Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
bza-agenda-may-23-23
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 2451 049 3803. 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 2451 049 3803. Press *3 to raise your hand during public comment sections. 1.Call to Order & Land Acknowledgement 2.Approval of Agenda 3.Approval of Minutes April 25, 2023 4.Address: 3350 Kyle Avenue North Applicant: Peter Bisila Request: Variance of 27.1 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 7.9 feet for a front yard setback. 5.Address: 7001 Golden Valley Road Applicant: Anders Melby on behalf of the Golden Valley Country Club Request: Variance to allow 36 poles, ranging from 35 to 100 feet in height, along the east side of the driving range. 6.Address: 425 France Avenue North Applicant: Al Woolhouse on behalf of Sam Hinton Request: Variance to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 10 feet in order to construct a detached garage. 7.Address: 1840 Major Drive Applicant: Jessica Roe Request: Variance from the shoreland setback requirement to add a new staircase to an existing deck within the setback, 50.9 ft. at its closest point. 8.Election of Officers 9.Adjournment May 23, 2023 Hybrid Meeting REGULAR MEETING MINUTES [DRAFT] 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: Kade Arms‐Regenold, Chris Carlson, Nancy Nelson Richard Orenstein, Adam Brookins – Planning Commissioner Members absent: Staff present: Myles Campbell – Planner Approval of Agenda MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Nelson to approve the agenda of April 25, 2023, as submitted. Motion carried. Approval of Minutes MOTION made by Nelson, seconded by Orenstein to approve the March 28, 2023 meeting minutes. Motion carried. 1. Address: 2933 Quail Applicant: Matt Harambasic Request: Variance of 2.8 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 32.2 feet for a front yard setback. Request: Variance of 0.4 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 14.6 feet for a side yard setback. Myles Campbell, Planner, reviewed the location and noted this item was for two variances at the same address. Staff also noted that these variances were before the Board once before but due to construction delays, the period of time the variance was allowed in has lapsed and the applicant must present again. Campbell showed members the home’s location on a map in the City, as well as provided a background and noted existing conditions. Primarily, a two‐car attached garage faces the street, but it was built at a slight angle following the curve of Quail Ave N. The build is currently nonconforming to the front yard setback and the garage is structurally unsound. The homeowner’s preference for the new build is to have a slightly different footprint April 25, 2022 – 7 pm City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting March 25, 2023 – 7 pm 2 Practical Difficulties Rebuilding a structurally deficient attached garage is a reasonable use for a single‐family lot. The applicant is proposing to push the new structure further from the front property line, though it would still be a few feet within the front yard setback, improving the condition from the street. Therefore, staff believes the variance requests propose to use the property in a reasonable manner. The applicant purchased a home with an existing nonconforming situation and, with the reconstruction of the attached garage, would actually be improving the nonconformity by locating the bulk of the new build outside of the front yard setback. The intrusion into the side yard setback is also partly due to the angle of the home in relation to the side property line. Staff finds the landowner is not causing the unique circumstances that require the variance. Given the improvement to the nonconforming front yard setback, and the minor intrusion into the side yard setback, staff believes the proposed use would not alter the essential character of the area. Other Considerations Staff assesses whether the request represents the smallest feasible variance or if there are other options available: A smaller addition or no addition could be pursued, however 24 feet is standard for a garage and current design avoids construction waste. Recommendations Staff recommends approval of the variance request for 2.8 feet off of the 35 feet required to a distance of 32.2 feet for a front yard setback. Staff recommends approval of the variance request for 0.4 feet off of the 15 feet required to a distance of 14.6 feet for a side yard setback. Chair Carlson invited the applicant to speak. Matt Harambasic, applicant, stated the information was well presented and he added that all adjacent neighbors are aware of the project and support it. Chair Carlson opened the public hearing 7:09pm. There were no in person comments. There were no online/remote comments. Chair Carlson closed the hearing at 7:10pm. Orenstein noted the application is straightforward and the approved it once before so they’re inclined to do so again. Chair Carlson stated all the requirements for a variance are met. Nelson noted the setback difference and the shape of the road not being the fault of the homeowner. City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting March 25, 2023 – 7 pm 3 MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins, seconded by Orenstein to approve both requests: 2.8 feet off of the 35 feet required to a distance of 32.2 feet for a front yard setback. 0.4 feet off of the 15 feet required to a distance of 14.6 feet for a side yard setback. Motion carried 2. Council Updates Council Member Rosenquist noted that Thursday 4/27 is the City’s dinner to recognize Board and Commission members. Kade Arms‐Regenold will be recognized for his service as a youth and then voting member as he will not be pursuing another term. Councilmember Sandburg submitted her resignation as her family is moving abroad. Applications are being accepted for a member to fulfill the remainder of her term, May 19 is the appointment date. Applications are available online and in person at City Hall. 3. Adjournment MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Chair Carlson and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 7:16 pm. Motion carried. ________________________________ Chris Carlson, Chair _________________________________ Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant 1 Date: May 19, 2023 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Myles Campbell, Planner Subject: 3350 Kyle Ave N Peter Bisila, Applicant Introduction Peter Bisila, property owner of 3350 Kyle Ave N, is seeking a variance from the City Code related to a detached garage. He is requesting the following: Variance Requests City Code Requirements The applicant is requesting a variance of 27.1 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 7.9 feet for a front yard setback. § 113‐88, Single‐Family Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(a) Principal Structures – Front Setback The required minimum front setback shall be 35 feet from any front lot line along a street right‐of‐way line. Background 3350 Kyle Ave N is a 55,422 square foot single‐family residential lot in the north portion of the city, east of Highway 100. The single‐family home was built in 1947 with an attached two‐car garage facing the street. The existing garage is somewhat undersized at 20’x20’ roughly. Uniquely, the property’s north side property line is considered a front property line due to it facing a section of unpaved right‐of‐way originally reserved by the city to eventually connect 34th Ave N with June Ave N to the east in Sochacki Park. As a result, any structures in the rear yard would be considered to meet the 35’ front setback required for accessory structures. 2 Summary of Request The applicant is proposing to replace an existing 10’x9’ shed to the rear of the home with a new detached garage, with a 24’x24’ footprint. The new garage would be 7.9’ off the property line and 26.6’ back from the home. The new garage in conjunction with the existing attached garage would not exceed the 1,000 sq.ft. limit for accessory structures in R‐1 zoning. The garage would be used as a space for woodworking and could also double as additional vehicle storage. The existing driveway would be extended back to access the west face of the new garage. Applicant noted that a conforming garage setback 35’ would be essentially in the middle of the lot behind the house, restricting use of the backyard and requiring much more significant impervious surface to provide the longer driveway. As noted in the application materials, Planning staff did consult with Engineering on this request to determine what the likelihood that 34th Ave would ever get punched through to the east. In their opinion that was extremely unlikely, partly due to the coordination required between Golden Valley, Robbinsdale, and the Three Rivers Park District, but more importantly due to the extreme drop in grade from where the street currently ends, more than 50 feet. 3 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 the purpose of the Zoning Code as well as the purpose of the Single‐Family Zoning District, which is to provide for detached single‐family dwelling units at a low density along with directly related and complementary uses. The request would not allow for additional unit density in the neighborhood and the rebuilt garage, as proposed, would not have a negative impact on the welfare of neighboring properties. In the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, one of the stated objectives of the Land Use Chapter is to protect existing residential neighborhoods. Staff feels that this request would not cause harm to the neighborhood at large. Additionally, in the Comprehensive Plan’s Housing Chapter is an objective to support the rehabilitation and reinvestment of the housing stock as structures continue to age. This type of reinvestment in mid‐century homes helps to keep these properties in good repair and increase their usability by residents. In order to constitute practical difficulties: 1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner. The proposed reduction in front setback appears more drastic and impactful than what the resulting structure will be. Compared to the typical side setback for accessory structures of 5’ the new structure has some additional spacing from the property line, and also preserves the majority of the backyard for outdoor living space. Therefore, staff believes the variance requests propose to use the property in a reasonable manner. 2. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that are not caused by the landowner. The platted but undeveloped right‐of‐way to the north of the property is an oddity that is fairly unique to a few properties west of June Ave. While practically it is the rear yard, the undeveloped right‐of‐way is almost entirely the reason why a conforming garage is impractical here. Staff believe the site does exhibit unique circumstances. 3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. The new garage would only be minimally visible from the public street along Kyle Ave, and would be over 70 feet from the nearest home in Robbinsdale to the north. Staff believes the proposed use would not alter the essential character of the area. Additionally, staff assesses whether other options are available to meet the applicant’s needs without requiring a variance, or whether the proposal represents the smallest variance necessary to meet the applicant’s needs. In this case, few options exist short of locating the 4 garage in the middle of the backyard to meet the setback requirement, which would result in addition loss of trees and greenspace. Any addition to the existing garage would similarly trigger the 35 foot setback and be much more visible from the street. Recommendation Based on the factors above, staff recommends approval of the variance request for 27.1 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 7.9 feet for a front yard setback. 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? No. Date: May 23, 2023 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Subject: Driving Range at 7001 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley Golf and Country Club, Applicant Introduction Andres Melby, of Civil Site Group on behalf of the Golden Valley Country Club at 7001 Golden Valley Road, is seeking a variance from the City Code in order to erect poles and netting along the driving range. The applicant is seeking the following: Variance Requested City Code Requirement The applicant is requesting a variance to allow driving range poles and netting to rise to a height of up to 100 feet. § 113‐96, Insitutional Zoning District, Subd. (f)(2) Accessory Structures: Height No accessory structure shall be erected in the Institutional Zoning District with a height in excess of one story, which is 10 feet from the floor to the top horizontal component of a frame building to which the rafters are fastened. Background The subject property (the Golden Valley Golf Course and Country Club) is zoned Institutional. The entire property is just over 146 acres, though this will be reduced by 2.35 acres as a new housing development is constructed in the southeast corner of the course. The area in question is the driving range, which is located along with eastern edge of the course, east of the clubhouse, and south of the railroad tracks. Plans are underway to reshape the driving range and orient the direction of the tees from south to north. New poles and netting are needed to prevent golf balls from being hit into the property to the east, which is being redeveloped as an office park, or towards the clubhouse to the west. The necessary height of these poles is well in excess of the maximum height allowed for accessory structures, which limits them to 10 feet. 2 Aerial photo (Google Earth) Summary of Requests The applicant is requesting a variance from the height limit for accessory structures. They propose to install 36 poles, ranging in height from 35 to 100 feet. Netting will be hung between poles to encapsulate the driving range. See attachments for the proposed layout. The regulations around accessory structures limit height to 10 feet, and no exceptions are listed in City Code. The applicant points to the need for the netting in the interest of public safety and to prevent property damage given the proximity to the adjacent commercial development. Existing poles and netting will be removed as the driving range is modified. 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 the purpose statement in the Zoning Code (“to establish areas where both public and private institutional uses such as schools, places of worship, hospitals, parks, golf courses, nursing homes, and public buildings may be located”), as it supports the existing principal use of the lot as a golf course with driving range. Staff also finds the request reasonable in light of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which has the goal of working to accommodate 3 the needs of existing businesses and supporting growth and expansion that is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. In order to constitute practical difficulties: 1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner. As proposed, the new poles and netting would allow the continued use of the driving range, which is a key component of the golf course operations. Without the netting, balls could be hit onto the adjacent commercial property, causing damage and impacting public safety. 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 Golden Valley Country Club operates in an urban area that has developed significantly subsequent to its establishment. New commercial development on the adjacent property was not caused by the landowner, but has resulted in a situation that requires additional protections in order to limit impacts from the driving range. The circumstances of the landowner’s situation are unique. 3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. Given the long‐standing operations of the golf course, the presence of some existing poles and netting, and the size of the property and relative distance from most other property owners, the new poles and netting should not impact the overall feel of the locality. Therefore, 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. Staff is not aware of any other option beyond closing the driving range operations, which would threaten the viability of the golf course. The absence of netting, or even lower netting, would not protect adjacent users and therefore would put other properties at risk. Recommendations Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow driving range poles and netting to rise to a height of up to 100 feet, with the following condition: 1. Engineered plans for the poles and netting must be reviewed and approved by the Building Official prior to permitting and installation. 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? Staff is unaware of any other viable options. 10" DIP10" DIP6" DIP12" DIPGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGG GGGGG GGGGG GGGGG GGGGG GGGGG GGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGG G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G GGGGGGGGGGG GGGG GGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG G GG GGG GGG GGG GGG GGG G GG G GGG GGG GGG GG GGG GG GG GG GGG GG GG GG GG G GG GGG GG GGG GG GGG GG GGG GG G GG GG G GG GGG GG GGG GG GGG GG G GG GG G GG GG GGG GG GG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGG GGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGG G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G GG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGG GGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGG G GG GGG GGG GGG GGG G GG G GGG GGG GGG GGG GGG GG GG GG GG GGG GG GG GG GGG GG GGG GG GGG GG GGG GG G GG GGG GG GGG GG GGG GG GGG GG G GG GGG GG GGG GG GG G GG GG GG G GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGG 6" 2" 2" 8" 3939930930926 926 5 0 y d s 4 5 y d s 5 5 y d s 30 ydsPart 2 asphalt cart path New 3,280 sf green New 2,880 sf green New 20' x 35' tee New asphalt cart path New 20' x 24' back tee Remove 5 trees to open sightline to landing area New 425 sf bunker New 400 sf bunker N GOLDEN VALLEY C O U N T R Y C L U B EST.1914 0 40 80 120 FTLAYOUT P L A N 2 c This plan and the concepts represented herein are the property of Norby Golf Course Design. Use of this plan shall require prior written approval by Norby Golf Course Design. Carver, MN 55315 (952) 361-0644 131 Highland Drive email: Kevin@NorbyGolf.com web: NorbyGolfDesign.com PART 4 - SHORT GAME PRACTICE AREA PART 5 - PRACTICE RANGE>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GG G GGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGG GGGG G G G GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG G GG G G G GG G G G GG GG G G G G G G G G G G GG G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGG G G G G GGG G G GGG G G GGG G G GGG G G GGG G G GGG G G GGG G G GGG G G GGG G G GGG G G GGG G G GGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGG GGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGG G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G GG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGG GGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GG G GG G GG G GGG GGG GGG G GG G GG G GG GGG GG GG GG GGG GG GG GG GG GGG GG GGG GG G GG GGG GG GGG GG GGG GG GGG GG G GG GGG GG GGG GG GGG GG GGG GG GGG GG GG GGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG 900910900 890 9009009 0 2 9 0 49 04906908 910 912 898 896894 902 9 0 0 904904 902 906 89889689489289018.0 '1 2 .0 '8.0 ' 5.0 ' Cart parking Two stall indoor hitting bays and lesson storage -by Owner Full length range with target fairway and greens New 32,020 sf turf tee 100 yds 150 yds 200 yds 250 yds 300 yds Concrete pad for Turf Hound tee line with paver walkway New Safety Containment Netting by Others Paver walkway w/ granular base by Owner LEGEND EXISTING FEATURES & DEMO Existing contour Existing fence / netting Existing asphalt cart path SYMBOL DESCRIPTION Existing trees Existing retainaing wall Existing building Demo existing paving Demo existing fence / netting Demo existing retainaing wall Demo existing trees Asphalt Concrete Clay Tennis SYMBOL DESCRIPTION LEGEND GRADING, DRAINAGE & EC Limits of Disturbance Proposed Contour Lines Proposed 12" Catch Basin Proposed 4" Perf. Drain tile Proposed 4" Solid Drain Tile Proposed Spot Elevation Proposed Bubbler Proposed Wattles Proposed Asphalt Path Proposed Concrete Path Proposed Limestone Curb 28.0 26 Proposed Arc Chamber Proposed 6" HDPE pipe Proposed 8" HDPE pipe P R A C T I C E R A N G E , S H O R T G A M E P R A C T I C E A R E A , W A R M -U P G R E E N SYMBOL DESCRIPTION Proposed fairway seeding Proposed green seeding Proposed rough seeding Proposed tee seeding Proposed bluegrass sod LEGEND GRASSING Proposed fescue February 21, 2023 2/27/23 Addendum #1 - Revised grading/drainage at far end of range - Updated cut and fill note for range - Modified grading at 3 tee - Corrected to show clay tennis courts #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12#13 #14 #15#16#17#18 #19 #20 #21 #22#23#24 #25 #26 #27 #28 #29 #30 #31 #32 #33 #34 #35 #36 LEGEND35'50'75'100'1-DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGSport and Golf NettingNet Connection LLC.South to NorthGolden Valley Date: May 23, 2023 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Subject: 425 France Avenue North Mark Hinton, Applicant Introduction Al Woodhouse, representing the property owner at 425 France Ave N, is seeking variances from the City Code in order to construct a detached garage. The applicant is seeking the following: Variances Requested City Code Requirement The applicant is requesting a variance to allow an accessory structure to be located closer to the front setback than the principal structure. § 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(a) Accessory Structures: Location A detached accessory structure shall be located completely to the rear of the principal structure, unless it is built with frost footings. In that case, an accessory structure may be built no closer to the front setback than the principal structure. The applicant is requesting a variance of 14.1 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 20.9 feet for a detached garage from the front property line. § 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(b) Accessory Structures: Front Setback Accessory structures shall be located no less than 35 feet from the front lot line. Background The subject property at 425 France Avenue North is zoned Single‐Family Residential. It is approximately a quarter acre in size and is a corner lot, fronting on both France Ave N and Woodstock Ave. An alley provides access to the rear of the lot via Woodstock. The front property line on France Ave is 80 feet wide and the front property line on Woodstock Ave is 127 feet wide. It contains a single‐family home constructed in 1910 with a tuck‐under garage that has access from Woodstock. A small shed is located in the southwest corner of the lot. Theodore Wirth Park is just to the east. 2 2021 aerial photo (Hennepin County) Summary of Request The applicant is requesting variances from the location and front setback regulations for accessory structures in order to construct a new detached garage within the rear year. The proposed 24’ x 24’ garage would have access from the alley and would supplement the small existing one‐stall tuck‐ under garage. Given that the existing home is located closer to Woodstock than current regulations would allow (roughly 23 to 25 feet vs. the required 35 feet), the applicant is proposing to align the new garage with the existing façade. Because the house is at a slight angle to the lot line, the new garage would actually sit a few feet closer to the street. Placing the garage in the southwest corner of the lot – another option – would require the removal of the shed and patio space. The applicant notes that many lots along Woodstock have received variances to allow structures to be located closer than 35 to the front property line, including a new home directly across the alley to the west which has an approved setback of 25.5 feet for the principal structure. 3 Proposed layout 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 the purpose statement in the Zoning Code (“to provide for detached single‐family dwelling units at a low density along with directly related and complementary uses”), 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 the goal of rehabilitation and reinvestment in older housing stock as it ages. In order to constitute practical difficulties: 1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner. As proposed, the new detached garage would be in line with the front plane of the existing 4 home, though due to the angle of the structure it would in reality be slightly closer to the street. Access would be provided off the alley, preserving the front yard along Woodstock. A small one‐stall tuck‐under garage is typically viewed as insufficient to meet modern living and staff has supported garage expansions in the past. 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. While corner lots present additional challenges for siting structures on the lot, there are thousands of them across the city and staff does not view this condition in and of itself to be a unique circumstance. The lot in question has no notable topography and the presence of the alley behind the lot provides potential garage access all along the west property line. Given the conditions present, staff believes the landowners’ problem is not due to circumstances unique to the property. 3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. Given the approval of other variances in the area to allow structures to be located closer to the street than the front yard setback allows for secondary front yards, staff believes the construction of the garage in the proposed location 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. While it would necessitate the relocation/removal of an existing shed and impacts to a patio, constructing the detached garage in the southwest portion of the lot would still provide access from the alley while avoiding the need for any variances. Recommendations Staff recommends denial of the variance to allow an accessory structure to be located closer to the front setback than the principal structure. Staff recommends denial of the variance of 14.1 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 20.9 feet for a detached garage from the front property line. 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 inconvenient, the proposed garage could be built further to the south, avoiding the front yard setback and the associated variances. 5 HOUSESHEDHouse & Garage964 s.f.Proposed Garage576 s.f.FRANCE AVE WOODSTOCK AVE30142424 2424 20.920.460DECKN 89°33'55" W 127.46N 00°54'58" E 80.46 S 89°30'06" E 126.21S 00°01'35" W 80.3210196 S.F.0.234 ACRESLOTS 404 & 405CLIENT: Al Woolhouse ConstructionDATE OF SURVEY: 05/04/202311OFSHEETCERTIFICATE OF SURVEY TRUE NORTH SURVEYS, P.A.JOB #: 2023-88FEETSCALE01020NOTE:THIS SURVEY IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PARTY TO WHOMIT WAS PREPARED FOR AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON BY ANY OTHER PARTY ORFOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE WITHOUT FIRST CONTACTING THE SURVEYOR WHODEVELOPED AND MADE THIS DRAWING, UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION OF THISDOCUMENT IS PROHIBITED.I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY, PLAN, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDERMY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWSOF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.NAMELIC. NODATE:JESSE T. BENGSTON49506LEGENDDENOTES 5/8" X 18" REBAR SET, MARKED BYLICENSE NO. 51693DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUNDASPHALT SURFACECONCRETE SURFACELANDSCAPINGWOOD FENCELOTS 404 & 405 GLENWOOD, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA1"=20'DESIGNED:DRAWN:JMBCHECKED:JTBHENNEPIN COUNTY COORDINATE SYSTEM(NAD 83 2011 ADJ.)NAVD 88, GEOID 18 6707 113TH AVE NE, PO BOX 952 SPICER, MN 56288 Phone: 320-212-10893.6 EAST LINE OF GLENWOOD05/08/2023 1 Date: May 19, 2023 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Myles Campbell, Planner Subject: 1840 Major Drive Jessica Roe, Applicant Introduction Jessica Roe, property owner of 1840 Major Drive, is seeking a variance from the City Code regarding a shoreland setback. She is requesting the following: Variance Requests City Code Requirements The applicant is requesting a variance from the shoreland setback requirement to add a new staircase to an existing deck within the setback, 50.9 ft. at its closest point. § 113‐149, Shoreland Management, Subd. (e)(1) Zoning Standards Structure setback from ordinary high water for Recreational Development Waters: 75 ft. Background 1840 Major Drive is a Single‐ Family property of approximately 27,988 sq.ft. in area, with much of that being part of Sweeney Lake to the east of the home. The home has access via Major Drive to the west. The home was built in 1967 prior to the City’s adoption of its shoreland management code, leading to portions of the original structure falling within the required shoreland setback. 2 In 1992, a variance was applied for and received by the previous owner to construct a deck and three‐season porch addition off the rear of the home, also within the shoreland setback, approximately 49 feet from the ordinary high water level (OHWL) of the lake at its closest point. A subsequent variance in 2004 for a minor addition to the front of the home was denied. The applicant recently purchased the home and contacted staff to determine what options were available for replacement of the deck as it was in poor condition. During this review, staff noted that the existing deck today had been expanded after the original variance without a permit, likely some time in the mid‐2000s based upon aerial imagery. Additional improvements within the shoreland area were made by the previous owner as well such as a shed/boathouse, and additional hardscape without permits. Based on this new information, the applicant and their design team drew up a new layout for the deck, which keeps the structure from expanding any closer to the lake by converting the existing stairs to flooring and adding new stairs toward the home. Summary of Request To the left is an image of the existing deck as it exists today. The entire area of the deck falls within the shoreland setback, and is 50.9 ft. from the OHWL. The deck is approximately 263 sq.ft. including the stairs that were added after its original approval. The unpermitted stair addition essentially pushed the deck 4’ to the north but no closer to the lake (shown in orange). The applicant is proposing to replace the existing deck in place and convert the stair area into additional deck flooring. The existing concrete pad at the foot of these stairs would be removed. In order to maintain access to the backyard, new stairs from off the back of the deck and mounted to the side of the home would be provided, as shown in the image below. As with the existing deck, most of these stairs would fall within the shoreland setback, as well as a corner of a proposed concrete pad at the foot of the new stairs. The new stairs would be approximately 36 sq.ft. in total area, and the concrete pad approximately 4’x4’. The area within the shoreland setback is highlighted in yellow in the image, with the blue area being outside the setback. One new structural post for the foot of the stairs would be needed, as well as three posts along the east face of the deck to account for the removed stairs (new posts shown in red). 3 The applicant notes in their proposal that they originally began examining options to expand the deck to allow for more outdoor seating and a grill, but then modified plans to only convert the existing stairs to accomplish a similar effect without expanding the deck either closer to their neighbor or to the lake. Additionally, they note that as part of the project block walls and the existing pavers will be removed and create a net decrease in impervious surface of 63 sq.ft. While no landscaping plans are provided, based on conversations with staff this is also something the applicant plans to provide in the area around the deck, to further naturalize the backyard. 4 Analysis In reviewing this application, staff has maintained the points of examination to the considerations outlined in Minnesota State Statute 462.357 and in the guidance of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources: 1. That the requested variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance, 2. That it is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, 3. And that a property exhibit “practical difficulties” in order for a variance to be granted. a. Does the property owner propose to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by ordinance? b. Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner? c. Would granting the variance alter the essential character of the locality? Staff finds that the variance is generally in line with the purpose of the Single‐Family Zoning District, which is to provide for detached single‐family dwelling units at a low density along with directly related and complementary uses. The request would not allow for additional unit density in the neighborhood and the rebuilt garage, as proposed, would not have a negative impact on the welfare of neighboring properties. In regards to the Shoreland Management chapter, a purpose is not given but a general policy is provided: The State Legislature has delegated responsibility to the municipalities of the State to regulate the subdivision, use and development of the shorelands of public waters and for purposes of preserving and enhancing the quality of surface waters, preserving the economic and natural environmental values of shorelands, and providing for the wise utilization of waters and related land resources. The responsibility is hereby recognized by the City. Staff does not feel that the proposal as designed would significantly impact the quality of the surface waters, and do not damage the natural values of the shoreland. The proposal, while retroactively signing off on the unpermitted expansion into the side yard, does not significantly alter the footprint of the deck or bring it closer to the lake than it stands today. It also brings the stairs away from the lake, allowing space for landscaping in the future to enhance the shorelands further. In the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, one of the stated objectives of the Housing Chapter is an objective to support the rehabilitation and reinvestment of the housing stock as structures continue to age. The deck in its current shape is in very poor condition, and the applicant is seeking to find a solution that improves the home without overly impacting the shorelands. From the Water Resources chapter, an objective of Maintain and enhance the integrity and ecological function of shoreland areas is provided. Per the recommendations/conditions suggested by Environmental Resources Staff, the belief is that improvements can be made in regard to the shoreland areas of this property, either through further removal of unpermitted structures, or through revegetation with native species. 5 In order to constitute practical difficulties: 1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner. The proposed deck replacement does not expand its existing footprint any closer to the lake, and attempts to minimize the overall impact (visually and in terms of soil disturbance) on the shoreland. Therefore, staff believes the variance requests propose to use the property in a reasonable manner. 2. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that are not caused by the landowner. While many homes throughout Golden Valley have a portion of their lot that is subject to a shoreland setback, it is uncommon for entire portions of the structure to have been built within the shoreland setback, such as in the case of this home and others along Major Drive. The shoreland setback restricts most of the rear yard and the home is also built at the 35’ front setback as well. Additionally, the applicant was not aware of the previous unpermitted improvements to the deck and elsewhere within the shoreland, and even keeping the deck as it is today would require a new variance approval. Staff believe the site does exhibit unique circumstances. 3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. The revised deck would appear largely as it does today, with the exception that there no longer would be stair access facing towards the lake. Given the relatively minor change compared to what exists now, staff believes the proposed use would not alter the essential character of the area. Additionally, staff assesses whether other options are available to meet the applicant’s needs without requiring a variance, or whether the proposal represents the smallest variance necessary to meet the applicant’s needs. As noted above, the deck’s existing footprint was never permitted by the City, and so the only by‐right option to replace it today would be to scale it back to the dimensions of the 1992 approval. A variance for the existing deck would eliminate the new 36 sq.ft. of stairs, but not necessarily provide any reduction in the existing hardcover. Recommendation Based on the factors above, staff recommends approval of the variance request for a waiver from the shoreland setback requirement to replace the existing deck and add new stairs, resulting in a setback of 50.9 ft. at its closest point to the ordinary high water level. Staff recommends this approval be conditioned on either the removal of the existing boathouse/shed in the rear yard or application for a conditional use permit for the structure. An additional consideration for a condition would be to provide staff with a landscaping plan to further improve the shoreland and to screen the deck from the lake. 6 Points of Consideration Met Not Met In harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance X Consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan Conditionally 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? No. April 21, 2023 Thank you so much for considering my request for a variance at 1840 Major Drive North. I’ve lived in Golden Valley for more than 24 years (moved to Loring Lane when I was pregnant with my twins and had a 2-year-old). It has been a wonderful place to raise my kids, who are now young adults. I spent the last 6+ years looking for a new home and finally found the house on Major Drive. I originally asked the agent about the deck, as it’s in very rough shape and needs to be replaced. She said I could replace it “as is” or apply for a variance. In considering replacement I realized that I didn’t have enough room for a table that could fit my three adult children and their significant others (an important consideration for an empty nester!). However, the issues surrounding the deck became much bigger when my engineer found that the house was built on the deck. Shortly thereafter, I learned that the current deck steps were moved without a variance and that any replacement would require my putting the stairs in the front of the deck. As we explored options, we came up with a way to reduce the hardcover, ensure the integrity of the house, and accomplish my main goal of sitting on the deck with all my kids and their families for many years to come! Thank you for your consideration. Jessica Roe 1840 Major Drive, N (612) 810-1807 Majo r D r i v e S w e e n y L a k e# 42379LICENSE NO.Thomas M. BloomDATES1MARCH 28, 2023Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345Phone (952) 474-796417917 Highway 7Web: www.advsur.comAdvanceSurveying & Engineering, Co.CLIENT NAME / JOB ADDRESSSHEET TITLEEXISTING CONDITIONSSURVEYSHEET NO.SHEET 1 OF 1DRAWING ORIENTATION & SCALE40200230309 TBREV 4 - 19DRAWING NUMBERDATE DRAFTED:DATE SURVEYED:MARCH 28, 2023MARCH 28, 2023LEGENDSHEET SIZE17 X 22SCALE - 1" = 20'LEGAL DESCRIPTION:Lot 8, Block 3, HEATHBROOK, Hennepin County, Minnesota.SCOPE OF WORK & LIMITATIONS:1.Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of thelegal description listed above. The scope of our servicesdoes not include determining what you own, which is alegal matter. Please check the legal description with yourrecords or consult with competent legal counsel, ifnecessary, to make sure that it is correct and that anymatters of record, such as easements, that you wish to beincluded on the survey have been shown.2.Showing the location of observed existing improvementswe deem necessary for the survey.3.Setting survey markers or verifying existing surveymarkers to establish the corners of the property.4.This survey has been completed without the benefit of acurrent title commitment. There may be existingeasements or other encumbrances that would be revealedby a current title commitment. Therefore, this survey doesnot purport to show any easements or encumbrances otherthan the ones shown hereon.5.Note that all building dimensions and building tiedimensions to the property lines, are taken from the sidingand or stucco of the building.6.It should be noted that this survey was done under snowand ice conditions and that all improvements may or maynot have been shown correctly. While we did our best tolocate all improvements under the snow and ice, we can'tbe sure that all improvements were shown. Please lookover the survey to be sure everything you need shown isshown correctly.7.Showing and tabulating impervious surface coverage ofthe lot for your review and for the review of suchgovernmental agencies that may have jurisdiction overthese requirements to verify they are correctly shownbefore proceeding with construction.STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS:"●" Denotes iron survey marker, set, unless otherwise noted.JESSICA ROE1840 MAJOR DRIVE NORTHGOLDEN VALLEY, MNEXISTING HARDCOVERHOUSE (INCL. CANT.) 2,294 SQ. FT.CONCRETE 272 SQ. FT.BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY 1,015 SQ. FT.DECKS 335 SQ. FT.REAR PORCH 229 SQ. FT.SHED 99 SQ. FT.PAVERS 49 SQ. FT.WALLS 323 SQ. FT.TOTAL EXISTING HARDCOVER 4,616 Sq. Ft.AREA OF LOT TO OHW 14,866 Sq. Ft.PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER TO LOT 31.1% Majo r D r i v e S w e e n y L a k e# 42379LICENSE NO.Thomas M. BloomDATES1APRIL 19, 2023Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345Phone (952) 474-796417917 Highway 7Web: www.advsur.comAdvanceSurveying & Engineering, Co.CLIENT NAME / JOB ADDRESSSHEET TITLEPROPOSED SURVEYSHEET NO.SHEET 1 OF 1DRAWING ORIENTATION & SCALE40200230379 JRDRAWING NUMBERDATE DRAFTED:DATE SURVEYED:MARCH 28, 2023APRIL 19, 2023LEGENDSHEET SIZE17 X 22SCALE - 1" = 20'LEGAL DESCRIPTION:Lot 8, Block 3, HEATHBROOK, Hennepin County, Minnesota.SCOPE OF WORK & LIMITATIONS:1.Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the legaldescription listed above. The scope of our services does notinclude determining what you own, which is a legal matter.Please check the legal description with your records or consultwith competent legal counsel, if necessary, to make sure that itis correct and that any matters of record, such as easements, thatyou wish to be included on the survey have been shown.2.Showing the location of observed existing improvements wedeem necessary for the survey.3.Setting survey markers or verifying existing survey markers toestablish the corners of the property.4.This survey has been completed without the benefit of a currenttitle commitment. There may be existing easements or otherencumbrances that would be revealed by a current titlecommitment. Therefore, this survey does not purport to showany easements or encumbrances other than the ones shownhereon.5.Note that all building dimensions and building tie dimensions tothe property lines, are taken from the siding and or stucco of thebuilding.6.It should be noted that this survey was done under snow and iceconditions and that all improvements may or may not have beenshown correctly. While we did our best to locate allimprovements under the snow and ice, we can't be sure that allimprovements were shown. Please look over the survey to besure everything you need shown is shown correctly.7.While we show a proposed location for this home or addition,we are not as familiar with your proposed plans as you, yourarchitect, or the builder are. Review our proposed location ofthe improvements and proposed yard grades carefully to verifythat they match your plans before construction begins. Also,we are not as familiar with local codes and minimumrequirements as the local building and zoning officials in thiscommunity are. Be sure to show this survey to said officials, orany other officials that may have jurisdiction over the proposedimprovements and obtain their approvals before beginningconstruction or planning improvements to the property.STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS:"●" Denotes iron survey marker, set, unless otherwise noted.JESSICA ROE1840 MAJOR DRIVE NORTHGOLDEN VALLEY, MNEXISTING HARDCOVERHOUSE (INCL. CANT.) 2,294 SQ. FT.CONCRETE 272 SQ. FT.BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY 1,015 SQ. FT.DECKS 335 SQ. FT.REAR PORCH 229 SQ. FT.SHED 99 SQ. FT.PAVERS 49 SQ. FT.WALLS 323 SQ. FT.TOTAL EXISTING HARDCOVER 4,616 Sq. Ft.AREA OF LOT TO OHW 14,866 Sq. Ft.PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER TO LOT 31.1%PROPOSED HARDCOVERHOUSE (INCL. CANT.) 2,294 SQ. FT.CONCRETE 241 SQ. FT.BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY 1,015 SQ. FT.DECKS 332 SQ. FT.DECKS STAIRS 55 SQ. FT.REAR PORCH 229 SQ. FT.SHED 99 SQ. FT.PAVERS 49 SQ. FT.WALLS 239 SQ. FT.TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER 4,553 Sq. Ft.AREA OF LOT TO OHW 14,866 Sq. Ft.PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER TO LOT 30.6% 2'-6"3'-0"2'-6"2'-6"2'-8"2'-4"LIN.2X10 JOISTS @ 16" O.C.HVAC. DUCTS 6'-5" CLEARANCE HT. FURN.WH. WATER MAIN & CLEAN OUT MECH. / STORAGE CONC. CLG: 7'-6" TO BOTTOM OF JOISTS MECH. / STORAGE CONC. CLG: 7'-6" TO BOTTOM OF JOISTS FD. 5'-0" BIFOLD BUILT INS ACCESS PANEL FOR UNDER STOOP STORAGE MECH. SOFFIT ABOVE SILL: 4'-3 1/2" HEAD: 6'-6"SILL: 9.5" 7'-9" SLIDING GLASS DOOR PORCH ABOVE BEDROOM #3 CARPET CLG: 7'-4 1/2" RECREATION CARPET CLG: 7'-4 1/2" BAR TILE CLG: 7'-4 1/2" DEN CARPET CLG: 7'-4 1/2" PATIO 13'-1 1/2"22'-9"15'-9 3/4" 23'-8 3/4"3'-1 1/4"25'-6 3/4"10'-9 1/4"15'-7 1/4"9'-8 1/4"3'-1 1/2"13'-5 1/2"19'-8 1/2"3'-1 1/4"4'-10 1/4"7'-10 3/4"UNEXCAVATED 6'-8" CLEARANCE HT.UPCRAWL SPACE WASTE DRAIN UP STEEL BEAM (3)2X1017'-0"14'-0"EXISTING STUD WALL DRAWING KEY: EXISTING FOUNDATION WALL ISSUE DATE 2.20.1 41 WIND0ILLERDESI*NSTUDIO.CO0 4.3.23 NOTE: WINDMILLER DESIGN STUDIO, LLC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR STRUCTURAL OR DIMENSIONAL ERRORS OR OMISSIONS. WINDMILLER DESIGN STUDIO, LLC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE WORKMANSHIP OF THE SUB-CONTRACTORS. THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR OWNER MUST VERIFY AND CHECK ALL NOTES, DETAILS, ELEVATIONS, SECTIONS AND FLOOR PLANS AND NOTIFY WINDMILLER DESIGN STUDIO, LLC. OF ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS FOR POSSIBLE CORRECTION PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION. © 2023 Windmiller Design Studio. Reproduction solely by Windmiller Design Studio.ROE RESIDENCE1840 0A-OR DR N *OLDEN VALLE< 0N 4224.18.23 4.21.23 AB1.0 AS-BUILT LOWER LEVEL PLAN - APPROVED DECK As-Built Lower Level Plan - Approved Deck 3/16" = 1'-0"AB1.0 1 NWES REF3'-0"2'-8"3'-0"3'-0"2'-8"2'-8"2'-6"2'-6"2'-6" PKT2'-6"2'-6" PKTDW2'-4"2'-4"LIN. LIN. LIN.LIN. D W KITCHEN LIVING ROOM SUN PORCHDECK BATH PRIMARY SUITE WIC BEDROOM #2 PRIMARY BATH WICHALL FOYERDININGLAUNDRYGARAGE STOOP DN5'-8"11'-7 1/2"9'-8"10'-7"2'-0"12'-8 1/4" 13'-11 1/2"15'-4"7'-2"16'-7 1/4"9'-11"3'-1 1/4"16'-5 1/2"13'-10 1/2"23'-7"4'-9 3/4"13'-5 3/4"8'-8 1/4"4'-4"VAULTED CEILING PEAK HT. 9'-3" VAULTED CEILING PEAK HT. 10'-10 1/2" SILL: 1'-6" HEAD: 6'-8" SILL: 1'-6" HEAD: 6'-8" SILL: 1'-6" HEAD: 6'-8" SILL: 1'-6" HEAD: 6'-8" 9'-0" X 7'-0" OH DOOR 9'-0" X 7'-0" OH DOOR SILL: 3'-6"HEAD: 6'-8"SILL: 1'-4"HEAD: 7'-3"SILL: 1'-4"HEAD: 7'-3"SILL: 1'-4"HEAD: 7'-3"SILL: 1'-4"HEAD: 7'-3"SILL: 1'-4"HEAD: 7'-3"SILL: 1'-4"HEAD: 7'-3"SILL: 1'-4"HEAD: 7'-3"SILL: 10"HEAD: 6'-8"SILL: 10"HEAD: 6'-8"SILL: 10" HEAD: 6'-8" SILL: 10" HEAD: 6'-8"6'-0" SLIDING GLASS DOOR 8'-2" OPENING 5'-9" OPENING10'-6 1/4" OPENING2'-6" OPENING 6'-11" OPENING 3'-1" OPENINGSILL: 1'-0"HEAD: 6'-10"SILL: 5'-6"HEAD: 7'-2"SILL: 5'-6"HEAD: 7'-2"SILL: 1'-0 1/2" HEAD: 6'-9" SILL: 4'-10" HEAD: 6'-8"SILL: 1'-6"HEAD: 6'-8"SILL: 1'-6"HEAD: 6'-8"SILL: 1'-4"SILL: 1'-4"SILL: 1'-4"SILL: 1'-4"SILL: 1'-4"21'-2"WOOD CLG: 7'-11" WOOD CLG: 7'-11"SPRING HT: 8'-0"SPRING HT: 8'-0"TILE CLG: 7'-11" TILE CLG: 7'-11" CARPET CLG: 7'-11" CARPET CLG: 7'-11" WOOD CLG: 7'-11" WOOD CLG: 7'-11" WOOD CLG: 7'-11" WOOD CLG: 7'-11" CARPET CLG: 7'-11" CONC. ATTIC ACCESS POSTS BELOW POSTS BELOW 14'-3 1/2"14'-0"EXISTING STUD WALL DRAWING KEY: ISSUE DATE 2.20.1 41 WINDMILLERDESI*NSTUDIO.COM 4.3.23 NOTE: WINDMILLER DESIGN STUDIO, LLC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR STRUCTURAL OR DIMENSIONAL ERRORS OR OMISSIONS. WINDMILLER DESIGN STUDIO, LLC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE WORKMANSHIP OF THE SUB-CONTRACTORS. THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR OWNER MUST VERIFY AND CHECK ALL NOTES, DETAILS, ELEVATIONS, SECTIONS AND FLOOR PLANS AND NOTIFY WINDMILLER DESIGN STUDIO, LLC. OF ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS FOR POSSIBLE CORRECTION PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION. © 2023 Windmiller Design Studio. Reproduction solely by Windmiller Design Studio.ROE RESIDENCE1840 MA-OR DR N *OLDEN VALLE< MN 4224.18.23 4.21.23 AB1.1 AS-BUILT MAIN LEVEL PLAN - APPROVED DECK As-Built Main Level Plan - Approved Deck 3/16" = 1'-0"AB1.1 1 NWES 33" REF 3'-0"2'-6"2'-6"2'-4"KITCHEN LIVING ROOM SUN PORCHDECK BATH HALL 7'-2"3'-1 1/4"16'-5 1/2"13'-6 3/4"VAULTED CEILING PEAK HT. 9'-3"SILL: 1'-4"HEAD: 7'-3"SILL: 1'-4"HEAD: 7'-3"SILL: 1'-4"HEAD: 7'-3"SILL: 1'-4"HEAD: 7'-3"SILL: 1'-4"HEAD: 7'-3"SILL: 1'-4"HEAD: 7'-3"SILL: 1'-4"HEAD: 7'-3"SILL: 3'-2" HEAD: 6'-8"9'-0" SLIDING GLASS DOOR 8'-2" OPENING 10'-6" OPENING SILL: 1'-0"HEAD: 6'-10"SILL: 3'-0" HEAD: 6'-8" SILL: 1'-4"SILL: 1'-4"SILL: 1'-4"SILL: 1'-4"SILL: 1'-4" WOOD CLG: 7'-11" WOOD CLG: 7'-11"SPRING HT: 8'-0"SPRING HT: 8'-0"TILE CLG: 7'-11" WOOD CLG: 7'-11" 4'-0"4'-6"15'-7" OPENING36" GAS FIREPLACEDOUBLE OVENS30" COOK TOP3'-2 1/2" DW SILL: 3'-2"HEAD: 6'-8"TRASH/ REC.4'-1"2'-8" SINK3'-8"4'-11 1/2" ALLOW FOR DOOR SWING HOME CENTRAL / DROP DESK 24" MICRO. COMPOSITE 4'-2" OPENINGDROPPED HEADER8 1/4" 4'-7 1/2" OPENING 2'-6" PKT. VAULTED CEILING BUILT INBUILT IN6'-0"+/- 3'-3" 2'-0"4'-2 3/4"8'-0"FLUSH BEAM 4'-0 1/2"5'-2 1/4"REMOVE EXISTING STAIRS VERIFY HEIGHT OF GRADE FROM TOP OF DECK DN TO GRADE 3'-0"BASE CABINETPANTRYON COUNTERLANDING 36" HIGH RAILING 18'-4"14'-0"4'-0"9'-0"NEW STUD WALL DRAWING KEY: EXISTING STUD WALL DEMO WALL EXISTING FOUNDATION WALL ISSUE DATE 952.250.1941 WINDMILLERDESIGNSTUDIO.COM 4.3.23 NOTE: WINDMILLER DESIGN STUDIO, LLC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR STRUCTURAL OR DIMENSIONAL ERRORS OR OMISSIONS. WINDMILLER DESIGN STUDIO, LLC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE WORKMANSHIP OF THE SUB-CONTRACTORS. THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR OWNER MUST VERIFY AND CHECK ALL NOTES, DETAILS, ELEVATIONS, SECTIONS AND FLOOR PLANS AND NOTIFY WINDMILLER DESIGN STUDIO, LLC. OF ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS FOR POSSIBLE CORRECTION PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION.ROE RESIDENCE1840 MAJOR DR N GOLDEN VALLEY MN 554224.18.23 A1.1 MAIN LEVEL PLAN REF3'-0"2'-8"3'-0"3'-0"2'-8"2'-8"2'-6"2'-6"2'-6" PKT2'-6"2'-6" PKTDW2'-4"2'-4"LIN. LIN. LIN.LIN. D W KITCHEN LIVING ROOM SUN PORCHDECK BATH PRIMARY SUITE WIC BEDROOM #2 PRIMARY BATH WICHALL FOYERDININGLAUNDRYGARAGE STOOP DN5'-8"11'-7 1/2"9'-8"10'-7"2'-0"12'-8 1/4" 13'-11 1/2"15'-4"7'-2"16'-7 1/4"9'-11"3'-1 1/4"16'-5 1/2"13'-6 3/4"23'-7"4'-9 3/4"13'-5 3/4"8'-8 1/4"4'-4"VAULTED CEILING PEAK HT. 9'-3" VAULTED CEILING PEAK HT. 10'-10 1/2" SILL: 1'-6" HEAD: 6'-8" SILL: 1'-6" HEAD: 6'-8" SILL: 1'-6" HEAD: 6'-8" SILL: 1'-6" HEAD: 6'-8" 9'-0" X 7'-0" OH DOOR 9'-0" X 7'-0" OH DOOR SILL: 3'-6"HEAD: 6'-8"SILL: 1'-4"HEAD: 7'-3"SILL: 1'-4"HEAD: 7'-3"SILL: 1'-4"HEAD: 7'-3"SILL: 1'-4"HEAD: 7'-3"SILL: 1'-4"HEAD: 7'-3"SILL: 1'-4"HEAD: 7'-3"SILL: 1'-4"HEAD: 7'-3"SILL: 10"HEAD: 6'-8"SILL: 10"HEAD: 6'-8"SILL: 10" HEAD: 6'-8" SILL: 10" HEAD: 6'-8"6'-0" SLIDING GLASS DOOR 8'-2" OPENING 5'-9" OPENING10'-6 1/4" OPENING2'-6" OPENING 6'-11" OPENING 3'-1" OPENINGSILL: 1'-0"HEAD: 6'-10"SILL: 5'-6"HEAD: 7'-2"SILL: 5'-6"HEAD: 7'-2"SILL: 1'-0 1/2" HEAD: 6'-9" SILL: 4'-10" HEAD: 6'-8"SILL: 1'-6"HEAD: 6'-8"SILL: 1'-6"HEAD: 6'-8"SILL: 1'-4"SILL: 1'-4"SILL: 1'-4"SILL: 1'-4"SILL: 1'-4"21'-2"WOOD CLG: 7'-11" WOOD CLG: 7'-11"SPRING HT: 8'-0"SPRING HT: 8'-0"TILE CLG: 7'-11" TILE CLG: 7'-11" CARPET CLG: 7'-11" CARPET CLG: 7'-11" WOOD CLG: 7'-11" WOOD CLG: 7'-11" WOOD CLG: 7'-11" WOOD CLG: 7'-11" CARPET CLG: 7'-11" CONC. ATTIC ACCESS POSTS BELOW 18'-4"14'-4"4'-0"10'-0"EXISTING STUD WALL DRAWING KEY: ISSUE DATE 952.250.1941 WINDMILLERDESIGNSTUDIO.COM 4.3.23 NOTE: WINDMILLER DESIGN STUDIO, LLC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR STRUCTURAL OR DIMENSIONAL ERRORS OR OMISSIONS. WINDMILLER DESIGN STUDIO, LLC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE WORKMANSHIP OF THE SUB-CONTRACTORS. THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR OWNER MUST VERIFY AND CHECK ALL NOTES, DETAILS, ELEVATIONS, SECTIONS AND FLOOR PLANS AND NOTIFY WINDMILLER DESIGN STUDIO, LLC. OF ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS FOR POSSIBLE CORRECTION PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION.ROE RESIDENCE1840 MAJOR DR N GOLDEN VALLEY MN 554224.18.23 AB1.1 AS-BUILT MAIN LEVEL PLAN 2'-6"2'-6"2'-6"FURN.WH.FD. 5'-0" BIFOLD MECH. SOFFIT ABOVE REPLACE SLIDING DOOR PORCH ABOVE BEDROOM #3 CARPET CLG: 7'-4 1/2" RECREATION CARPET CLG: 7'-4 1/2" PATIO 13'-1 1/2"3'-1 1/2"13'-5 1/2"19'-8 1/2"4'-0"6'-8" CLEARANCE HT.UPWASTE DRAIN 3'-6" X 5'-0" SHOWER BATH TILE 3'-6" VANITY2'-6" VERIFY DOOR SWING CLEARANCE PRIOR TO ORDERING DOOR6'-5 3/4"+/-7'-0" SILL: 4'-3 1/2" HEAD: 6'-6" 3'-6"3'-6"2'-6"4'-0"EQ.EQ.ALLIGN2'-4"2'-4" PKT 2'- 4 "5'-4 1/2"STEEL BEAM 2'-0"3' - 0 "5'-0"EQ. DEMO STAIRS UP STRUCTURAL POSTS W/ HELICAL PIERS SEE STRUCTURAL DECK JOISTSSEE STRUCTURALPROPOSED STAIRS 18'-4"14'-0"3'-0"DECK UNDERSIDE UNFINISHED NEW STUD WALL DRAWING KEY: EXISTING STUD WALL DEMO WALL EXISTING FOUNDATION WALL ISSUE DATE 952.250.1941 WINDMILLERDESIGNSTUDIO.COM 4.3.23 NOTE: WINDMILLER DESIGN STUDIO, LLC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR STRUCTURAL OR DIMENSIONAL ERRORS OR OMISSIONS. WINDMILLER DESIGN STUDIO, LLC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE WORKMANSHIP OF THE SUB-CONTRACTORS. THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR OWNER MUST VERIFY AND CHECK ALL NOTES, DETAILS, ELEVATIONS, SECTIONS AND FLOOR PLANS AND NOTIFY WINDMILLER DESIGN STUDIO, LLC. OF ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS FOR POSSIBLE CORRECTION PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION.ROE RESIDENCE1840 MAJOR DR N GOLDEN VALLEY MN 554224.18.23 A1.0 LOWER LEVEL PLAN 2'-6"3'-0"2'-6"2'-6"2'-8"2'-4"LIN.2X10 JOISTS @ 16" O.C.HVAC. DUCTS 6'-5" CLEARANCE HT. FURN.WH. WATER MAIN & CLEAN OUT MECH. / STORAGE CONC. CLG: 7'-6" TO BOTTOM OF JOISTS MECH. / STORAGE CONC. CLG: 7'-6" TO BOTTOM OF JOISTS FD. 5'-0" BIFOLD BUILT INS ACCESS PANEL FOR UNDER STOOP STORAGE MECH. SOFFIT ABOVE SILL: 4'-3 1/2" HEAD: 6'-6"SILL: 9.5" 7'-9" SLIDING GLASS DOOR PORCH ABOVE BEDROOM #3 CARPET CLG: 7'-4 1/2" RECREATION CARPET CLG: 7'-4 1/2" BAR TILE CLG: 7'-4 1/2" DEN CARPET CLG: 7'-4 1/2" PATIO 13'-1 1/2"22'-9"15'-9 3/4" 23'-8 3/4"3'-1 1/4"25'-6 3/4"10'-9 1/4"15'-7 1/4"9'-8 1/4"3'-1 1/2"13'-5 1/2"19'-8 1/2"3'-1 1/4"4'-10 1/4"7'-10 3/4"UNEXCAVATED 6'-8" CLEARANCE HT.UPCRAWL SPACE WASTE DRAINUPSTEEL BEAM (3)2X10 18'-4"14'-4"EXISTING STUD WALL DRAWING KEY: EXISTING FOUNDATION WALL ISSUE DATE 952.250.1941 WINDMILLERDESIGNSTUDIO.COM 4.3.23 NOTE: WINDMILLER DESIGN STUDIO, LLC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR STRUCTURAL OR DIMENSIONAL ERRORS OR OMISSIONS. WINDMILLER DESIGN STUDIO, LLC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE WORKMANSHIP OF THE SUB-CONTRACTORS. THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR OWNER MUST VERIFY AND CHECK ALL NOTES, DETAILS, ELEVATIONS, SECTIONS AND FLOOR PLANS AND NOTIFY WINDMILLER DESIGN STUDIO, LLC. OF ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS FOR POSSIBLE CORRECTION PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION.ROE RESIDENCE1840 MAJOR DR N GOLDEN VALLEY MN 554224.18.23 AB1.0 AS-BUILT LOWER LEVEL PLAN