The URL can be used to link to this page

bza-agenda-aug-23-22 REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Board of Zoning Appeals meetings are being conducted in a hybrid format with in‐person and remote options for attending, participating, and commenting. The public can make statements in person at this meeting during the public comment sections. Remote Attendance/Comment Options: Members of the public may attend this meeting by streaming via Webex, or by calling 1‐415‐655‐0001 and entering access code 2453 822 1478. Members of the public wishing to address the Board remotely have two options: • Via web stream ‐ Stream via Webex and use the ‘raise hand’ feature during public comment. • Via phone ‐ Call 1‐415‐655‐0001 and enter meeting code 2453 822 1478. Press *3 to raise your hand during public comment sections. 1. Call to Order & Land Acknowledgement 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Approval of Minutes July 26, 2022, Regular Meeting 4. Address: 8020 Wynwood Road Applicant: Aaron Johnson Request: To waive the building envelope requirements from the side yard setback for a portion of the new structure for the construction of a home addition § 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (e)(1)(c)(1) Principal Structure Side Setback 5. Address: 6800 Kingston Circle Applicant: Matthew Sanders Request: A variance of 7 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 28 from the north property line and a proposed three‐season deck § 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (e)(1)(a) Principal Structure Front Setback 6. Address: 234 Ski Hill Road Applicant: Aleksey Derevyanko Request: A variance of 3 feet over maximum height of 28 feet for a total height of 31 feet for the construction of a new home. § 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (e)(2) Principal Structure Height Restrictions 7. Adjournment August 23, 2022 – 7 pm Hybrid Meeting REGULAR MEETING MINUTES This meeting was conducted in a hybrid format with in‐person and remote options for attending, participating, and commenting. The City used Webex to conduct this meeting and members of the public were able to monitor the meeting and provide comment by calling in. Call To Order The meeting was called to order at 7 pm and the land acknowledgement was read by Chair Carlson. Roll Call Members present: Chris Carlson, Nancy Nelson, Richard Orenstein, Lauren Pockl – Planning Commissioner Members absent: Kade Arms‐Regenold Staff present: Max Gort – Planning Intern, Jason Zimmerman – Planning Manager Approval of Agenda MOTION made by Nelson, seconded by Orenstein to approve the agenda of July 26, 2022, as submitted. Motion carried Approval of Minutes MOTION made by Nelson, seconded by Orenstein to approve the June 28, 2022 meeting minutes. Motion carried with Commissioner Pockl abstaining. 1. Address: 30 Western Terr Applicant: Josh Bitz, Bitz Exteriors Request: 9.8 feet off the required 15 feet for a side yard setback to a distance of 5.2 feet for the construction of a deck. § 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (e)(1)(c)(1) Principal Structure Side Setback Max Gort, Planning Intern, reviewed the request, the property, lot regulations for a corner lot. While the home is set in a way that meets setback requirements, a current deck is 2 feet off the property line. Proposed re‐construction with a rectangular deck aligned with the wall off the house, gives owners more surface area while reducing encroachment to 5.2 ft. Practical Difficulties  The new deck is proposed in a location that has had a deck of comparable size for over twenty years, and which reduces the degree of encroachment on the side setback. The area in question functions as the lot’s rear/backyard and the deck would be used for outdoor living/recreation. Staff finds this request reasonable. July 26, 2022 – 7 pm City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting July 26, 2022 – 7 pm 2  As the current homeowner purchased the home in 2020, neither the home’s layout on the lot or the existing deck were created by them. The home being built so close to the side property line, and the side loading garage, reduce the amount of yard space to be used for outdoor living and where a deck could be located in the first place. Staff believes the site exhibits unique circumstances.  The deck is located in a similar area to the existing deck, which has been in place for a number of years. The new proposal also pushes the structure further off the shared property line to minimize impact on adjacent resident. 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:  A patio could be located in this area without a variance but would not be level with the main floor of the home and require steps, which may require a variance, lesser, of its own.  The deck width could be further reduced to minimize the setback encroachment Recommendations  Based on the factors above, staff recommends approval of a variance of 9.8 feet off the required 15 feet for a new deck on the west side property line, to a total distance of 5.2 feet. Chair Carlson invited the applicant to speak. Applicant reiterated many things staff said and thanked Board for their consideration. Chair Carlson opened the open forum and invited in person commenters. Mary and Tom Ruff 36 Western Terrace Neighbors of the proposed variance and spoke in support of it. There were no callers. Chair Carlson closed the open forum. Chair Carlson opened the Board Discussion. Members discussed the application and reviewed staff findings. Members agreed that the request met the necessary findings. A MOTION was made by Nelson and seconded by Commissioner Pockl to approve the request for 9.8 feet off the required 15 feet for a side yard setback to a distance of 5.2 feet for the construction of a deck. Motion carried. City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting July 26, 2022 – 7 pm 3 2. Address: 8020 Wynwood Road Applicant: Aaron Johnson Request: To waive the building envelope requirements from the side yard setback for a portion of the new structure for the construction of a home addition § 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (e)(1)(c)(1) Principal Structure Side Setback Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, reviewed the request, location of the lot in Golden Valley, and gave a background on the property. Practical Difficulties  As proposed, the addition would add a master suite and a family room to the east end of the existing home. Due to the time period in which the home was constructed, a larger, more modern, living space is a reasonable request. The design of the addition, though, does not take in to account the site conditions that create the building envelope. Staff believes a smaller or reconfigured design is possible, and therefore does not believe the proposal is reasonable in its current form.  The design of the current home, which has the garage and basement constructed at a lower level than the main floor, was not caused by the current owner but constructed decades ago. At the same time, homes that sit on lots with a sloping grade and include a tuck‐under garage are not uncommon in the city and many properties are constrained by the average height calculation. Adjustments to the desired design are often needed. Staff does not believe the issue being debated is due to a unique circumstance.  As proposed, the addition would not be excessively tall and would not be out of line with the rest of the neighborhood. While a majority of the homes along Wynwood are single‐story, there are also a handful that have second stories. However, the height of the addition directly on the setback line could have impacts on the adjacent property and home. Therefore, staff believes granting the variance would alter the essential character. Other Considerations  Lowering the height of the addition to match that of the existing roofline, possibly by removing the row of windows near the peak, could reduce or remove the needed variance for the addition. Alternatively, the width of the addition could be reduced to move it further from the side setback line. Recommendation  Based on the factors above, staff recommends denial of a variance to waive the building envelope requirements from the side yard setback for a portion of the new structure. Members and staff clarified the building envelope and how much of the structure would be outside of it. City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting July 26, 2022 – 7 pm 4 Chair Carlson invited the applicant to speak. Greg Kunze, builder, spoke on behalf of the applicant and indicated the way height is measured for a lot with a partial walkout made it difficult to construct the addition and stay under the envelope. He added that he had to go to the setback line to get the layout the homeowners wanted and the lot slopes up to the back yard thus requiring a higher pitched roof. Staff inquired about removal of ribbon windows to reduce height. The applicant responded that aside from the homeowners wanting natural light, but not skylights, that removal of the windows would only reduce height by 8 inches. Aaron Johnson, homeowner, added that the surrounding cities would approve this variance and thus it should be so in Golden Valley. He stated the added space is to accommodate his family and their neighbors are in favor of the variance. Chair Carlson opened the open forum. There were no in person commenters. There were no callers. Chair Carlson closed the open forum. Chair Carlson opened the Board Discussion. Members discussed the size of the addition and that it was out of scale with the existing home. They discussed potentially accepting a reduced variance and it was recommended to table the item and allow the applicant to return with an amended plan. The applicant responded that the request was unfair but acquiesced. A MOTION was made by Nelson and seconded by Orenstein to table the item to the August 2022 BZA meeting. Motion carried 3. Adjournment MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Commissioner Pockl and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 pm. Motion carried. ________________________________ Chris Carlson, Chair _________________________________ Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant Date: August 23, 2022 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Myles Campbell, Planner Subject: 8020 Wynnwood Road Aaron Johnson, Applicant Introduction Aaron Johnson, the property owner, is seeking a variance from the City Code in order to add an addition on to the existing home. The applicant is seeking the following variances from City Code: Variance Request City Code Requirement The applicant is requesting a variance to waive the building envelope requirements from the side yard setback for a portion of the new structure. § 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (e)(1)(c)(2) Principal Structure Side Setback In the case of lots having a width of 100 feet or greater, the side setbacks for any portion of a structure 15 feet or less in height shall be 15 feet. The side setbacks for any portion of a structure greater than 15 feet in height shall be measured to an inwardly sloping plane at a ratio of 2:1 beginning at a point 15 feet directly above the side setback line. This item was heard at the July 25 meeting and tabled to allow the applicant to revise the proposal which would lessen the amount of the variance being requested. 2 Background 8020 Wynnwood Rd is the current address for a single‐family home built in 1964. The lot is 12,737 sq. ft. and is of a regular shape and faces Wynnwood Rd to the south. The home itself is two‐stories, with a tuck under garage and walkout basement facing towards the street. The applicant plans to add to the home – a new two‐story addition to the east of what is existing. The basement of the new addition would remain mostly unfinished with the main level including a new family room and bedroom suite. The addition would be roughly 8 feet taller than the existing structure but still under the maximum height restrictions for R‐1 zoning, and matching the roof orientation from the existing home. While the addition’s footprint would be built outside of the east side setback, the addition’s height would require a waiver of the building envelope requirements in order to be permitted under code. Summary of Requests The applicant is requesting a variance from the side yard setback requirements for principal structures – Chapter 113‐88 of zoning code handles the single‐family (R‐1) zoning district. Under Subsec. (e)(1)(c)(2) the requirements for side setbacks for lots over 100 feet in width are laid out. For any portion of the principal structure (here including attached decks) under 15 feet in height, as measured from average grade, the setback from a side property line shall be 15 feet. For those portions above the 15 feet limit, they must be stepped back from the setback line, at a ratio of 1 foot inwards off the setback for 2 feet of additional height. For this home, the exposed basement level on the front of the home drops the average grade which is used to calculate all building height requirements. Rather than being 15 feet above the main floor level, it is based on the average grade which is set roughly 2 feet below the main floor. Because of the difference in average grade compared to the grade along the east side of the proposed addition, and the fact that the structure would be built right up to the side setback line, a portion of the addition would extend outside of the building envelope. This is what triggers the need for a variance. The applicant notes in his application that if the height of the structure were measured from the grade along the side of the home, then the building envelope would not be a problem. However, that is not how the City establishes the building envelope. In the diagrams below, the average grade is shown as the pink dashed line. The hatched blue area is what is projected to be outside the building envelope. 3 South elevation East elevation It should be noted that the home adjacent to this property to the east sits approximately 15 feet from the property (at the minimum side setback). If this addition is constructed as proposed, the distance between the two structures would be the minimum allowed under the zoning code (30 feet) given the lot widths. 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 4 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, as it does not impact or change the principal use of the lot as a single‐family residence, nor does it allow for additional density of population. Staff also finds the request reasonable in light of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which has as one of its goals to “support the rehabilitation and reinvestment of the housing stock as structures continue to age.” In order to constitute practical difficulties: 1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner. As proposed, the addition would add a master suite and a family room to the east end of the existing home. Due to the time period in which the home was constructed, a larger, more modern, living space is a reasonable request. The revised design of the addition attempts to incorporate the site conditions and has minimized the area that falls outside of the building envelope. Therefore, staff believes the proposal is reasonable in its revised form. 2. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that is not caused by the landowner. The design of the current home, which has the garage and basement constructed at a lower level than the main floor, was not caused by the current owner but constructed decades ago. While there are many homes that sit on lots with a sloping grade and include a tuck‐under garage, which creates constraints through the average height calculation, this lot also slopes from front to back. Staff believes the compounded site conditions impacting the plans for the desired addition create circumstances that are unique. 3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. As proposed, the addition would not be excessively tall and would not be out of line with the rest of the neighborhood. While a majority of the homes along Wynwood are single‐story, there are also a handful that have second stories. In addition, the increased distance from the side setback line and therefore from the adjacent property and home help minimize any impacts. Staff believes granting the variance would not alter the essential character. 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.  Lowering the height of the addition to match that of the existing roofline, possibly by removing the row of windows near the peak, could reduce further the need for the variance. The applicant has already adjusted the plans by reducing the width of the addition and pushing it further form the side setback line. 5 Recommendations Staff recommends approval of a variance to waive the building envelope requirements from the side yard setback for a portion of the new structure, with the following condition: 1. The approved plans shall be those submitted with the variance application and any significant deviation from these plans would require a new application with the Board of Zoning Appeals. Points of Consideration for “Practical Difficulty” Test Met Not Met Property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner X Problem due to circumstances unique to the property and not caused by the landowner X If granted, would not alter the essential character of the locality X Are other reasonable options available? The width has already been reduced to address the amount of the variance being requested. Date: August 23, 2022 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Myles Campbell, Planner Subject: 6800 Kingston Circle Mark Kleinbaum, Applicant Introduction Mark Kleinbaum, the property owner, is seeking a variance from the City Code to build a new three‐ season porch. The applicant is seeking the following variances from City Code: Variance Request City Code Requirement The applicant is requesting a variance of 7 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 28 from the north property line and a proposed three‐ season deck § 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (e)(1)(a) Principal Structure Front Setback The required minimum front setback shall be 35 feet from any front lot line along a street right‐of‐way line. Decks and open front porches, with no screens, may be built to within 30 feet of a front lot line along a street right‐of‐way line. Background 6800 Kingston is the current address for a single‐family home built in 1969. The lot is 13,746 sq. ft. and faces three public streets: Kingston Circle to the south, Idaho Ave N to the east, and a frontage road for Highway 55 to the north. Because of this the home is considered to have a front yard on all three sides, leaving only the west side to be considered side yard. The home itself, is compliant with the stricter 35’ setbacks for front yards on all sides. The lot itself is an irregular shape, and on the north side has an uneven jog in the property line, with lot being deeper towards Idaho Ave, and shallower in depth towards the neighbor to the west. 2 The applicant plans to add a three‐season porch to the property off the north side of the home, towards the frontage road and in what acts functionally as a backyard for the homeowners. At its closest point to the property line, the new porch would be 28 feet to the north property line. For a typical rear yard this would be compliant, but given the frontage road, it is short of the setback required in a front yard. Summary of Requests The applicant is requesting a variance from the front yard setback requirements for principal structures – Chapter 113‐88 of zoning code handles the single‐family (R‐1) zoning district. Under Subsec. (e)(1)(a) a 35’ front yard setback is required for any part of a principal structure, or 30’ for an open front porch or stoop. For this project, the homeowner Is hoping to add a 16’ by 12’10” screened in porch. As shown in the diagram to the left, the porch would be off the north side of the home, off of the kitchen and first floor. The deck would be inset 8 feet from the Northwest corner of the home, putting it 23’ off the side property line shared with the neighbor. The deck is 28’ off the closer portion of the north property line, and would be over 35’ off from the property line as it jogs further out to the frontage road. The porch would be roofed and enclosed for multi‐season usage, and is sized to provide space for a small dining area and additional seating, as shown in the image to the right. Access in to the home and out into the backyard would be provided. The finish and design is meant to match with the existing home as much as possible, in order to appear cohesive with the principal structure. 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. 3 Staff finds that the variance is generally in line with both the purpose of the Zoning Code and the R‐ 1 chapter, as it does not impact or change the principal use of the lot as a single‐family residence, nor does it allow for additional density of population. Staff also finds the request reasonable in light of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which has as one of its goals to “support the rehabilitation and reinvestment of the housing stock as structures continue to age.” In order to constitute practical difficulties: 1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner. The new deck is proposed in a location that minimizes visual impact from the street and from adjacent residential properties. It is not oversized for its use and would add to the functional backyard of the lot. Staff finds this request reasonable. 2. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that is not caused by the landowner. The lot facing public right‐of‐way on three sides is very unique for residential properties in the city, and adding to this the variable property line along the north side creates issues with meeting a strict 35’ setback. Staff believes the site exhibits unique circumstances. 3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality The deck is located in a similar area to the existing patio, and would likely only be visible from one street, Idaho Ave N, from which it would be very far setback. The new deck also leaves additional space between the west side property line too, to mitigate impacts on the neighbor. Additionally, the finish of the addition would match with the home exterior. 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.  A patio could be located in this area without a variance, but would not be protected from weather or elements, which is a principal desire of the resident.  The deck depth could be further reduced to minimize the setback encroachment; however, the floorplan is already conservatively sized and this would likely mean removing either the dining area or seating. Recommendations Staff recommends approval of a variance of 7 feet off the required 35 feet for a new porch on the north property line, to a total distance of 28 feet. 4 Points of Consideration for “Practical Difficulty” Test Met Not Met Property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner X Problem due to circumstances unique to the property and not caused by the landowner X If granted, would not alter the essential character of the locality X Are other reasonable options available? Yes, a patio could be constructed in place of the deck or the depth of the deck further reduced. Zoning Code Variance Application Page 1 of 3 Street address of property in this application: Applicant Information Name (individual, or corporate entity) Street address Zip Phone Email Authorized Representative (if other than applicant) Name Street address Zip Phone Email Property Owner (if other than applicant) Name Street address Zip Phone Email Site Information Provide a detailed description of the variance(s) being requested: Provide a detailed description of need for a variance from the Zoning Code, including description of building(s), description of proposed addition(s), and description of proposed alteration(s) to property: 5/1/20 continued Physical Development-Planning Department | 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 763-593-8055 | FAX: 763-593-8109 | TTY: 763-593-3968 | www.goldenvalleymn.gov 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 The City requests that you consider all available project options permitted by the Zoning Code before requesting a variance. The Board of Zoning Appeals will discuss alternative options to seeking a variance with you at the public hearing. Please describe alternate ways to do your project that do not require variances from the Zoning Code. Required Attachments ☐ ☐ Current survey of your property, including proposed addition and new proposed building and structure setbacks (a copy of Golden Valley’s survey requirements is available upon request; application is considered incomplete without a current property survey) ☐ ☐ One current color photograph of the area affected by the proposed variance (attach a printed photograph to this application or email a digital image to planning@goldenvalleymn.gov; submit additional photographs as needed) ☐ ☐ Application fee: $200 for Single-Family Residential, $300 for all other Zoning Districts ☐ ☐ Legal description: Exact legal description of the land involved in this application (attach a separate sheet if necessary) Signatures To the best of my knowledge, the statements found in this application are true and correct. I also understand that unless con-struction of the action applicable to this variance request, if granted, is not taken within one year, the variance expires. I have considered all options afforded to me through the City’s Zoning Code and feel there is no alternate way to achieve my objective except to seek a variance to zoning rules and regulations. I give permission for Golden Valley staff, as well as members of the Board of Zoning Appeals, to enter my property before the public hearing to inspect the area affected by this request. Applicant Name (please print): __________________________________________________ Signature: X________________________________________________________ Date: ______________ Authorized Representative (if other than applicant) Name (please print): __________________________________________________ Signature: X________________________________________________________ Date: ______________ Property Owner (if other than applicant) Name (please print): __________________________________________________ Signature: X________________________________________________________ Date: ______________ Please note: The City of Golden Valley will send notice of your variance request to all adjoining property owners as well as owners of proper-ties directly across streets or alleys. Your neighbors have the right to address the Board of Zoning Appeals at your public hearing. You are advised to personally contact your neighbors and explain your project to them before the public hearing. Zoning Code Variance Page 3 of 3 This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call 763-593-8006 (TTY: 763-593-3968) to make a request. Examples of alternate formats may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc. R cCo- c T. E aE a tt l 4m meroac dtJ' c° 4ivt t aarcet OC t'E I C.a s o oa a r.-r«., a eM.ss4t7 31. ii. Main St.•Hufcki a Minn•5SiS6 ui w b; /Vo,e M-4,/ L/ti//'L S'N T=' 1 Y S g¢.__ 3'T S Q: //, 334(s 0 1 l ne 5or W S 3o.i9 - j9n 1 r _ ,y t2•5 a v fi.' g y z 7 aowsE M/s gu ti N rq 30•11 0 w Zzr3 3so t 30• o ` q M pA ,.•• ti y o ,G rrof s /ror7 (lJoncrrrlenf ;. m 2 80.0 G, G' oN 1r r p 5 f I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey o the boundaries of: Lo t 1, B loc k 2, WI IDSOR WOODS And of the bcation of a11 buildings, if any, thereon and all vis- ible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. As surveyed by me this 18th day of June, 19v9. 94-7 evise' 2//?o To Show i-a;r...•»--- a 8w lf r'-o rse I.and Surveyor,Minn. Req. No. 7979 ALUM GUTTER & DOWNSPOUTFRAMED SCREENBLACK WIRECOMPOSITE BOARDFLOOR FRAMING14"diaX48"deepCONCRETE PIERW/ 27" BELLIMBEDDED POST ANCHORSDEMO PART OF CONCRETE PADTREX DECKINGSUPPORT POST W/ FASCIACEILING FANPORCH SECTION1/2"=1'-0"DOOR TO PORCHASPHALT SHINGLES TO MATCH EXISTING HOUSERIDGE VENTSOFFIT VENTFINISH WALL BEYOND TO MATCH EXISTINGCOMPOSITE BOARDGRAVEL BASE W/WEED TRAP UNDERLAYMENTGUTTER & DOWNSPOUTDOUBLE GLU-LAM SUPPORT BEAM2X6 RAFTER04COMMENT 2 (REF #4)COMMENT 1 (REF #3)LUMBER SUPPLIER TO PROVIDE BEAM SIZE - SEE ATTACHED Variance Application Text for 6800 Kingston Circle Q: Provide a detailed description of the variance(s) being requested: We are planning to build a 13’x16’ screen-in porch in our backyard. The address is 6800 Kingston Circle, which is on the corner of Kingston Circle, Idaho Avenue N and Olsen Hwy Service Road. The north side of the backyard is enclosed by a 6' high neighborhood wall along Olsen Hwy Service Road. On the northeast corner is a neighbor sign in which we maintain. The northwest corner is open to neighbors’ yard with large pine trees. In the design of the screen-in porch, there did not seem to be a zoning issue with adding a screen porch to the rear property. There is sufficient space in the backyard and approximately 40’ from the back of the porch to the neighborhood wall. In the permitting review of the project with the building department and city planner, it was discovered the setback was not a typical 25’ (rear lot). Olsen Hwy Service Road is on the other side of the 6’ neighborhood wall, which makes the backyard a front lot 35’ setback requirement. In addition to the 3 front lot requirement, there is a jog in the property line, which we were not aware of during the design of the porch. See Figure 1.0. In Figure 2.0, the encroachment is identified in the northwest corner. If this was a typical rear yard setback of 25’, the screen porch would meet the required setback with this jog in the property line.Figure 3.0 is a collection of pictures of the backyard.Image 1 shows the backyard and proposed location. It is important to note that the proposed screen-in porch addition cannot be seen from Olsen Hwy Service Road (Image 2). This variance application is asking for relief from the 35’ setback at the northwest corner of the backyard to allow us to build a screen-in porch as currently designed. It meets the rear yard setback of 25’ but does not meet the 35’ setback with the jog in the lot line. A portion of the screen-in porch overlaps the setback. We feel the project is trying to meet the intent of zoning and in character with the property. Q: Provide a detailed description of need for a variance from the Zoning Code, including description of building(s), description of proposed addition(s), and description of proposed alteration(s) to property: 6800 Kingston Circle is on the corner of Kingston Circle, Idaho Avenue N and Olsen Hwy Service Road. The two-story house was built in 1960’s and has been well maintained over the years. During the permitting process, it was determined the proposed 13’x16’ screen-in porch violated the setback requirement. It encroached on the northwest corner of the lot line that jogs. Currently, the jog is part of the backyard space we maintain and use daily. In reviewing the Golden Valley, Code of Ordinances, Chapter 113 – 1, 55, it was determined the jog in the property line did not allow for the 35’ setback required.See Figure 1.0. If it was classified as a rear lot (which it serves in reality), it would not need a variance. The screen-in porch is a one-story structure built out of cedar, stained to match the house. The structure is treated lumber with engineered roof beam sitting on 5 concrete piers. There is a door directly to the house and a door to the existing concrete patio that will remain. The screen-in porch has a roof, gutters and downspouts to drain water away from the house. There will be screening under the deck board and custom screens to enclose the sides.See Figure 5.0 & 6.0. There will be no alterations to the property except the removal of a small garden and planter bed adjacent to the existing patio, where the screen-in porch will be placed. Rock for drainage will be placed under the screen-in porch. Q: Explain the need for your variance request and how it will result in a reasonable use of the property. Adding an exterior bug free space will add great value for my family. It is a beautiful yard with mature trees (no trees are being removed). It will add value to the home and a needed outdoor space for our small children to play bug free. We will continue to use the backyard as a place for the kids to play within the yard.See Figure 4.0. The proposed screen-in porch does not pinch the greenspace in the backyard. A small garden and planter bed adjacent to the existing patio will be removed. In the yard, a person would never be able to tell the property is constricted by the jog in the lot line. It is part of our yard and we use it as part of our backyard experience. Q: What is unique about your property and how do you feel that it necessitates a variance? As described above, the jog in the property line limits the setback in the northwest corner of the backyard. Reducing the screen-in porch depth would make it unusable and not practical to build. The existing patio location, access door to house and kitchen window establishes the location of the screen- in porch.See Figure 4.0. The 3 front lot situation adds additional setback requirements which is unique to this property. The neighborhood wall encloses the backyard form the street, which makes it feel like a backyard (rear lot), The entire screen-in porch will not be visible from other side of the wall along Olsen Hwy Service Road. If it was classified as a rear yard, there would not be a need for a variance. This is not a large project and a common element for homes in Golden Valley. We think this is a justified use and reasonable to ask for a relief from the 35’ setback requirement. Q: Explain how the need for a variance is based on circumstances that are not a result of a landowner action. The 3 front lot situation adds additional setback requirements which is unique to this property. The jog in the property creates an odd condition and limits the setback depth. If the setback dimension could be extended to the neighborhood wall, there would not be a need for a variance. There is ample room in the backyard for this screen-in porch without effecting the neighborhood or adding something odd to the property. When complete, the screen-in porch will seem like it was part of the original home. The intent was to simple build a screen-in porch like many others in Golden Valley. The 3 front lot requirement and jog in the property line (although part of our yard space) is unique to this property. Q: Explain how, if granted, the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of your neighborhood and Golden Valley as a whole. In the yard, a person would never be able to tell the property is constricted by the jog in the property as described above. There is ample room in the backyard for this screen-in porch without effecting the neighbor or adding something unique to the property. The screen-in porch would still fit within the 35’ setback but there is a jog in the property line. The screen-in porch is setback from the western edge of the existing house in order to create more space from the neighbor’s house. The materials and aesthetics of the porch will blend in with the existing Tutor Style. Aesthetically, the screen-in porch is designed to match the dark trim and stucco of the existing house. The roof pitch matches the existing house.See Figure 5.0 & 6.0. The addition is not visible from Olsen Hwy Service Road. Q: The City requests that you consider all available project options permitted by the Zoning Code before requesting a variance. The Board of Zoning Appeals will discuss alternative options to seeking a variance with you at the public hearing. Please describe alternate ways to do your project that do not require variances from the Zoning Code. If a variance is not granted, the project will not proceed. Based on how the first floor of the house functions, there is not another location for the screen-in porch. Our architect studied several options and we landed on this plan. Please consider our request for this variance, we feel it meets the intent of the Golden Valley, Code of Ordinances, Chapter 113. Thank you! Mark Kleinbaum Date: August 23, 2022 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Subject: 234 Ski Hill Road Aleksey Derevyanko, Applicant Introduction Aleksey Derevyanko, representing the property owners, is seeking a variance from the City Code in order to construct a new home. The applicant is seeking the following: Variance Request City Code Requirement The applicant is requesting a variance of 3 feet over the maximum height of 28 feet to a total height of 31 feet for the construction of a new home. § 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (e)(2) Principal Structure Height Restrictions No principal structure shall be erected in the R‐1 Zoning District with a building height exceeding 28 feet as measured from the average grade at the front building line. Background 234 Ski Hill Road was created in 2015 – along with 238 and 242 Ski Hill Road – when a large home was demolished at this location. The vacant lot is 20,731 sq. ft. in size and fronts onto Ski Hill Road as well as Paisley Park. The topography of the site rises from the south and east to a high point midway along the northwest property line. The lot has a handful of mature trees; 12 of them would be retained when the new home is constructed. A new home with a tuck‐under garage is proposed with access onto Ski Hill Road. The home would be two full stories above the garage and would have three patios distributed around the structure. Elevations show a mixture of flat and pitched roofs. Initial plans reviewed by staff contained violations of zoning regulations with respect to the building envelope (both north and south side yards) as well as the overall height. The plans were revised, 2 removing the building envelope violations, but still require a variance from the maximum height allowed. Summary of Requests The applicant is requesting a variance from the maximum height allowed for principal structures. Under Subd. (e)(2) of Section 113‐88, height is limited to 28 feet above average grade, as measured to the midpoint of the highest pitched roof. Average grade is determined by examining where the foundation along the front building line intersects the existing elevations. Typically, three points are averaged to establish the starting point for measurement. In this case, staff calculated the front elevation as (897 + 895 + 893) / 3 = 895 [see diagram below]. With an average grade of 895, the maximum height that would be allowed would be an elevation of 923. The midpoint of the proposed pitched roof is at 926. The applicant points to the shape of the lot, which is approximately 77 feet wide along Ski Hill Road but widens, the topography, and the desire to minimize the footprint of the home as the driving forces behind the decision to utilize a tuck‐under garage. In addition, the sloped roof is intended to help shed leaves and other debris from the nearby trees that are being preserved. The elevations below show the height of the average grade (light blue), the 28 foot maximum height (dark blue), and the proposed 31 foot height of the home (green). 3 Front elevation Side elevation Even without the pitched roof, the tallest part of the parapet on the lower flat roof extends a short distance above the maximum height of 28 feet. 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, as it does not impact or change the principal use of the lot as a single‐family residence, nor does it allow for 4 additional density of population. Staff also finds the request reasonable in light of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which seeks to utilize vacant lots for new housing. In order to constitute practical difficulties: 1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner. As proposed, the new home would fill a lot that has been vacant since it was created in 2015. The property is zoned for single‐family use. In Minnesota, a pitched roof is better suited to handle snow in contrast to a flat roof. Therefore, staff believes the proposed use is reasonable. 2. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that are not caused by the landowner. The applicant points to a high water table and the topography of the lot as unique circumstances that create the need for the variance. While there are certain challenges associated with the location, there are a number of alternatives designs that would meet the City’s zoning requirements, even if they were not preferred by the new homeowners. Absent extreme conditions, a vacant lot should be able to be utilized in a conforming fashion. Therefore, staff believes that the current problem is caused by the preferences of the landowner. 3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. Adjacent to two other new homes, the design of the proposed structure would fit nicely and complement the existing character of the neighborhood. The sloped roofline is located to the back of the home and would be fairly unobtrusive even if built to the proposed height. Staff believes granting the variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. 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.  The initial plans submitted to the City were revised once already in order to avoid violations of the building envelope as well as to reduce the overall height of the structure. Converting the remaining pitched roof to a flat roof would further reduce the proposed height, though it does not appear it would remove the need for a variance. A lower flat roof also exceeds the maximum height of 28 feet by a foot or less. Recommendations Staff recommends denial of the variance request of 3 feet over the maximum height of 28 feet to a total height of 31 feet for the construction of a new home. 5 Points of Consideration for “Practical Difficulty” Test Met Not Met Property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner X Problem due to circumstances unique to the property and not caused by the landowner X If granted, would not alter the essential character of the locality X Are other reasonable options available? While the pitched roof could be converted to a flat roof, it would still exceed the maximum height allowed (albeit to a lesser degree). Zoning Code Variance Application Page 1 of 3 Street address of property in this application: Applicant Information Name (individual, or corporate entity) Street address Zip Phone Email Authorized Representative (if other than applicant) Name Street address Zip Phone Email Property Owner (if other than applicant) Name Street address Zip Phone Email Site Information Provide a detailed description of the variance(s) being requested: Provide a detailed description of need for a variance from the Zoning Code, including description of building(s), description of proposed addition(s), and description of proposed alteration(s) to property: 5/1/20 continued Physical Development-Planning Department | 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 763-593-8055 | FAX: 763-593-8109 | TTY: 763-593-3968 | www.goldenvalleymn.gov 234 Ski Hill Rd Amburg Inc 5113 W 58th St 55436 952 457 5394 aleksey@homesbyamana.com Aleksey Derevyanko 5113 W 58th St, Edina 55436 952 457 5394 aleksey@homesbyamana.com Munir and Izza Abid 3297 Samuel Ct, Vadnais Heights 55127 651 285 1179 mabidmd@gmail.com Current zoning code for R1 district limits primary structures height at 28ft measured from the average grade. Due to irregular shape and high elevation changes of the lot, the 28ft building height really limits a 2 story house plan even with ﬂat roof design without traditional tall roof peaks. We are requesting a variance for an additional 3ft of building height. This will put us at 31ft height at midway point of the sloped roof in the back of the house - which is a small portion of the home. We recently applied for a permit for a new construction home on this lot. The lot is situated between a modern style home to the North and Paisley Park to the South. Our proposed home will be of modern design using mostly low proﬁle ﬂat roofs that meet the zoning height code. The design of the home utilizes a sloped style roof over a small portion of the house in the back in order to avoid trapping of leafs/debris from the near by trees that are being preserved in the back of the property. 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 Approved variance will preserve the most amount of the trees on the lot and allow the house to be built on the most functional part of the lot in relationship to the street, rain garden, neighboring home and existing landscape. The house will have an efﬁcient layout for street access as well as a functional driveway with a hidden garage/parking. By placing the house at the lower elevation we would also achieve a much better ﬁt of the home on the lot as the house will be much more blend in into the topography instead of being built higher up the hill in order to gain extra feet towards “average grade”. The property is very unique due to its irregular shape (narrow in the front and widened in the middle), drastic elevation changes (no obvious ﬂat part to build), and proximity to a rain garden. The amount of existing trees that make this lot special are also a big factor since the house was designed to minimize tree extraction and to preserve most of them – especially the 100 year old species that the neighbor particularly asked to save. The need for a variance is based on the existing conditions of the lot and not a result of a landowner action. Placement of the home was dictated partially by the location of the existing trees as well as the site of most ﬂat part of the lot. Incorporating garage into the basement was again due to the elevation in order to keep a functional driveway together with a proper access to the public street. Tuck under garage also allowed a smaller house footprint and therefore less alteration to the existing landscape. The nearby rain garden / water table prohibited us to set the basement lower in order to bring the height down. The property is relatively secluded with only one direct neighbor to the North. It has a park to the South. The property is fairly wooded and sheltered from the neighbor to the NE / E. The style of home will perfectly ﬁt the neighborhood with the direct neighbor being the same style of architecture - a modern home. Since the house is built into the hill, surrounded by lots of trees that we intend to preserve - it will beautifully ﬁt into current landscape and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The small portion of roof that the variance is being applied for is in the back of the home and is not as focal of a point as front gables on traditional homes. The City requests that you consider all available project options permitted by the Zoning Code before requesting a variance. The Board of Zoning Appeals will discuss alternative options to seeking a variance with you at the public hearing. Please describe alternate ways to do your project that do not require variances from the Zoning Code. Required Attachments ☐ ☐ Current survey of your property, including proposed addition and new proposed building and structure setbacks (a copy of Golden Valley’s survey requirements is available upon request; application is considered incomplete without a current property survey) ☐ ☐ One current color photograph of the area affected by the proposed variance (attach a printed photograph to this application or email a digital image to planning@goldenvalleymn.gov; submit additional photographs as needed) ☐ ☐ Application fee: $200 for Single-Family Residential, $300 for all other Zoning Districts ☐ ☐ Legal description: Exact legal description of the land involved in this application (attach a separate sheet if necessary) Signatures To the best of my knowledge, the statements found in this application are true and correct. I also understand that unless con-struction of the action applicable to this variance request, if granted, is not taken within one year, the variance expires. I have considered all options afforded to me through the City’s Zoning Code and feel there is no alternate way to achieve my objective except to seek a variance to zoning rules and regulations. I give permission for Golden Valley staff, as well as members of the Board of Zoning Appeals, to enter my property before the public hearing to inspect the area affected by this request. Applicant Name (please print): __________________________________________________ Signature: X________________________________________________________ Date: ______________ Authorized Representative (if other than applicant) Name (please print): __________________________________________________ Signature: X________________________________________________________ Date: ______________ Property Owner (if other than applicant) Name (please print): __________________________________________________ Signature: X________________________________________________________ Date: ______________ Please note: The City of Golden Valley will send notice of your variance request to all adjoining property owners as well as owners of proper-ties directly across streets or alleys. Your neighbors have the right to address the Board of Zoning Appeals at your public hearing. You are advised to personally contact your neighbors and explain your project to them before the public hearing. Zoning Code Variance Page 3 of 3 This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call 763-593-8006 (TTY: 763-593-3968) to make a request. Examples of alternate formats may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc. Due to the uniqueness of the lot – irregular shape, elevated topography, existing trees locations – we believe that there are no other alternatives to build the project without a minor variance. We did revise the plan before submitting the application to reduce the height as much as possible and brought down the height of the home from roughly 34ft to 31ft. Aleksey Derevyanko 8/3/2022 DescriptionID A0.2 Printed: 8/4/2022qbic-ftABID RESIDENCE234 SKI HILL ROADGOLDEN VALLEY , MN 55422SIte No. Sheet Name studiowww.qbic-ft.comdesign by952.210.5827phone:build by36" OAK 31" OAK 36" OAK 12" MAPLE 10" CATULPA30" OAK 12" MAPLE 8" CATULPA12" LOCUST12 " ELM 14" ELM 14" ELM DRIVE WAY PATIO ABOVEFRONTENTRY PATIO BACKYA R D PATIO 891.00'891.50'HOUSE F O OTP RI NT RAIN GARDEN S K I H I L L R O A D N SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"1 Siteplan New Coverage = 28.37% DescriptionID A1.1 Printed: 8/4/2022qbic-ftABID RESIDENCE234 SKI HILL ROADGOLDEN VALLEY , MN 55422Lower Level Floor Plan No. Sheet Name studiowww.qbic-ft.comdesign by952.210.5827phone:build by1 2 3 4 5 6 UP18 RISERSALIGNALIGN FFFFFFFF FF CLCLCL FFASH1 GLS1 ASH1 SOD1 SOD1 SDD1 SDD1SDD1 SDD1 KRG1 KRG1 KRG1 KRG1 KRG1 KRG1 KRG1 KRG1 KRG1 SUMP PUMP SUMP PUMP SUMP PUMP SUMP PUMP B B C C D D F E G G I I 1 1 3 88 2 4 5 5 66 77 H A1 A1 1 2 3 4 123UP DN5 A6.9 23'-8 7/8"7'-2"8'-5 1/8"21'-9 1/4"10'-4 1/4"8'-6"4'-7"19'-1 7/8"25'-11 1/2"9'-0 1/2"19'-0"23'-8 7/8"7'-2"8'-5 1/8"8'-6"23'-7 1/2"13'-1"7'-3 1/8"19'-1 3/4"10'-1 1/2"7'-7"9'-0 1/2"19'-0"5'-0 7/8"6'-10"6'-3"7'-7 1/8"5'-4 1/4"9'-4 5/8"3'-7 1/2"2'-0"3'-1 7/8"6'-9"6'-10 5/8"4'-3"2'-7"3'-0"9'-0"2'-0"16'-0"5'-0"23'-6 1/4"8'-3 3/4"16'-6" 1'-3" 5'-7 1/4"18'-9 1/8"4'-4" CLEAR4'-7" CLEAR 1'-1"3'-0 1/2"7'-8 1/2"7'-10 1/2"1 3/4"6'-9 5/8"10"2"6'-8"8'-6"1'-6"8'-10 1/2" 0" -6" 0" 1'-7 3/8"4'-3 1/8" 3 A6.7 5 4 A6.7 6 A6.7 (4) 18" LVL (SEE STRUCTURAL) (3) 24" LVL (SEE STRUCTURAL) 5.25" X 5.25" COLUMN (SEE STRUCTURAL) (2) 24" LVL (SEE STRUCTURAL) 5.25" X 5.25" COLUMN (SEE STRUCTURAL) RADON VENT PIPECONDITIONED CRAWL SPACE PLANTER PATIO ABOVE 5/8" GYP.BOARD TYPE "X" (WALLS & CEILING) 5/8" GYP.BOARD TYPE "X" AT THE SHAFT (WALLS & CEILING) 5/8" GYP.BOARD TYPE "X" (WALLS & CEILING) 5/8" GYP.BOARD TYPE "X" (WALLS & CEILING) CONCRETE SLAB TYPE SL4 ( SEE A5.2). 2" MIN. INTERIOR CLOSED CELL SPRAY FOAM INSULATION FOR WALLS. 3.5" MIN. INTERIOR CLOSED CELL SPRAY FOAM INSULATION AT SHEATING FLOOR (LEVEL ABOVE). (NO RETURN AIR VENT INSIDE CRAWL SPACE) MEDIA ROOM 002 MECH. ROOM 006 BATH. 007 ELEV. 008 STORAGE 004 STORAGE 011 GAME RM. 003 FITNESS RM. 005 FOYER 001 STAIR 009 MUD RM. 010 GARAGE 012 1 A2.1 1 A2.0 2 A2.0 2 A2.1 2 A3.1 2 A3.1 1 A3.1 1 A3.1 2 A3.0 2 A3.0 1 A3.0 1 A3.0 #DrgID #LayID #DrgID #LayID 3 A3.0 ALIGNSLOPE 1/4":12" SLOPE 1/4":12"SLOPE 1/4":12"SLOPE 1/4":12"SLOPE 1/4":12" S6 S6 S6 S6 S8 F4 F4 A6 A6 M10 M8 M8 M8 M10 M10L A4 M10 F2X F4X F2X M10 M8 M10 F4X F2X F2X M10 M10L M10 M10 M10 M10 M10L F2X M10 M10 M10 M10 M10 A6 M10 M12 F4X F4X F4X F4X F4X F4X F4X F4X F4X A6 F4X F4X S4 S6 F4X A6 A6 M10 F2X F2X M10 CON-1 SPF-1 CON-2 CON-2 CON-1 PROJ. FLOOR ABOVE PROJ. ROOF DRAIN INSULATION @ DRAIN (MIN 2") CON-2 001-1 007-1 GD2 GD1 010-1 010-2 011-1 005-1 004-1 A4 A4 W19 4'×4' 3'W16 6'-6"×4' 3' W19 4'×4' 3' CON-2 CON-1 CON-1 CON-1 CON-1 HSS COLUMN - 6" X 6" X 1/2" (SEE STRUCTURAL) PROJ. ROOF DRAIN (OVERFLOW) M10L (3) 14" LVL (SEE STRUCTURAL) (3) 14" LVL (SEE STRUCTURAL) 5.25" X 5.25" COLUMN (SEE STRUCTURAL) S6 (3) 14" LVL (SEE STRUCTURAL) ACCESSS TO CRAWL SPACE Square Footage Per Floor Level Lower Level Main Level Main Level Upper Level Area 1,736.86 2,951.97 4,380.37 1,997.40 11,066.60 ft² PLANTING SCHEDULE Lower Level Main Level Qty. 1 2 2 4 2231 1 3 15 15 4074105 ID GLS1 ASH1 SOD1 SDD1 KRS1 GLS1 ASH1 SDD1 SOD1 KRS1 Common Name Gro-Low Sumac Annabelle Smooth Hydrangea Simmons Overture Daylily Stella D'Oro Daylily Karl Foerster Feather Reed Grass Gro-Low Sumac Annabelle Smooth Hydrangea Stella D'Oro Daylily Simmons Overture Daylily Karl Foerster Feather Reed Grass Min. Dist. 5' O.C. 5' O.C. 2' O.C. 2' O.C. 2' O.C. 5' O.C. 5' O.C. 2' O.C. 2' O.C. 2' O.C. Size 5 Gal. 5 Gal. 1 Gal. 1 Gal. 2 Gal. 5 Gal. 5 Gal. 1 Gal. 1 Gal. 2 Gal. Cont Pot Pot Pot Pot Pot Pot Pot Pot Pot Pot N SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN DescriptionID A1.2 Printed: 8/4/2022qbic-ftABID RESIDENCE234 SKI HILL ROADGOLDEN VALLEY , MN 55422Main Level Floor Plan No. Sheet Name studiowww.qbic-ft.comdesign by952.210.5827phone:build by1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9101112131415161718UP18 RISERS1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UP12UP DN A A B B C C D D F E G G I I 1 1 3 88 2 4 5 5 66 F 77 H A1 A1 ALIGN ALIGN ALIGNCLCLCL CL CLCL CL CLFS FSFSFSFSFS FF FFFF CL CLFFFFFFFFFFFFCLFFCLFFFFCL FF FF MC MCMCMC FS CLCLFFCL ALIGNALIGNFFFFFFFFCLCLFFFF FF FF FFCL CL CL ALIGN FF ALIGNFS FF FF FF FS MCMCFFSFSR KRG1 KRG1 KRG1 KRG1 KRG1 KRG1 KRG1 KRG1 KRG1 KRG1 KRG1 KRG1 KRG1 KRG1 SDD1 SOD1 KRG1 KRG1 KRG1 KRG1 KRG1 KRG1 SOD1 SDD1 SOD1 SDD1 SOD1 SDD1 SOD1 SDD1SOD1 SOD1 SDD1 SOD1 SDD1 SOD1 SDD1 SOD1 KRG1 KRG1 KRG1 KRG1 KRG1 KRG1SDD1 SDD1 SDD1 SDD1 KRG1 KRG1 SOD1 ASH1 ASH1 ASH1 SOD1 SOD1 SDD1 SOD1 SOD1 SDD1SDD1 KRG1 KRG1 KRG1 KRG1 KRG1 KRG1 KRG1 KRG1 KRG1 KRG1 KRG1 KRG1 UP DNALIGN MC 5 A6.8 1 A6.9 7'-6"10'-10 1/2"6'-4 1/2"5'-7 1/2"5'-7 1/2"11'-2 3/8"6'-4 1/2"14'-1 3/4" 2'-0"6'-4 1/2"5'-7 1/2"5'-7 1/2"7'-8 1/2" 1'-0"24'-2 7/8"7'-2"8'-5 1/8"8'-6"23'-7 1/2"13'-1"18'-1 7/8"18'-4 1/2"7'-7"9'-0 1/2"19'-0"7'-3 1/8"19'-1 3/4"10'-1 1/2"7'-7"9'-0 1/2"19'-0"1'-0"24'-2 7/8"7'-2"8'-5 1/8"21'-9 1/4"10'-4 1/4"8'-6"4'-7" 5'-2 1/8"1'-7 1/4" 6'-9 3/8"14'-11 7/8"6'-3 1/4"5'-6"9 1/4"11'-0"8'-3 1/2"7'-11 3/4"3'-0"7'-11 3/4"10'-4 1/2"2'-0"12'-3 1/2"6'-1"3'-3"6'-0"6'-8"2'-0"6'-6 3/8"12'-4 5/8"4'-8 1/2"6'-3"6'-10 1/8"EQ8'-4 1/2"9'-3 1/2"7'-9 3/8"5'-2"3'-5 5/8"6'-11 1/4"5'-4 1/4"8'-8 3/4"2'-0 5/8"2'-4 1/8"4'-0 3/4"7'-7"7'-0 3/4"8 3/8"12'-6 1/4"9 3/8" 5'-7 1/4"27'-9 3/4"4'-7" 4'-7 5/8" 1'-8"8'-1"4'-6 1/2"4'-4" CLEAR1'-3"3'-6"3'-7 1/2"6'-9"EQ EQ 4'-7"6'-10"6'-3"2'-5 1/2"5'-0 3/4"5'-0 3/4"4'-9 5/8"2'-9 3/8"8"10'-8 1/8" 11'-10 1/4"12'-7"12'-4 5/8"11" 8'-0"7'-0"4'-11 3/8"13'-5 1/4" FROM GRID -I 13'-5"9'-10 1/4" 8'-9 1/4" 9'-4 1/4" 8'-6" 8'-8 1/4" 9'-10 1/4" 7'-6" 4'-3 1/8"1'-7 3/8" 9'-10 1/4" 1 A2.1 1 A2.0 2 A2.0 2 A2.1 2 A3.1 2 A3.1 1 A3.1 1 A3.1 2 A3.0 2 A3.0 2 A6.6 2 3 1 A6.0 4 A6.0 1 A6.6 1 2 A6.5 3 A6.5 1 A3.0 1 A3.0 4 A6.5 4 A6.5 5 A6.5 5 A6.5 #DrgID #LayID #DrgID #LayID 3 A3.0 W04 7'×9' 0"W15 3'-6"×9' 0" W12 4'×9' 0" W03 9'×9' 0" W23 3'-6"×2' 6'W20 7'×2' 6'W23 3'-6"×2' 6' W01 11'-6"×9' 0"W11 4'×9' 0" W09 6'×7' 0'-6" W07 4'×9' 0" W12B 4'×9' 0" W05 8'×9' 0" W21 2'×5' 3' W11 4'×9' 0" W19 4'×4' 0'-6" W18 2'×9' 0" PD1 PD1 110-1 100-2 FD2 105-1108-1 FD1 X2 X2 X1 X1 X1 X1 X4 X2 X2 X2 X1 X1 X1 X1 X2 X2 X2 X2 X4 X1 X1 F4 F4 S6 S6 S6 S6 A6 A6 A4 S6 S4 A6 S6 A4 A4 A6 F4 A6 A4 F4 A4 X3 X4 PD3 X3 F4 F4 F4X ROOF DRAIN INSULATION @ DRAIN (MIN 2") METAL RAILING H=36" (BLACK) METAL RAILING W/ CABLES FLOOR MOUNTED, H=36" PROJ. METAL TRELLIS STRUCTURE (BLACK) ROOF DECK DRAINING SHAFT WD-1 TL-1 WOOD TRIM WD-1 1/2" TEMPERED GLASS RAILING W/PINS H=36" 1/2" TEMPERED GLASS RAILING W/PINS H=36" PROJ. METAL CANOPY W/TOP 9/16" LAMINATED GLASS PANELS 6" DOWNSPOUT PAINTED BLACK DROPPED CEILING (SEE DETAILS) PROJ. DROPPED CEILING PROJ. DROPPED CEILING PROJ. 6"x6" SHADE POCKET PROJ. DROPPED CEILING - W/COVE OK-1 WD-1 PROJ. ROOF DRAIN INSULATION @ DRAIN (MIN. 2") METAL HANDRAIL H=36" (BLACK) 109-1 100-1 ROOF DRAIN (OVERFLOW) 111-1 X5 X5 X5 ROOF DRAIN (OVERFLOW) HSS COLUMN - 6" X 6" X 1/2" (SEE STRUCTURAL) 5.25" X 5.25" COLUMN 5.25" X 5.25" COLUMN (3) 24" LVL (SEE STRUCTURAL) (3) 14" LVL (SEE STRUCTURAL) WD-1 TL-1 CL-2 CL-2 CL-2 W15 3'-6"×9' 0" CL-1 CL-1 SHV-1 FC-2 FC-2 FC-2 FC-1 FC-1 CON-1 5.25" X 5.25" COLUMN (SEE STRUCTURAL) (3) 14" LVL (SEE STRUCTURAL) 5.25" X 5.25" COLUMN (SEE STRUCTURAL) 7.25" X 5.25" COLUMN (SEE STRUCTURAL) 7.25" X 5.25" COLUMN (SEE STRUCTURAL) 5.25" X 5.25" COLUMN (SEE STRUCTURAL) 5.25" X 5.25" COLUMN (SEE STRUCTURAL) 7.25" X 5.25" COLUMN (SEE STRUCTURAL) (2) 24" LVL (SEE STRUCTURAL) (3) 14" LVL (SEE STRUCTURAL) 5.25" X 5.25" COLUMN (SEE STRUCTURAL) 106-1 TL-1 FF1/A5.2 FF1/A5.2 TL-2 TL-4 FF1/A5.2 FF1/A5.2 WF1/A5.2 TYPICAL @ WALLS AROUND THE SHOWER CL-1 RADON VENT PIPE SHAFT OPEN TO BELOW GARDEN PATIO BACKYARD FRONT ENTRY PATIO DW WATER FEATURE PATIO PLANTER PLANTER PLANTER 5/8" GYP.BOARD TYPE "X" AT THE SHAFT (WALLS & CEILING) BATH. 108 BEDROOM 4 110 STUDIO 109 LIVING ROOM 101 FOYER 100 ELEV. 107 DINING 103 BATH. 111 KITCHEN 104 GREAT ROOM 102 PANTRY 106 HALL 112 BOH 105 STAIR 113 1/2" TEMPERED GLASS RAILING W/PINS H=36" RADON VENT PIPESLOPE 1/4":12"SLOPE 1/4":12"SLOPE 1/4":12"SLOPE 1/4":12"GLS1 1'-8 1/4" FS CL MC FF Face of Sheating Center Line Material Change Face of Framing Square Footage Per Floor Level Lower Level Main Level Main Level Upper Level Area 1,736.86 2,951.97 4,380.37 1,997.40 11,066.60 ft² PLANTING SCHEDULE Lower Level Main Level Qty. 1 2 2 4 2231 1 3 15 15 4074105 ID GLS1 ASH1 SOD1 SDD1 KRS1 GLS1 ASH1 SDD1 SOD1 KRS1 Common Name Gro-Low Sumac Annabelle Smooth Hydrangea Simmons Overture Daylily Stella D'Oro Daylily Karl Foerster Feather Reed Grass Gro-Low Sumac Annabelle Smooth Hydrangea Stella D'Oro Daylily Simmons Overture Daylily Karl Foerster Feather Reed Grass Min. Dist. 5' O.C. 5' O.C. 2' O.C. 2' O.C. 2' O.C. 5' O.C. 5' O.C. 2' O.C. 2' O.C. 2' O.C. Size 5 Gal. 5 Gal. 1 Gal. 1 Gal. 2 Gal. 5 Gal. 5 Gal. 1 Gal. 1 Gal. 2 Gal. Cont Pot Pot Pot Pot Pot Pot Pot Pot Pot Pot N SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN DescriptionID A1.3 Printed: 8/4/2022qbic-ftABID RESIDENCE234 SKI HILL ROADGOLDEN VALLEY , MN 55422Upper Level Plan No. Sheet Name studiowww.qbic-ft.comdesign by952.210.5827phone:build by1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11121314151617181920UP A A C C D D F E G G I I 1 1 3 88 2 4 5 5 66 FF CL CL CL FS FSFF CL CL CLCL CLFFFF ALIGNFF ALIGN FFFFFFFFCLFFFFFFFFCLFF MC MCMCMCMC MC MC CLMCFF FF FF CLCLCLCLCLALIGN CLW D 5 A6.8 1 A6.2 1 A6.10 1 A2.1 1 A2.0 2 A2.0 2 A2.1 2 A3.1 2 A3.1 1 A3.1 1 A3.1 2 A3.0 2 A3.0 1 A3.0 1 A3.0 #DrgID #LayID #DrgID #LayID 3 A3.0 2'-0"4'-0"2'-0" 14'-8 5/8"8'-10 7/8" 1'-11 3/8"6'-6 3/8"12'-4 5/8"4'-8 1/2"1'-11 3/8"2'-0"16'-10 7/8"5'-6 1/4"6'-8 3/8"7'-4 7/8"2'-11"36'-6 3/8"2'-9 5/8"5'-6"5'-6"2'-3 1/2"3'-0"5'-2"5'-9 3/4"2'-1 3/8"11'-8 1/4"16'-3 1/4"27'-11 1/2"32'-4 7/8"8'-5 1/8"21'-9 1/4"10'-4 1/4"7'-3 1/8"19'-1 3/4"10'-1 1/2"7'-7"28'-0 1/2"2'-0"12'-3 1/2"7'-1 1/2"32'-4 7/8"9 3/8"2'-0"14'-1 3/4" 3 1/2" 6'-6 5/8"1'-4 1/2"12'-3 1/4"1'-6 7/8" 5'-2 1/8"1'-7 1/4" 6'-9 3/8"14'-11 7/8" 32'-4 7/8"8'-5 1/8"8'-6"23'-7 1/2"EQEQ8'-4 1/2"9'-3 1/2"10'-4 1/2"3'-7 1/2"6'-9"28'-0 1/2"4'-7"3'-3"4'-4 1/2"5'-4 1/4"7'-3 5/8"3'-5 3/4"2'-4 1/8"4'-0 7/8"7'-7"2'-4 1/8"12'-7"1'-11 5/8" 1'-4 1/2"12'-3 1/4"11"3'-8 1/2"25'-4 3/8" 9'-0 1/4"2'-1 1/8"15'-4 1/2"4 1/8"8" 3'-4 3/4" 1'-9 1/2" 1'-10" 10" 2'-4 3/4" 8'-0"7'-6"2'-9 3/8"6'-2 1/2"21'-8 1/8" 21A6.1 4 A6.3 2 1A6.7 3 A6.6 4 A6.4 3 A6.4 3 A6.1 3 A6.1 1 2 A6.4 3 A6.3 3 A6.3 13 A3.313 A3.3 W09 6'×7' 0'-6" W10 4'×7'-6" 0'-6" W13 4'×8'-6" 0" W06 4'×11'-6" -3'-6" W17 5'×5' 3' W13 4'×8'-6" 0" W08 6'×7'-6" 1' W08 6'×7'-6" 1' W21 2'×5' 3' W14 4'×7'-6" 0'-6"W02 11'-6"×7'-6" 0'-6" W22 4'×2' 6' PD2 200-1 210-1 205-1 201-1 204-1 208-1 209-1 207-1 S6 S6 S6 S6 A4 A8 A6 F4 A4 F4 F4 F4 F4 A4 F4 F4 F4 A6 F4 A4 A4 X2 X4 X2 X2 X3 X4 X2 X4 X3 X3 A6 A6 A4 X4 A6 A4 A4 A4 A6 A8 A4 A6 A4 X1 X1 X1 X2 X4 X1 A4 A4 A4 A4 A6 F4 A4 A6 F6 A4 F4 F4 F4 X1 X4 F6 X3 X4 X2 ROOF DRAIN INSULATION @ DRAIN (MIN. 2") PROJ. FLAT ROOF METAL CANOPY W/TOP 9/16" LAMINATED GLASS PANELS GUTTER@CANOPY STEEL BEAM W/ CANOPY'S DRAINAGE METAL RAILING W/ CABLES SIDE MOUNTED, H=36" WD-1 WD-1 WD-1 WD-1 WD-1 WD-1 TL-1 WD-1 TL-2 METAL HANDRAIL H=36" (BLACK) 203-1 202-1 203-2 FIREPLACE DIRECT VENT BY SPECIFICATIONS FIREPLACE DIRECT VENT BY SPECIFICATIONS METAL RAILING W/ CABLES SIDE MOUNTED, H=36" ROOF DRAIN (OVERFLOW) PROJ. RECESSED CEILING W/COVE 6" DOWNSPOUT PAINTED BLACK HALF WALL- H=42" HALF WALL- H=42" CL-1 CL-1 CL-1 SHU-2 SHU-2 CL-1 CL-1 CL-1 CL-1 CL-1 CL-1 CL-1 CL-1 CL-1 TL-2 FC-4 FC-4 FC-4 FC-4 SHV-1 FC-1 FC-1 FC-1 FC-1 FC-3 FC-3 FC-3 FC-3 SHV-3 METAL RAILING W/ CABLES SIDE MOUNTED, H=36" TL-5 TL-4 TL-2 7.25" X 5.25" COLUMN (SEE STRUCTURAL)5.25" X 5.25" COLUMN (SEE STRUCTURAL) 7.25" X 5.25" COLUMN (SEE STRUCTURAL) 7.25" X 5.25" COLUMN (SEE STRUCTURAL) 5.25" X 5.25" COLUMN (SEE STRUCTURAL) 5.25" X 5.25" COLUMN (SEE STRUCTURAL) 5.25" X 5.25" COLUMN (SEE STRUCTURAL) (3) 14" LVL (SEE STRUCTURAL) FF2/A5.2 WF1/A5.2 TYPICAL @ WALLS AROUND THE SHOWER WF1/A5.2 FF1/A5.2 FF1/A5.2 FF1/A5.2 WF1/A5.2 TYPICAL @ WALLS AROUND THE SHOWER FF1/A5.2 FF1/A5.2 TL-4 TYPICAL @ WALLS AROUND THE SHOWER PROJ. GUTTER PAINTED BLACK TL-4 TL-4 FF2/A5.2 BATH. 207 BEDROOM 3 209 BEDROOM 2 208 STAIR 212 ROOF DECK 213 LOUNGE 200 ELEV 206 WCL. 202 HALL 211 BATH. 210 MASTER BATH. 203 MASTER SUITE 201 LAUNDRY RM. 205 HALL 204 1/2" TEMPERED GLASS RAILING W/PINS H=36" SLOPE 3:12 SLOPE 1/4":12"SLOPE 1/4":12"SLOPE 1/4":12"SLOPE 1/4":12"SLOPE 3:12SLOPE 1/4":12" SLOPE 1/4":12" RADON VENT PIPE Square Footage Per Floor Level Lower Level Main Level Main Level Upper Level Area 1,736.86 2,951.97 4,380.37 1,997.40 11,066.60 ft² N SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN DescriptionID A2.0 Printed: 8/4/2022qbic-ftABID RESIDENCE234 SKI HILL ROADGOLDEN VALLEY , MN 55422Elevations No. Sheet Name studiowww.qbic-ft.comdesign by952.210.5827phone:build by8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ±0" Lower Level +9'-10 1/4" Main Level +21'-8 1/8" Upper Level +31'-10" Roof 891.50' 913.18' 911.29'9'-10 1/4"11'-9 7/8"10'-1 7/8"901.17' 910.79' 901.35' 896.00' 926.00' 924.00' 01 08 02 12 05 05 09 0213 01 15 14 07 13 17 04 W09 W09 GD2 GD1 W03 PD2 W13 W07 W10 04 05 07 30 10 21 28 20 24 20 26 26 05 30 29 27 10 28' FROM AVERAGE AVERAGE GROUND LEVEL MIDDLE OF THE SLOPED ROOF B C D E F G H IAA1 312 ±0" Lower Level +9'-10 1/4" Main Level +21'-8 1/8" Upper Level +31'-10" Roof 9'-10 1/4"11'-9 7/8"10'-1 7/8"891.50' 901.35' 913.18' 914.01' 924.83' 900.19' 896.00' 926.00' 923.33' 924.00' W01 W02 W14 W11 W16 W19 W19 W05W15W04W15 FD2 W12 W13 01 11 08 03 02 1126 05 30 26 07 05 04 10 17 28 05 01 08 20 02 07 24 02 29 05 28' FROM AVERAGE AVERAGE GROUND LEVEL MIDDLE OF THE SLOPED ROOF LEGEND ID 01 02 03 04 05 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 20 21 22 24 24 26 27 28 29 30 Description Lap Siding Exposed Concrete Vertical Siding Cement Board Cement Board Exterior Railings Exterior Doors & Windows Garage Doors Metal Cladding Metal Roof Soffit Metal Handrails Metal Canopy House Number Fireplace Direct Vent Gabion Outdoor Fireplace Gutter & Downspout 12 x 8 x 16 Split Face 12 x 8 x 16 Split Face Block Metal Coping Metal Coping Metal Trellis Structure Metal Column Metal Fascia & Wood Soffit Model Plank Lap Siding/Smooth --- Vertical Siding Hardie Panel/Smooth Hardie Panel/Smooth Metal Posts & Cables H3 --- Metal Panel Snap-Clad Pac-750 Soffit --- --- House Number- 10" By Specifications --- Lanai 60-Outdoor --- 12 x 8 x 16 Split Face 12 x 8 x 16 Split Face Block --- Pac-Tite --- --- --- Color/Finish Iron Gray --- Cedar Pearl Gray Iron Gray Black Black Black Black Granite Granite Black Black & Tempered Glass Black Black --- --- Black TBD TBD Matching Granite(Roof) Graphite Black Black Black Manufacturer James Hardie --- TBD James Hardie James Hardie TBD Sierra Pacific TBD Custom Pac-Clad Pac-Clad Custom Custom TBD TBD --- Majestic --- TBD TBD --- Pac-Clad Custom --- --- Similar No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 FRONT ELEVATION SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"2 SIDE ELEVATION (PARK) DescriptionID A2.1 Printed: 8/4/2022qbic-ftABID RESIDENCE234 SKI HILL ROADGOLDEN VALLEY , MN 55422Elevations No. Sheet Name studiowww.qbic-ft.comdesign by952.210.5827phone:build by1 2 3 4 5 6 87 ±0" Lower Level +9'-10 1/4" Main Level +21'-8 1/8" Upper Level +31'-10" Roof 6"9'-10 1/4"11'-9 7/8"10'-1 7/8"11 1/4"891.50' 913.16' 924.83' 901.35' 923.33' 924.00' 896.00' 926.00' 01 02 22 W11 W12B PD1 PD1 W08W08 W17 W22 03 11 11 02 02 04 04 01 02 24 28' FROM AVERAGE AVERAGE GROUND LEVEL MIDDLE OF THE SLOPED ROOF I G F E D C B AHA1 3 12 3 12 FS ±0" Lower Level +9'-10 1/4" Main Level +21'-8 1/8" Upper Level +31'-10" Roof 6"9'-10 1/4"11'-9 7/8"10'-1 7/8"891.50' 901.35' 913.16' 924.00' 926.00' 924.83' 901.17' 916.68' 910.13' 896.00'896.00' 923.33' 04 26 02 30 30 14 01 08 03 11 W23 W20 W23 W19 W06 W21 W21 PD3W18 FD1 05 04 04 04 03 26 03 01 27 07 02 13 28' FROM AVERAGE AVERAGE GROUND LEVEL MIDDLE OF THE SLOPED ROOF LEGEND ID 01 02 03 04 05 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 20 21 22 24 24 26 27 28 29 30 Description Lap Siding Exposed Concrete Vertical Siding Cement Board Cement Board Exterior Railings Exterior Doors & Windows Garage Doors Metal Cladding Metal Roof Soffit Metal Handrails Metal Canopy House Number Fireplace Direct Vent Gabion Outdoor Fireplace Gutter & Downspout 12 x 8 x 16 Split Face 12 x 8 x 16 Split Face Block Metal Coping Metal Coping Metal Trellis Structure Metal Column Metal Fascia & Wood Soffit Model Plank Lap Siding/Smooth --- Vertical Siding Hardie Panel/Smooth Hardie Panel/Smooth Metal Posts & Cables H3 --- Metal Panel Snap-Clad Pac-750 Soffit --- --- House Number- 10" By Specifications --- Lanai 60-Outdoor --- 12 x 8 x 16 Split Face 12 x 8 x 16 Split Face Block --- Pac-Tite --- --- --- Color/Finish Iron Gray --- Cedar Pearl Gray Iron Gray Black Black Black Black Granite Granite Black Black & Tempered Glass Black Black --- --- Black TBD TBD Matching Granite(Roof) Graphite Black Black Black Manufacturer James Hardie --- TBD James Hardie James Hardie TBD Sierra Pacific TBD Custom Pac-Clad Pac-Clad Custom Custom TBD TBD --- Majestic --- TBD TBD --- Pac-Clad Custom --- --- Similar No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 REAR ELEVATION SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"2 SIDE ELEVATION DescriptionID A3.0 Printed: 8/4/2022qbic-ftABID RESIDENCE234 SKI HILL ROADGOLDEN VALLEY , MN 55422Sections No. Sheet Name studiowww.qbic-ft.comdesign by952.210.5827phone:build by8 7 6 3 1542 ±0" Lower Level +9'-10 1/4" Main Level +21'-8 1/8" Upper Level +31'-10" Roof 8'-7 1/2"1'-8 3/4"9'-3 1/4"1'-8"10 5/8"8'-7 1/2"1'-6 1/2"5 1/8"3'-3 5/8"2'-9"891.50' 913.18' 901.35' 896.00' 926.00' 924.00' RF12 SL4H RF20 FL20 GARAGE LIVING ROOM ROOF DECK 28' FROM AVERAGE AVERAGE GROUND LEVEL MIDDLE OF THE SLOPED ROOF 8 7 6 13542 ±0" Lower Level +9'-10 1/4" Main Level +21'-8 1/8" Upper Level +31'-10" Roof 9'-8"9'-10 1/4"11'-9 7/8"8'-1 1/2"2'-11 5/8"8'-10 1/4"3'-8 1/2"11'-1 1/4"1'-2"891.50' 901.35' 913.18' 923.33' 896.00' 926.00' 924.00' 900.19' 911.29' 922.27'9'-10 1/4"11'-9 7/8"10'-1 7/8"SL4 SL4H FL20 FL20 RF12 SL4S FOYER FOYER LOUNGE PATIO 28' FROM AVERAGE AVERAGE GROUND LEVEL MIDDLE OF THE SLOPED ROOF 1'-0"8'-1 1/2"1'-8 3/4"11'-9 7/8"10'-1 7/8"890.50' 891.50' 899.63' 901.35' 911.45' 913.18' 922.27' 923.33' FL20 RF12 FL20 FL20 FL20 SL4HSL4H SL4 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 SECTION1 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"2 SECTION2 SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0"3 SECT.@ELEVATOR SHAFT DescriptionID A3.1 Printed: 8/4/2022qbic-ftABID RESIDENCE234 SKI HILL ROADGOLDEN VALLEY , MN 55422Sections No. Sheet Name studiowww.qbic-ft.comdesign by952.210.5827phone:build by1876542 ±0" Lower Level ±0" Lower Level +9'-10 1/4" Main Level +9'-10 1/4" Main Level +21'-8 1/8" Upper Level +21'-8 1/8" Upper Level +31'-10" Roof +31'-10" Roof 2'-7 1/2"1'-8 3/4"10'-1 1/8"1'-8 3/4"9'-1 1/8"2'-0"2'-7 1/2"RF12 FL20 FL20FL24C SL4 SL4H SL4 MEDIA RM.MECH.FITNESS RM. MASTER SUITELAUNDRY RM.BEDROOM 3 CONDITIONED CRAWL SPACE GREAT ROOMKITCHENPANTRYSTUDIOBEDROOM 4 HALLBEDROOM 2 ROOF CONCRETE SLAB TYPE SL4 ( SEE A5.2). 2" MIN. INTERIOR CLOSED CELL SPRAY FOAM INSULATION FOR WALLS. 3.5" MIN. INTERIOR CLOSED CELL SPRAY FOAM INSULATION AT SHEATING FLOOR (LEVEL ABOVE). CUSTOM ROOF TRUSSES BY OTHERS A B C D F G IA1H ±0" Lower Level ±0" Lower Level +9'-10 1/4" Main Level +9'-10 1/4" Main Level +21'-8 1/8" Upper Level +21'-8 1/8" Upper Level +31'-10" Roof +31'-10" Roof 9 1/4"8'-1 1/2"2'-11 5/8"3'-8 1/2"4'-6" RF20 FL20 FL20 FL20 FL20 RF12 SL4H SL4 SL4H GAME RM.STORAGE MEDIA ROOM MASTER SUITEROOF DECK DININGGREAT ROOMFOYERLIVING ROOM HALLLOUNGE ROOF GARAGE SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 SECTION3 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"2 SECTION 4