Loading...
04-24-18 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals April 24, 2018 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, April 24, 2018, 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 Brookins and Johnson. Also present were Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Member Nelson was absent. I. Approval of Minutes— March 27, 2018, Regular Meeting MOVED by Orenstein, seconded by Maxwell and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve the March 27, 2018, minutes as submitted. Brookins abstained. II. The Petition(s) are: Continued Item - 7210 Harold Avenue Tollberq Homes, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.22, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(B) Height Limitations • 3.5 ft. over the 28 ft. of height allowed for a total height of 31.5 feet. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new home. Goellner reminded the Board that this proposal was tabled at their last meeting. She stated that the applicant has withdrawn the request for a garage width variance and is only seeking a variance for the height of the proposed new home. Goellner referred to an illustration of the proposed home and stated that the previous height variance request was to allow the home to be 33 feet in height rather than the allowed 28 feet and that the new request would allow the home to be 31.5 feet in height. Goellner stated that the applicant has said that the unique circumstances in this case include that the topography of the lot necessitates a tuck-under garage and that the height of the proposed home above the tuck-under garage is normal height. She stated that staff is recommending denial of the requested variance because while the topography necessitates a tuck-under garage, two stories above the garage is optional. Also, there is an imposing visual impact from a tuck-under garage with two stories above it, there is significant buildable area on the lot that is not being utilized, and grading changes can be made in order to avoid a variance. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals April 24, 2018 Page 2 Perich asked when this property was subdivided. Goellner said it was subdivided within the last six months. She added that when this house was designed the R-1 zoning code requirements were used instead of the R-2 requirements that should have been used. Maxwell asked if the height requirements are different in the R-2 zoning district. Goellner said no, but that there was some confusion by the applicant regarding how the grade is measured. Perich asked Goellner to explain how changes to the grade of the property could be made in order to avoid the need for a variance. Goellner stated that the proposed bolder wall could be changed to bring the grade up slightly in order to build into the grade more. She added that the applicant thought the grade was measured using the sides of the property as well as the front, but the zoning code states that grade is measured along the front of the property. Johnson noted that the purpose of the garage percentage requirements are so that a garage fa�ade isn't so imposing, yet a big retaining wall in a front yard would also have a visual impact and be imposing. Goellner agreed and added that the biggest change the applicant could make would be not to build two stories above a tuck-under garage. Johnson asked if there are different standards for building a home on an R-1 lot versus an R-2 lot and asked if any type of home could be built as long as it fits within the building envelope. Goellner said there aren't different standards, but typically a smaller home would be built on a smaller R-2 lot. She added that the intent of the height requirements was to limit the impact of the height from the street. Orenstein asked if this proposed house would still be below the neighboring house. Goellner said she hasn't confirmed that, but that is what the applicant has said. Maxwell noted that almost the entire first story of the proposed house is buried in the hill. Goellner agreed. Wade Tollefson, Northwest Design Inc., representing the applicant, stated that at last month's meeting the big talking point was how this house relates to the street. He stated that a tuck-under garage is the right design for this lot and that they have made every effort to lower the height of the house as much as they can. He stated that they can't make the house any wider and that the lot falls off drastically in the back. He said the alternative would be to build a traditional two story home with a steep driveway which would look even taller and that no one would buy a rambler style house. He stated that it is not spelled out in the handouts he received from the City that the grade is measured at the front of the lot without using the side yards. Johnson asked Tollefson if he still has the handout he received. Tollefson said it is on the City's website. Goellner explained that the grading requirements are located in the definition section of the Zoning Code and not again in the R-1 or R-2 sections. She added that the City is in the process of recodifying the Code so this confusion shouldn't happen again. Brookins asked Tollefson to address the suggestion of moving the retaining wall. Tollefson stated that moving the retaining wall would result in a big, flat, tall wall that doesn't really change the grade, is just a big expense, and would be less attractive. He added that the neighbor to the west is in favor of this proposed plan and that moving the wall would push this house closer to his. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals April 24, 2018 Page 3 Brookins asked about building a 2/12 pitched roof or a split-level home. Tollefson said that would be a pretty flat roof and they would have to change the roofing materials. Johnson asked about constructing the house with a flat roof. Goellner stated that the allowed height for a flat roof is 25 feet so she's not sure that would help. Tollefson stated that the spirit of the Code is that the City doesn't want new homes to overshadow neighboring properties. He said that if they build a traditional two story home it would defeat the purpose because it would be taller at the street level and a one tevel home is not an option. Maxwell questioned if the City should force the applicant to build an unsightly retaining wall rather than a tall house. Perich said the house could be placed on top of the hill which would be even taller and he can see why the neighbor wouldn't want that. Johnson asked what would happen if the house were pushed back 20 feet on the lot. Orenstein stated that there is a severe drop off toward the rear of the lot. Tollefson stated that the height of the house would still be measured in the same way. Perich opened the public hearing. Josh (last name not given), potential buyer of the property, said they have discussed all of the feedback they've received and they changed the plans and fixed one of the original variance requests. He said they can't push the home back any further on the lot and it reatly is located in the best location. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Perich closed the public hearing. Orenstein stated that last month the Board stated more or less that they would consider a height variance if they fixed the other garage issue and they have. Perich agreed that the applicant did take some of the Board's feedback into consideration. He said it is a question of whether they want this proposed design or something built within the Code requirements that could be more imposing. He added that he is also concerned that this lot was recently subdivided and now they want a variance. Maxwell stated that the City should maybe have a square foot limit in the R-2 Zoning District but they don't. He said the question is whether they want to allow this proposed option, or a house perched on top of the hill. Johnson said he is thinking that the Board should deny this request because the applicant can appeal the decision to the City Council. He said because this is a new property and totally within the control of the applicant, and the City's rules say they can build a house on top of the hill, there is very little they can't control. Maxwell agreed there are other options like moving the retaining wall forward. Orenstein said moving the wall forward could be more of an intrusion. Brookins disagreed and said more screening could be added that would take away from the height. Tollefson stated that moving the retaining wall would not help, they would still need a 1.5 foot variance from the height allowed. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals April 24, 2018 Page 4 Brookins stated that the garage could be at a different elevation and they could build a split- level house that would meet the requirements. Goellner added that moving the retaining wall, changing the ceiling height, or changing the pitch of the roof might help with the height and they could possibly not need a variance. Perich said the applicant has made valid points, but there are other options. Johnson agreed and reiterated that it is totally within the applicant's control on what they build here. MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Perich and motion carried 3 to 2 to deny the requested variance. Maxwell and Orenstein voted no. Brookins, Johnson and Perich voted yes. III. Other Business • Annual Board/Commission Orientation Goellner referred to a PowerPoint presentation and discussed the structure of the Board of Zoning Appeals, the rules regarding a quorum, Robert's rules of order, the Board's bylaws, the open meeting law, and the annual calendar. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:43 pm. David Perich, Chair Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant