Loading...
01-24-17 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 24, 2017 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, January 24, 2017, at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Perich called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Members Maxwell, Orenstein, Perich and Planning Commission Representatives Johnson and Kluchka. Also present were Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Member Nelson was absent. I. Approval of Minutes— December 27, 2016, Regular Meeting MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Perich and motion carried 3 to 2 to approve the minutes as submitted. Kluchka and Orenstein abstained. II. The Petition(s) are: 1401 Winnetka Avenue North Luis Hector Perez Silva, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 12 (B) Height Limitations • 2 ft. over the 10 ft. of height allowed for a total height of 12 ft. Purpose: To allow for the recently constructed shed to remain 12 ft. tall. Zimmerman referred to photos of the property and explained that in September of 2015, the applicant applied for a building permit to build a shed. The Building Official approved the plans for the shed, but noted on the permit that the wall height could not exceed 10 feet. In May of 2016, it was brought to the City's attention that the shed was constructed 12 feet tall instead of the allowed 10 feet. Since then, the City has been working with the applicant to resolve the issue, and the applicant has received several administrative citations, but the shed is still out of compliance so now the applicant has decided to apply for a variance to allow the shed to remain 12 feet tall. Zimmerman noted that if the variance is not granted, the applicant will have two weeks to make the shed compliant or else pay the second fine that is currently pending. After that the matter will be turned over to the City Attorney. Zimmerman referred to the Zoning Code's definition of height limitations for accessory structures which reads as follows: No accessory structure shall be erected in the R-1 Zoning District to exceed a height of one (1) story, which is ten (10) feet from the floor to the top horizontal member of a frame building to which the rafters are fastened, Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 24, 2017 Page 2 known as the top plate. He stated that the applicant has said that he needs the additional height to store equipment for his subcontracting business. The applicant has also stated that he can install a "double plate" 10 feet up the 12 foot wall in order to address the issue, however Planning and Inspections staff agree that this solution would not meet the Zoning Code requirement. Zimmerman reviewed the points of examination used when considering variances and stated that the shed does constitute a reasonable use. However, there are no circumstances unique to the property which would require a 12 foot tall shed, granting the variance would alter the essential character of locality, and there are other options available to reach compliance. Therefore, staff is recommending denial of the requested variance. Maxwell stated that the need for this variance was caused by the landowner, so if the applicant would have asked for a variance before the construction of the shed the City and the applicant wouldn't be in this situation. Zimmerman said that is correct and in fact, the shed was completed after the applicant was told to lower the height. Perich questioned if the shed were not attached to the garage if it would still be considered an accessory structure. Zimmerman said it is still an accessory structure, but attaching the shed to the garage makes it part of the garage instead of a second detached accessory structure. Perich asked about the total square footage of the garage/shed. Zimmerman said he believes it is under the 800 square feet of allowed detached accessory structure space. Luis Hector Perez Silva, Applicant, referred to his building permit application and his variance application and said that he has stated from the beginning that he was going to build the shed 12 feet tall. He stated that in 2008, an inspector stopped by his property without notice and said he should not be storing tools and equipment outside and that his property should be cleaned up for the benefit of the City. He referred to an engineering book and discussed a section on "fixed base gable frames." Perich explained that the Board isn't discussing the definition of what a gable frame is, or the engineering of the shed, their job is to consider the 2 foot height variance in question. Silva stated that no one understands what he is talking about structurally. He said he can fix the walls of the shed and make them 10 feet tall but he has never been able to explain to anyone what he is talking about structurally and that the pictures the Board has been shown make no sense and are not right. He added that the 12 foot tall wall will be much weaker if it is shorter and asked who he should speak to about the structural issues. He referred to photos of the shed and explained how he wants to put in a double top plate 10 feet up on the 12 foot wall which will make the walls 10 feet in height. Johnson asked the applicant if the rafters are attached to a plate that is 10 feet from the floor. He referred to the height definition and noted that it defines the allowed height as 10 feet from the floor to the top plate to which the rafters are fastened. Silva discussed gables and the fasteners he used and said he built the shed to be as strong as possible with balloon walls. Minutes of the Goiden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 24, 2017 Page 3 Perich asked the applicant why he can't build the shed how the City is requesting him to build it. Silva said he built the shed the way he did because he knows it is the best way and the strongest way to build it. He said he makes his living with a final product and by experience he knows this is the best way to build it. Perich asked the applicant if he lives at this property. Mr. Silva said yes. Perich opened the public hearing. Roger Mcconico, 1325 Winnetka Avenue North, said the applicant does not live at the subject property. He said his main objection is that the applicant is running a business out of his house and has an 18 or 20 foot long dumpster on his driveway. He noted that there are at least three other people in the area that have similar businesses as the applicant, but he never sees their equipment or vehicles stored on their properties. He said he thinks more stuff will just be brought to this property and he's concerned about their property values going down because of it. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Perich closed the public hearing. Johnson asked for clarification because it almost seems like the height definition allows a wall greater than 10 tall as long as the rafter is attached at the 10 foot level. Zimmerman said he has talked with the Building Official about a wall being capped at 10 feet but then allowing an additional 2 feet above that. He explained that that has not been staff's interpretation or the intent of the definition for height. He added that the roof can be taller than 10 feet, but the walls are limited to 10 feet in height. Kluchka noted that the Planning Commission has had many discussions about the issue of height. He said he doesn't think this case is an issue of technicalities, it is an issue of visibility, aesthetics, and the building envelope. He noted that the shed could be modified so that one wall is 10 feet tall and the other walls are 8 feet tall. Zimmerman noted that the applicant has stated that his building permit application said the shed would be built 12 feet tall so he should be allowed to build it 12 feet tall, but it was noted on the building permit and in the plan review that the height of the shed needed to be modified to be 10 feet tall. Maxwell asked if the applicant was told in the beginning that he could apply for a variance. Zimmerman said when he was first made aware of the issue he talked to the applicant and the applicant said it would be no problem to change his plans and make the shed conform to the Zoning Code requirements. Johnson asked if the shed was built how is was shown on the building permit application. Zimmerman said he thinks they are similar. Kluchka said he doesn't think the drawing is what was ultimately built. Perich referred to the criteria the Board uses when considering variances. He said he thinks having a shed is reasonable, but he is struggling to find any unique circumstances not caused by the landowner. He said he also thinks the shed alters the character of the locality because it sticks up above the garage. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 24, 2017 Page 4 Johnson said there could be a loophole in the way the definition of height is worded, but the City has been consistent with its interpretation so he is not inclined to approve the requested variance. Kluchka agreed. Maxwell stated that one of the criteria the Board considers it that the need for a variance isn't caused by the landowner and that is a problem when someone builds something first and then asks for a variance after the fact, so he can't support his variance request. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to deny the requested variance. Perich informed the applicant that he can appeal the Board's decision to the City Council. 1315 Angelo Drive Jim Klem Construction Inc, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11 (B) Height Limitations • 5.5 ft. over the 25 ft. of height allowed for a total height of 30.5 ft. Purpose: To allow for the recently constructed rooftop access to remain 30.5 ft. tall. Goellner reminded the Board that they've seen variance requests for this property twice in the past. The first variance granted in June was for 3.5 feet over the maximum allowed height of 25 feet. The second variance was granted in August for the same height, but a larger rooftop access room. She referred to the site plans and explained that the house is currently under construction and that the contractor made adjustments to the roof plans and the parapet wall after the variances were approved so the applicant is now seeking a variance to allow the recently constructed rooftop access to remain 30.5 feet tall. Goellner noted that the applicant's stated unique circumstances include that a change to the architectural plans was necessary for structural support, proper water runoff from the roof, and the fact that the rooftop access room is not easily visible from Angelo Drive because it is set back 24 feet from the front property line, in the center of the home. Goellner stated that staff is recommending approval of this variance request because there are conflicting regulations in the Zoning Code regarding height and building envelope requirements. The rooftop access room fits within the building envelope, but does not meet the height requirements. She stated that in this case the need for a variance is not the fault of the landowner, the unique circumstance is the conflict in the Zoning Code. She added that the rooftop access room does not alter the essential character of its locality, the visual impact is minimized by the location of the rooftop Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 24, 2017 Page 5 access room in the center of the property and it constitutes a reasonable use of the property. Johnson stated that the Planning Commission has heard many resident concerns about new construction/subdivisions that have contributed to flooding problems and asked if the City has any liability if the Board grants this variance for an architectural issue that they've identified as a problem. Zimmerman clarified that in this case the issue is with water running off of the roof, not off of the site. Johnson asked if the City agrees that this change in the slope of the roof will fix the problem. Zimmerman stated that the Inspections Department is comfortable with the sloped roof. Jim Klem, Jim Klem Construction Inc, Representing the Applicant, said he constructed the rooftop access room with a sloped roof rather than the flat roof shown by the architect in order to get proper water runoff. He said he tried to minimize the slope to respect the design and the City's height regulations and that he didn't realize he would need a variance. Orenstein noted that this is the third variance request for this property and asked that applicant if they are plans for any more. Klem said no. Perich opened the public hearing. Cathie Corcoran, 1330 Angelo Drive, said this will be a beautiful house and the rooftop access room sits back from the front of the property so it won't be an issue. She stated that the variance requests for this property have been for misunderstandings with the code itself so there should be some leeway in this case. She said she approves of this request and considers it an asset. Kluchka said he is glad to see this house being built. He stated that this hasn't changed the building envelope topic, but it changes the height numbers allowed in the Zoning Code. He added that this proposal follows the intent of the original variance request so he is supportive of this proposal. Perich agreed and said the request is reasonable, it is not directly caused by the land owner, and it is not changing the character of its locality. He added that if the house had a pitched roof it could be taller than what is proposed without the need for variances so he is supportive of the variance requested. Orenstein agreed. Maxwell said he is disappointed that another variance has been requested for this property after the structure has already been built but he is persuaded that there is a conflict in the in the Code regarding height. Johnson agreed. MOVED by Perich, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request for 5.5 ft. over the 25 ft. of height allowed for a total height of 30.5 ft. to allow for the recently constructed rooftop access to remain 30.5 ft. tall. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 24, 2017 Page 6 III. Other Business Discussion of 2016 Board of Zoning Appeals Annual Report Goellner referred to the 2016 BZA Annual Report which summarizes the variances requested in 2016 as well as variances over the past five years. She discussed some of the highlights in the report which include: the tofal number of variances, variance requests by type and area, and BZA decisions (approved, denied, or tabled requests). Perich said he would like to know how many variance requests were modified by the Board before they were approved. Goellner said she could add that information to the report. She added that in the spring, the Chair will have an opportunity to present the report to the City Council. Orenstein asked if there will be a chance to talk to the City Council about the criteria the Board uses when considering variances. Goellner said yes, but added that the City is bound by the requirements in state statute. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 pm. 7 � A, i � �/ � �! l . C... \ David Perich, Chair Lisa ittman, Administrative Assistant �