Code Variance Application
1. Street address of property involved in this application:
4..:7 6f.p G'-e.V\~od ML
2. Applicant: 'B6N +'B~ \j~GL
Name
A:l~ ~L6tJ\\IOO\) ~"E
Address
7(,3-~-?:>2~7
Business Phone Home Phone
G~ - S5~ ZZ-
City/State/Zip
-;C03 -3Co-5(~L
Cell Phone
bo..~CLnd \oeJl\ @ n~ \ · C J)(h
Email Address
Detailed description of building(s), addition(s), and alteration(s) involved in this petition. The site
plans and drawings submitted with this petition will be the basis of any variance that may be
approved and cannot be changed before or after the building permit is issued.
'vJe.- \'\JoULt> U'U? \l) '"6~UJ k~ A-1T~D G-AUd>6 4 et-St€\f-
~ ctJ"1\) ~ WtS:k s~ c:k OUY ~cl.6e, v:)\-\"'lV\.. ~ NeW ~5' ~
~ ~ 1S~ LQ6~ 'B'-( ~ Ltl16&' ~ Ai.A\.u~lO~
OF '1"P'l of ~bWr- cw-WAH ~ ~ ?~P~ .
4. A brief statement of the hardship which provides legal grounds for the granting of this variance
(see Frequently Asked Questions for an explanation of a "hardship"). Attach letter, photographs,
or other evidence, if appropriate.
5.
'tJ~ ~ ~ ~~6 ~-t\\'\f:> \S \Wi O~\.,'-t ~t=:. tr'fJ()U,Ll)
~'\ ...-'11t1s 'PLAtv ~ ~6D ~oe.... -ro .11f6 'VDCa SUBDlv,si
'tJM~6 '11\r:; [,\i\f ~U.l~ US \V (~\"6:...uR ry I l'> N "'t't16 ~r
~OUt.. 'P?b~.
To the best of my knowledge the statements found in this application are true and correct. I also
understand that unless construction of the action applicable to this variance request, if granted,
is not taken within one year, the variance expires.
J
s~~
6. If the applicant is not the owner of all property involved in this application, please name the
owner of this property:
~ ~ll4L
Print Name of owner
&~ )
Signa ure of owner ~
Variance Application Submittal:
The following information must be submitted by the application deadline to make a complete
application. If an application is incomplete, it will not be accepted:
v
Completed application form, including signatures of surrounding property owners.
V A current or usable survey of the property must be attached. See the handout on survey
requirements.
v A brief statement of the hardship which provide grounds for the granting of this variance (see
Frequently Asked Questions for an explanation of a "hardship"). Attach letter, photographs, or
other evidence, if appropriate.
v You may submit detailed description of building(s), addition(s), and alteration(s) involved in this
project. The site plans and drawings submitted with this application will be the basis of any
variance that may be approved and cannot be changed before or atter the building permit is
issued.
Variance application fee, as follows: $125 - single family residential; $225 - other
Signatures of Surrounding Property Owners
Note to the variance applicant:
As part of the variance application process, you will need to attemptto obtain the signatures of all
surrounding property owners. This includes all properties abutting the applicant's property and directly
across the street. If on a corner, this means across both streets.
To obtain these signatures, you will need to personally visit each of these property owners, tell them
about your project (we encourage you to bring along a copy of your building plans) and have them
sign the area, below. The signature is meant only to verifylhat you have told them about your
project and gi~es them opportunity- to comment.
If you have attempted to contact a property owner on two separate occasions and not found them at
home, you may simply write something to the effect "made two attempts, owner not home" and then
write their address. City staff will also send a written notice informing these property owners of the
time and place of the BZA meeting.
Note to surrounding property owners:
This is an application by your neighbor for a variance from the City Zoning Code. Please be aware of
y possible effect the granting of this variance could have on your property. You will also be
ceiving a written notice informing you of the time and place of the variance meeting.
, '
By signing this form, you are. only verifying that you have been told about the project, not that
you necessarily agree or object to the project. If you wish, you may comment on the project.
Comments can contain language of agreeing with the project, objecting to the project or other
tatements regarding the project.
Print Name POlVV"' ~ r:, ( ~ L ~o-e.r, e...
Comment 1JQ ~~ ()U'- ~ ~~ froj e &
Signature ~ Address 5 tJamLN N
&;'~~-
Print Name ~#, ~ ~ k:btf ~ ~muur - - - a
Comment r$fl~~~-~;/J~~ 7
SignatureG:{a. P~c:;, Address4709-,~~
Print Name _~~ <<Plhfrl CA<. b ~
:~:~~: ~~ Address tiln ~M +v
rint Name
Comment
Signature
Address
Print Name
Comment
Signature
Address
Print Name
Comment
Signature
Address
rint Name
Signature
Address
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A\~N'~ ~~~~c;~\tv\Sc;' I
. I
9kBat-A.\~eD FO~ . I
\(Nl-\A~c.E- ~fl6€~ ON :
~\f'f" Of= 7' l?l~-r: Ot=-tJ~ I
Cff couw"1'{ -eoo..t> .L}O. I
I
I
________ I
----------,
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I -
I
I
I
I
I
I
IG
I
I
I
.
--
-
-
.
SITE WORIIA7ICN:
EXlSFINQ ZCJNIN(; _ R-1 $INt;LE FAlllLY
PROPOSED ZONMG - R-, SWGI.E FAlllLY
roTAL SI1E AREA . Z$,SIS() SF {(J,$IItC.)
R-1 ZON/N{J SJ'AN04RI)S:
IIIN. Lf1T AREA - ,0.0<<1 SF
IIIN. Lf1T II/IIt1TH - 8tf to FT!!JNf $E7JIA(;K lJND
IIIN. Lf1T II/IIt1TH (CO/INE.'R LOT) - '00' (0 tRCtfir SEtBACK LINE)
FRONr srJ1iI4Q(' - ;,5'
Rfi#R srJ1iI4Q(' . ROIl OF ~T DEPtH
S1DC smMCK - 12.5' ('5 FCIR L01S > '00' IN WIDTH)
SITE N01E:S:
nA04I. FRONr IJRNNNJ€ I: CIIL EASEMCNr. '0'
nA04I. Rfi#R IJRNNNJ€ I: CIIL CASEMENT. rD'
nAOV. $I(JC lJfIAIIiM<< I: II1&. . EASDIENT . ,.
#5
-
-
-
---
--
--
-
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I'I,\~
I ~
I I \ <<"
-y: 30' iso' r-
0111 I I
~ ~ATER SERVo
:J ___~~fiES ~~:!:~LT~~~~
80' ~X. W
0' PROP. /W I
d
, II~ I
~
~I
~
'X6 RkD.
I
~1
~!
~!
o!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .
I ~ Concrete Wolk~
~! ,.. Concrete Curb ~ l . ~
~! EX. GAS N 88'15'03" W153.00. ~
. - -. - -I. - _. - -. - _. --. - -' - -' - -. - _. - -. - _. - -. - _. - -. - -. - - . - _. - _.- -. - -.
~ I . GLENWOOD ~ A VENUE
EX.9'''VSP SAN. (COo RD, NO. 40)
-.--.- -.--.- -.--.--.--......
-0- PP
EX. 8" VSP SAN.
EX. MH 8P4
858J84/814.95
CD
-
~
u
c:
o
()
l~
j:::
,.tS
~
I~
c.o
~
0'>
t"}
.
..-
o
o
r--.
c.o
..-
w
z
EX. 8" CIP WM
,Jew ~ :
e.I ~",."" 01- 'jJ.\1I)~1 t.U'-~bC>f
I
I
I
,---:-----
I
I
I
EK. House
1/:18
43.4'
.
.-
N 88015'03" W
153.00
ll'i
.-
6' D&U EASE.
r-'--'--'- -.--.- -'--.- _.
i 1 5' SSB
i r-"-"-"
. 1
I
~!
lS~ CDI
:::>1 (/)
~I J:u..:
Cl i bin I
'I -1"1
C). 3:@.
-I , .
I 1-lX) I
. 00
I ...J..-, ',~
1 / ' ,/
i 56.0' I" . .
I .
ILOT 2//'
11,870 ~.(
i L/ /
I :t. / /
i flo!'~ /
1$dV'X. -'_
I /
I /
./
~,
<0
1\.'
"
/
Ex. House
'4736
FF€:=872.18
LOT 1,
13,680 s~ ~
.-- .--.-- .-;-_.__.__._ J
.
.-
'"
I")
~
lO
1"1_ '"
0
~
~ 0
j 0
c
~ r--.
~ c.o
.....
~ I.&.l
:en
1"1
0>
I"')
. .
..-
Z
H
15
o
15
5cAu: .. FEET
~
4736 GLENWOOD AVE:
GOLDCN VALLEY, UN 55422
(763-374-3237)
QML D8IEER:
PF:TER KNAEBLE. PE
TERRA ENGlNCERING INC.
600' G/..ENWOOO AVE.
MPLS.. UN 55422
(763-593-9325)
.srAMl1M':
DAVID CROOK, RLS
DeMARS-GABRIEL SURVEYORS
3030 HARBOR /.N., /1"
PLYMOUTH. UN 55447
(763-559-0908)
LSMt. Dc,;,wvIJIIDN:
The west '53.00 fHt of-the east
300.00 fHt of the south 200..00
fHi of the southeast quarter of
~e~u~wutqw~of~~n
'9. Township 29. Range 24.
except highway.
~lix, House
r N4700
:$ . trOr\t' ~-l-~~ l) Y\J
PP
rJv./ ~L.1NE
<0
...: . -l1 ~
'<t ._,vJ ~(O~ofr . ~t -0\
....... p.... . -L ~ ". bJ.t#I.'
l.A ~v-i'V1 "f"'" ~
-------.---
-.:::- _. - -. - -. - -. - _. - _. - - ..- - . - -- ',- - . - _.
l")
l")
l")
l")
EX A(H 904
R7/.5j) /860.-'
-0- PP
pp .
d
~
;1;;
S
..
8
I
30
.
II
_P.JJC.
_ H.A.1.
_P.JJC.
ItO
~,2U'-'
jC"
;~it
:t1
It"i.-
~ .:I.
ti '
!I!tl
~
i
.
<:
:s ~
Q.: ~
~E ~
:Si::! ~
a.: ::;:) :;: >-'
)..).. ~
Q::Q:: :::l
~~Q~
~~~<
...... ...... .... liJ
i:liej1,lJ9
~ft~8
ii I
.
6/9/06
NO.
06-106
$HEETNO.
1
'.,
,
;.
.
07 -03-06
.
1430 June Ave. S.
Dennis & Gloria Dylong,
Applicants
.
See Large Size Plans and/or Survey in
Planning Department
.
Planning
763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
March 23, 2007
From:
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
1430 June Ave. S.
Dennis and Gloria Dylong, Applicants
To:
Subject
.
Dennis and Gloria Dylong own the house that is currently under construction at 1430 June
Ave. N. The house is in the final stages of construction and should be ready for occupancy
later this spring. At the January 2007 BZA meeting, the BZA considered an appeal of an
administrative decision made by City staff as related to the height of the house. A resident of
the neighborhood brought to the attention of staff that the house was actually higher than the
required 30 ft. that is allowed in the Single-Family (R-1) zoning district. At the JanuaryBZA
meeting, the staff explained how the height provision in the ordinance was interpreted and why
it was determined by staff that the house met the 30 ft. height guideline. After a long
discussion, the Board voted to state that the staff wrongly interpreted the ordinance and policy
regarding how height is determined in the R-1 zoning district. I am enclosing a copy of my
memo to the BZA dated January 18, 2007 and the minutes from that meeting describing the
discussion.
At the January BZA meeting, there was discussion about what the next step would be
regarding the height of the house. I stated that I would speak to the City Attorney about the
situation. One suggestion was that the owner could apply for a variance from that section of
the code requiring the 30ft. height limit. After discussing this with the City Attorney, it was
determined that a variance for the height could be considered. This variance is now before the
BZA.
At the January BZA meeting, the staff stated that they had adopted a Minnes<>ta DNR policy to
determine height. A copy of the drawing from the DNR was included with the information sent
to the BZA in January 2007. The BZA stated that the staff wrongly interpreted this method to
determine the height of buildings. As stated above, staff met with the City Attorney after the
January BZA meeting. At that meeting, it was decided that this DNR policy or rule should not
be used and that the definition of building height as found in the definition chapter of the zoning
code should be used when determining height. This definition is as follows:
.
Section 11.03. Definitions (12) "Building, Height of'- The vertical distance above "grade" as
defined herein to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof, or to the deck line of a mansard
roof or to the average height of the highest gable of a pitched roof or hipped roof. The
measurement may be taken from the highest adjoining sidewalk or ground surface within a five
.
.
.
(5) ft. horizontal distance of the exterior wall of the building, when such sidewalk of ground
surface is not more than ten (10) ft. above grade.
In the case of the 1430 June Ave. house, the height is 31.5 ft. using the zoning code definition
of building height. (Using the DNR policy correctly, the height of the building was also 31.5 ft.)
The staff has now been instructed to use the definition of building height as stated in the
zoning code definition.
In considering this variance request, there are several hardships with this property that relate
to the height of the building. There are:
1. The subject property is located in a natural depression unique to the property.
2. The property contains a unique, natural low area which is to be used for ponding of
flood waters in times of high water levels.
3. To preserve the natural low area for such ponding, the City Engineer required that any
home built on the property be located on an 8 to 10 ft. high pedestal to raise it above
the finished ground elevation and any potential flood waters.
4. Placing a home on such a pedestal creates a hardship in the application of the height
restrictions in Section 11.21, Subd. 10(8) of the City Code.
5. Accordingly, grant of a variance in the requirements of Section 11.21, Subd. 10(8) to
permit a home to be built 32 feet above finished grade is appropriate under the
circumstances.
The proposed project requires the following variances from City Code:
Section 11.21, Subd. 10(8) Height Limitations. The Zoning Code states that the height shall
not exceed 30 ft. setback in the R-1 zoning district.
The City file for this address does indicate that the address has not been issued any other
variances. Construction of the home began in June 2006.
1300
4410
4400
4>>0
4310
1301
TYRol. CRST
131.$
4335
4325
1323
4315
1401
1400
~
....
c::
%
on
1407
\
1415
4430
4420
DOUGlAS AVE
1545
1500
4515
4445
4435
4425
4415
4345
4335
4325
4315
w
(j)
MIIp_WiMh<AlS. e_ ie, cooaGlS2))5
o
27&.1
.
.
.
.
Planning
763-593-8095 1763-593-8109 (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(8). 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 vertical 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 10 ft. 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 (IRC). 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)
.
.
.
.
,
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
January 23, 2007
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday,
January 23, 2007 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota.
Acting Chair Weisberg called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Members, Morrissey, Weisberg and Planning Commission
Representative McCarty. Also present were Director of Planning and Development Mark
Grimes, Building Official Gary Johnson and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman.
Members Boudreau-Landis, Nederveld and Sell were absent.
I. Approval of Minutes - December 20, 2006
Morrissey referred to the first sentence in the second paragraph on page four and
stated that the word. "by" should be replaced with the word "from".
MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Morrissey and motion carried unanimously to
approve the December 20,2006 minutes with the above note correction.
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.
Grimes stated that this is a special type of variance request. He explained that there is
a person from this neighborhood who feels that the definition that the City uses to
determine the height of a structure has not been properly administered. The neighbor
believes the house at 1430 June Ave. S. is actually 32 feet in height and not the 30 feet
as allowed in the Zoning Code.
Grimes stated that a building permit was issued for the construction of the house at
1430 June Ave. S. in June 2005. He showed pictures of the house currently under
construction and reviewed the section in the City Code relating to height which states
that no principal structure in the R-1 zoning district can exceed 2% stories or 30 feet in
height, whichever is less. He referred to a drawing from the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) that illustrates how height is measured and stated that the
City has been determining height according to this illustration for several years. He then
referred to the plans of the subject property and explained to the Board how staff
determined the height of the house in question.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
January 23, 2007
Page 2
Johnson stated that it is a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
requirement that houses be built 1 foot above flood level and that is why the house in
question was built on a pedestal.
Grimes explained that the Board needs to decide if the way staff measured the house is
consistent with the DNR illustration (which the City has adopted as a policy for
measuring height) and the Zoning Code or if staff has interpreted the DNR illustration
incorrectly. He also suggested that the Board pass on any concerns they have about
how height is measured in the Zoning Code to the Planning Commission.
McCarty asked if staff has actually gone to the site and physically measured the house.
Grimes said that staff has measured the house several times and that it is consistent
with the building plans and the building permit issued. Grimes said he believes that the
neighbor questioning the height is right in his measurements, but it is really a question
of where he is measuring from on the house. McCarty said he believes that staff
correctly interpreted the way the height was measured.
Weisberg opened the public hearing.
Ella Ramsey, 4335 Sussex Road stated that she came to the subdivision hearing when
it was before the Planning Commission and the homeowners presented a very different
house plan than what was ultimately built. She said four homes were recently built in
the area and she believes that people should have to build what they say they are going
to build. The neighborhood was very surprised to see the house that was built and it
doesn't match what was proposed as part of the subdivision to create the 1430 June
Avenue lot. She added that she thinks there was a covenant in their neighborhood
several years ago regarding the height of homes.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to speak, Weisberg closed the public hearing.
Grimes stated that there is nothing in the City Code that ties someone to a specific plan
when it meets all of the requirements of the zoning and building codes. He added that if
plans were to receive variances then the applicant would have to build their house
according to the plans that were approved.
Johnson stated that the homeowner changed architects mid stream so the house plans
did change from when the neighbors originally saw the plans.
Grimes explained that the Planning Commission is currently in the process of looking at
in-fill developments. Weisberg suggested that the Board communicate to the Planning
Commission height is an issue that should be considered.
Morrissey referred to the DNR illustration and stated that she understands it to read that
it offers two numbers and you have to determine which is lower. One choice is the
highest adjoining ground level at the building and the other choice is 10 feet above the
lowest ground level and the height of the building is supposed to be measured from
whichever one of those is the lower.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
January 23, 2007
Page 3
She said if that is the correct interpretation then she thinks this house may have been
measured incorrectly by staff or the DNR illustration has been interpreted incorrectly by
staff.
Weisberg asked if the house were to be measured as Morrissey suggested. if it would
still be in conformance. Morrissey said no because the measurement is supposed to be
taken from either the lowest ground level or the highest adjoining level whichever one is
lower.
Grimes stated that staff interpreted the DNR illustration to mean that the height of the
house is the vertical distance between the highest adjoining ground level at the building
or 10 feet above the lowest ground level whichever is lower.
Weisberg stated that it is sounding like the Board is disagreeing with staffs
interpretation and his feeling is that it seems awkward for all parties and probably an
unnecessary step to send this issue on to the City Council
Morrissey said she doesn't think it's a question of if the City needs a different way to
determine height, she thinks it's a question of if the DNR definition is being interpreted
correctly. Grimes stated that he now believes that staff has been interpreting the DNR
illustration incorrectly, but this is the way the City has been interpreting it for years.
Weisberg said he is assuming that someone just thinks the house is too high and would
like to see it be shorter. He said he would like to affirm that - A) using the DNR
definition for height is reasonable and correct, B) the Board thinks in this particular case
that the definition has been inadvertently misinterpreted by city staff, C) The Board
does not want to suggest that be any recourse and D) The Board wishes to
communicate to the Planning Commission that there are issues regarding height that
they would like researched.
Grimes said the issue 'is that staff interpreted the height definition incorrectly and the
house is in violation of the zoning code and is going to have to be issued a variance.
Morrissey asked Grimes if the Board could propose a variance. Grimes said he would
like to talk to the City Attorney about the next step and make sure the neighborhood
gets properly notified of any variances.
Luke Maholo, 1410 June Avenue South stated that there are rules to be followed and
asked why this rule wasn't followed correctly. Morrissey explained that staff made a
mistake in the interpretation of the definition of height in this particular case.
Maholo said this is not a typical situation or lot. He said there have been a lot of
problems with this lot and it's an example of a house that doesn't fit in.
Ramsey said she agreed that it is a very irregular lot and said the owner has designed
the house to fill up the entire space of the lot. Morrissey explained that it is fully
compliant to build all the way to edges of the setback lines.
.
.
.
~
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
January 23, 2007
Page 4
Maholo stated that approximately 80% of the foundation is in excess of 40 feet or
higher. He asked if there were any ordinances that would address this issue. Weisberg
said there were none to his knowledge and suggested that be another thing the
Planning Commission could look into.
Morrissey explained that there are other Boards and Commissions that can hear
feedback and decide what things are worth changing but the Board of Zoning Appeals
has the responsibility to interpret what is already on the books and what is in
compliance.
Grimes stated that he thinks the house will look much better when the siding is
installed.
MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Morrissey and motion carried unanimously that the
Board of Zoning Appeals does not agree with how staff interpreted the height of the
home currently under construction at 1430 June Avenue South.
McCarty said he would talk to the Planning Commission regarding this meeting and
discuss with them the DNR definition of height and how it is to be interpreted.
III. Other Business
No other business was discussed.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 pm.
.
.
.
ltl/tli/Ltltl~ ltl:L~
b~l I ILI':JI I
U~~~NI~AL~~~lUN
"HEIGHT OF BUILDING"
IN SHORELAND DISTRICT.
Average height of highest gable
[A] 10 feet above
lowest ground level\
---.-. --- ~. ..........
1"'1-'1 \;lC. r..),(.1 tJ '"
Height of Structure
\
\
[B] ffighest adjoining
ground level at
buildin& *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.
.
.
.
.
.
,