Loading...
bza-agenda-apr-27-22         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 2450 805 8077.   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 2450 805 8077. Press *3 to raise your  hand during public comment sections.    1. Call to Order    2. Approval of Agenda    3. Approval of Minutes  March 22, 2022, Regular Meeting    4. Address: 1875 Kyle Place  Applicant: Allison Adrian and Spencer Gerberding  Request: 9.3 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 5.9 feet   § 113‐88, Single‐Family Zoning District (f)(1)(c)(1) Side Setback Requirements    5. Address: 2330 York   Applicant: Josh Kunde  Requests: 4 feet off the required 15 feet to a total distance of 11 feet  § 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District (e)(1)(c)(1) Principal Structure Side Setback    6. Address: 6300 Olson Memorial Highway   Applicant: Connor McCarthy for United Properties  Requests: 25 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 10 feet  § 113‐151, Off‐Street Parking and Loading (b)(9)(a)(1) External Landscaping: Front Yard    7. Address: 2234 Lee Ave N  Applicant: Amy and Miles Fiterman   Requests: 9.5 feet off the required 35 feet to a total distance of 25.5 feet  § 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District (f)(1)(a) Principal Structure Front Setback    8. Adjournment   April 27, 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 by Richard Orenstein.    Roll Call  Members present: Chris Carlson, Nancy Nelson, Richard Orenstein, Kade Arms‐Regenold, Adam  Brookins – Planning Commissioner     Staff present:    Myles Campbell – Planner, Jason Zimmerman – Planning Manager    Approval of Agenda  MOTION made by Carlson, seconded by Orenstein to approve the agenda of January 25, 2022, as  submitted.   Motion carried    Approval of Minutes  MOTION made by Arms‐Regenold, seconded by Orenstein to approve the December 28, 2021 meeting  minutes.   Motion carried       1. Address: 1875 Kyle Place  Applicant: Allison Adrian and Spencer Gerberding  Request: 9.3 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 5.9 feet   § 113‐88, Single‐Family Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(c)(1) Side Setback Requirements    Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, reviewed the request and reminded the Board that the  previous request was partially denied in November 2021. Staff reviewed the property, lot  regulations, and the applicant’s amended request. Staff pointed out that the city zoning code  regulates setbacks to 15ft when a lot is 100ft or wider. The applicant would like to reduce their  setback to 5.9 ft.     Practical Difficulties  ‐ The ability to have a deck overlooking Sweeney Lake appears to be reasonable. However, the  applicants already have a walkway facing the lake and, with the construction of the large new deck,  have gone beyond the constraints imposed by the side yard setback that all other homes on Sweeney  Lake must follow.  March 22, 2022 – 7 pm  City of Golden Valley    BZA Regular Meeting  March 22, 2022 – 7 pm       2  Enough space exists to the east of the home to construct a conforming deck. Alternatively, a ground  level patio could be constructed in the same area of equal size without necessitating a variance.  Therefore, staff believes the owners do not propose to use the property in a reasonable manner.    ‐ The need for the variance is due to the construction – absent City review or permits – of a large  deck without consideration the side yard setback requirement. While staff does not believe this  action was carried out with any ill intent, the fact remains that the need for the variance is clearly  due to circumstances that were caused by the owners and not due to circumstances unique to the  lot. A sufficient side yard exists to allow the applicants to utilize a generous outdoor space, albeit as a  patio instead of a deck.    ‐ There are many eyes on the back yards of homes that abut Sweeney Lake, and a number of  concerned residents are aware of the lake’s classification as an impaired body of water. Allowing  large structures to be constructed that meet zoning requirements may be unavoidable, but allowing  those that do NOT meet requirements to remain only adds to the number of impervious surfaces in  the area and contributes to runoff into the lake. Given the large size of the deck – even with the front  portion removed to accommodate the Shoreland Overlay District and the sanitary easement – staff  believes the proposed use would 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:   There remains enough room to the east of the existing home for a smaller deck to be  constructed while observing the 15‐foot setback. Alternatively, the space that the new deck  occupies could be replaced with a ground level patio (under 8 inches) and not be constrained by  the side yard setback (though a setback of 3 feet from the side property line would still need to  be observed).    Recommendations  Based on the factors above, staff recommends denial of the variance request for 9 feet 3 inches off  the required 15 feet to a distance of 5 foot 9 inches for a deck from a side property line.    Chair Orenstein invited the applicant to speak.     Spencer Gerberding, Applicant, stated that they have pulled the deck back to meet the shoreline  setback but want to maintain the deck size to accommodate large gatherings. The deck was built in  order to utilize the minimal shade offered by vegetation. Meeting the 15‐yard setback decreases the  size of the deck to where a table won’t fit. The grade change discussed by staff means the lower level  is a walk out on the lake side and the main level becomes a second level. Creating a patio will be six  feet below the deck due to this grade change.   Board members asked a few questions about grading, creating a patio/deck combination, and the  current deck size with the shoreline section removed. The applicant discussed the integrity of the  City of Golden Valley    BZA Regular Meeting  March 22, 2022 – 7 pm       3  home design and the deck’s design created to enhance that. The applicant also spoke of the support  for the deck from the office building next door and other neighbors. Members and the applicant  discussed alternatives in deck size, location, and design to accommodate regulation and still be  pleasing to the applicant.     Chair Orenstein started the open forum and stated the large volume of letters that came in from  neighbors and the commercial property next door. Staff clarified the comments were from the  previous meeting, before the item was tabled.     The other applicant and their architect called in during public comment. The architect added that the  grade is challenging to create a patio and would require 6 or 7 tiers of a patio. This would be a large  landscaping change and would alter the character of the yard.    Chair Orenstein closed the open forum at 7:28pm.    Members discussed the property, city regulation, the current design, and not knowing what  alternatives would be more acceptable. Members discussed what they would consider if the  applicant requested a variance before construction. Commissioner Brookins stated he sees other  areas on the property to accommodate a deck or other ways to create a deck in the same location.  He added that it’s not a practical difficulty that a homeowner should require 800sqft to host a party.  Brookins said the group has pushed back when a homeowner is requesting a 1.5 car garage and are  now considering a variance for a deck that’s 832sq feet and built without a permit. Brookins is  inclined to denying the variance completely. Member Carlson stated that he understands the  applicant’s desire but the size is too large for the available space. He added that the applicant should  receive the same scrutiny they give to other variances. He added he’s not comfortable with a  variance as it is.   The applicant added the deck location doesn’t impact neighbors.   Staff reminded the group that a lot of factors are at play and they should follow the BZA guiding  principles.   Chair Orenstein asked if they should vote or if the applicant would like to table.   The applicant requested to table.   Members stated the applicant should table and redesign their deck but they’re all inclined to decline  the request as it stands.   Brookins added that he can see a reasonable deck size being significantly smaller; that the deck can  reduce from 18ft wide to 14 and doesn’t need to be 43 feet deep. Brookins added that he would not  have approved the variance if the applicant came to the board prior to construction and there is  room on the west side of the home to build a conforming deck.   Members requested the applicant remove the portion of the deck facing the water and increase the  5.3 ft request off the property line to     A MOTION was made by Orenstein and seconded by Nelson to table the item to March 27th, 2022.  Aye: Arms‐Regenold, Carlson, Nelson, Orenstein   Nay: Commissioner Brookins  City of Golden Valley    BZA Regular Meeting  March 22, 2022 – 7 pm       4      2. Address: 428 Sunnyridge Lane  Applicant: Greenwood Design Build LLC  Requests: 9.5 feet off the required 35 feet to a total distance of 25.5 feet  § 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(a) Principal Structure Front  Setback    Myles Campbell, Planner, summarized the request for 9.5 feet off the 35‐foot requirement from the  front property line. This is a corner lot and the request is for the portion of the lot facing Woodstock.  Staff gave a review of the lot, the neighborhood, and its zoning designation. The lot is technically two  parcels but are combined into one PID and treated as a singe lot. The current home is legally non‐ conforming and the applicant originally wanted to split the lot and build two new houses. They  created alternative plans after receiving significant negative feedback from neighbors and are now  redeveloping the single‐family home.   This lot had two variance requests from 2019, one denied and one approved.   The applicant intends to combine the lots into a single 80’ parcel and is requesting a reduction in the  street side setback  ‐ Reduced setback set at 25.5 ft from the north property line  ‐ Buildable area with standard setbacks is 31.5 ft (80 ft – 47.5 ft)  ‐ With the variance, buildable area width increases to 42’    Practical Difficulties  ‐ The proposed building footprint radically improves the street setback on Woodstock compared to  the existing home (25.5’ versus 2.4’). This setback intrusion would also be facing a mostly forested  area on the South Wirth Apartment Site to the North, limiting impacts on surrounding properties.  Staff believes the proposal as shown does use the property in a reasonable manner.    ‐ Being a corner lot is not typically considered a unique circumstance, even though at 80’ this is  relatively narrow. Compared to 2019, the lot is less encumbered by the 35’ street setback because of  the 40’ of additional width, and the buildable area is wide enough (32.5 ft) that it does not trigger the  exemptions in code for corner lots. Staff believes the property does not exhibit unique  circumstances.    ‐ The resulting setback would similar to that of other homes in the immediate area. The decision to  develop this property as a single lot was also a result of feedback from surrounding neighborhood.  Staff believes the proposed use would not alter the essential character of the area.    Other Considerations  ‐ As new build, there are options to reduce the variance request amount, although staff is not  concerned with the visual impact of the existing request    City of Golden Valley    BZA Regular Meeting  March 22, 2022 – 7 pm       5  Recommendation  Staff recommends denial of the variance for 9.5 feet off the required 35 feet to a total distance of  25.5 feet  ‐ If the board chooses to approve the variance, staff recommends this be conditioned upon the  approval of the lot consolidation at City Council.    Chair Orenstein invited the applicant to speak.  Greenwood Design, Applicant, stated he’s the owner and the developer for the property. The  applicant stated that the original plan was to develop two model homes but paused the plan as the  pandemic started. There is a client on contract to build a home on this lot as a single‐family lot. The  applicant acknowledged the only hardship is that the lot is a corner lot and that reduces the building  envelope.   The applicant is building the home and so the request for a variance is the result of the client’s design  needs for the home.     Chair Orenstein opened the open forum at 8:20pm  Staff stated no comments were received but the consolidation request did go to the Planning  Commission and there was a neighborhood meeting with 5 attendees. They were supportive of the  consolidation but no opposition to the variance today.     There were no in person comments.   There were no callers.    Chair Orenstein closed the open forum at 8:22pm.    Members discussed the request and Member Nelson stated she would approve it as it’s an  improvement on the previous request, it’s a smaller request, and is a better solution. Member  Carlson echoed this statement and added that there are many homes over the setbacks in that area.  An alternative would create the need for articulation on the other side of the building envelope.  Member Arms‐Regenold echoed the previous comments and added the importance of a condition.    A MOTION was made by Carlson and seconded by Nelson to approve the variance request of 9.5 feet  off the required 35 feet to a total distance of 25.5 feet conditional upon the approval of the lot  consolidation at City Council.   Motion passes.    3. Presentation of 2021 Board of Zoning Appeals Annual Report  Myles Campbell, Planner, presented the draft copy of the report.     In 2021, 23 variance requests were considered and 16 were in the R‐1 District.   17 Approved  3 denied  City of Golden Valley    BZA Regular Meeting  March 22, 2022 – 7 pm       6  2 Tabled  2 Withdrawn    Majority of requests were for garages (7), there were 2 requests each for a deck, shed, and parking,  then one for a new build.   Staff reviewed applications for the last 5 years as well as compared Board decisions.     4. Adjournment    MOTION made by Carlson, seconded by Orenstein and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the  meeting at 8:36 pm.  Motion carried.                                                                                                        ________________________________                                                                                               Richard Orenstein, Chair  _________________________________  Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant  1 Date: April 27, 2022 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Subject: 1875 Kyle Place Allison Adrian and Spencer Gerberding, Applicants Introduction Allison Adrian and Spencer Gerberding, property owners of 1875 Kyle Place, are seeking a variance from the City Code related to a side yard setback in order to make a newly constructed attached deck legal. They are requesting the following: Variance Request City Code Requirement The applicant is requesting a variance of 6 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 9 feet for a deck from the side property line. § 113-88, Single-Family Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(c)(1) Side Setback Requirements 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. Background 1875 Kyle Place is a 61,199 square foot single-family residential lot on the north shore of Sweeney Lake (though over half of the lot area extends into the lake). The lot currently contains a single- family home built in 1961 and an attached deck that was constructed in early 2021 without City review or building permits. The lot is constrained to the south by the Shoreland Overlay District, which extends 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark, and a sanitary easement which protects a 36 inch MCES Gravity line. The construction of the deck was observed and reported to the City by neighbors, who were concerned about the required setback from the lake. Staff contacted the property owners to establish the location of the deck in relation to the Shoreland Overlay District, the sanitary easement, and the side yard setback. The City’s Building Official was also concerned about Building Code compliance as neither the deck nor the footings were reviewed or permitted. 2 Staff notified the property owners that the deck would need to be removed or modified to conform to zoning regulations, or a variance approved to make the reduced setbacks legal. The owners applied for a variance in 2021. One aspect of the variance request was denied and the owners subsequently removed the portion of the deck that extended into the shoreland setback. The second part of the variance was tabled to allow the owners to explore a modified design that would require a lesser variance from the required side yard setback. A request associated with a revised design was considered by the Board in March, but tabled for additional modifications. The third version is in front of the Board now. This property and the surrounding lots to the north and west are zoned Single-Family Residential (R- 1). The lot to the east contains the Minneapolis Clinic of Neurology and is zoned Office. Summary of Request The applicant notes that they have removed all parts of the deck that extended beyond the 75 foot shoreland setback and into the MCES sanitary sewer easement. They are proposing a new deck design that would now increase the side setback from 1 foot 3 inches to 9 feet. They indicate this would provide for continued use and enjoyment of the deck without injuring neighboring properties. In offering support for this request, the applicants state that the large distance to the office building to the east (approximately 165 feet) and the buffer of mature trees that exists between the two provide privacy and avoids potential impacts. The applicants have provided letters of support from the three homes to the west as well as from the Minneapolis Clinic of Neurology. 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 allowing the deck to remain within the side yard setback would not have an egregious impact on the welfare of the neighboring property. 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. In order to constitute practical difficulties: 1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner. 3 Single-family properties often utilize decks in order to be able to enjoy being outside for a large portion of the year. Properties that sit adjacent to a lake are perhaps even more suited to have spaces to enjoy the outdoors. Therefore, the ability to have a deck overlooking Sweeney Lake appears to be reasonable. However, the applicants already have a walkway facing the lake and, with the construction of the large new deck, have gone beyond the constraints imposed by the side yard setback that all other homes on Sweeney Lake must follow. Enough space exists to the east of the home to construct a conforming deck, though it may not be as large as they would prefer. Alternatively, a deck located in the west portion of the lot or a ground level patio could be constructed in the same area of equal size without necessitating a variance. Therefore, staff believes the owners do not 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 need for the variance is due to the construction – absent City review or permits – of a large deck without consideration the side yard setback requirement. While staff does not believe this action was carried out with any ill intent, the fact remains that the applicants’ problem (the need for the variance) is clearly due to circumstances that were caused by the owners and not due to circumstances unique to the lot. A sufficient side yard exists to allow the applicants to utilize a generous outdoor space, albeit as a patio instead of a deck. 3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. There are many eyes on the back yards of homes that abut Sweeney Lake, and a number of concerned residents are aware of the lake’s classification as an impaired body of water. Allowing large structures to be constructed that meet zoning requirements may be unavoidable, but allowing those that do NOT meet requirements to remain only adds to the amount of impervious surfaces in the area and contributes to runoff into the lake. Given the large size of the deck – even with the front portion removed to accommodate the Shoreland Overlay District and the sanitary easement – staff believes the proposed use would 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. There remains enough room to the east of the existing home for a smaller deck to be constructed while observing the 15 foot setback. Alternatively, the space that the new deck occupies could be replaced with a terraced ground level patio (under 8 inches) and not be constrained by the side yard setback (though a setback of 3 feet from the side property line would still need to be observed). Recommendation Based on the factors above, staff recommends denial of the variance request for 6 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 9 feet for a deck from a side property line. 1875 Kyle Place  Variance Application Question Responses February 4, 2022 Provide a detailed description of the variance being requested: The property is located at 1875 Kyle Place on the very north end of Sweeney Lake. The home is  architecturally significant, designed by John Polivka and built in 1961. It is zoned Single‐Family  Residential (R‐1). We are hoping to reconfigure an existing deck extension on the east side of the home.  There are three property line setbacks in the area under consideration; a 75’ shoreline setback from the  lake, a sanitary sewer easement that runs through the middle of the lakeside yard, and a 15’ side yard  setback.  We have removed all parts of the deck that extend beyond the 75’ shoreline setback and the sanitary  sewer easement. We have redesigned the remaining portion of the deck to be located behind these two  lakeside setbacks and also to be architecturally complimentary with the home.  We are applying for a single side yard setback variance to allow a portion of our redesigned deck to  remain on our home. We seek a variance to reduce the setback on the east property line by 9’3”. This is  a reduction of 418.5 feet from our previous request and represents the removal of 211 square feet of  the deck along the easternmost border. This variance will allow for the continued use and enjoyment of  the deck without injuring the public welfare or neighboring properties. Evidenced by letters of support  from the surrounding neighbors, including the Neurology Clinic. Provide a detailed description of need for a variance from the Zoning Code, include description of  buildings, proposed additions, and description of proposed alteration to the property:  Our property is located on Sweeney Lake and our home is located across the width of the lot. The home  was designed by architect John Polivka. It is architecturally significant and has been widely published  nationally in print and on social media as an outstanding example of Mid‐Century design. The home  features an broad expansive façade facing the lake with a continuous cantilevered walkway that is just a  few feet wide that preserves the daylight and view of the walkout lower level.  We have hired local architecture firm Citydeskstudio to develop designs for a deck revision.  Citydeskstudio was the architect for the renovation of another significant Sweeney Lake home that has  been featured in City of Golden Valley Historic Context Study of 2020, 1905 Kyle Place.  A modified deck design is proposed at the east end to preserve the existing walkway and the south  façade, and to sensitively draw from the lines and details of the existing house. At its closest point our  proposed deck is 5’ 9” from the east property line. It does not encroach on the neighboring property and  exists entirely on our property. Along the east property line, located on both our lot and the neighboring  lot, there is a large grove of mature trees. There are approximately 160 feet between the deck and the  building located on the neighboring lot. The east side of our lot is the ideal location for the deck given  the existence of an easement on the south (shore) side of the property. This is not a typical lot line  situation where encroachment on a side yard setback impacts another residence.   Explain the need for your variance request and how it will result in a reasonable use of the property: Reasonable use of property located along a lake includes enjoyment of the shore front and its view. It is  common for lakeside properties to have decks for this purpose. Because of the position of the house on  the property and its proximity to the 75’ setback and sanitary sewer easement, there is not enough  room on the lakeside to extend a reasonable deck. The only reasonable location is on the east side of  the home where a deck will not block the windows of the lower level, will be able to connect to the  existing lakeside walkway, will require minimal alteration of the architecture of the home, and will fit  cohesively within the mature trees requiring minimal landscape disturbance. Additionally, this location for the deck does not prevent reasonable use of the neighboring property to  the east. Even with its close proximity to the property line, the deck is approximately 160 feet from the  building on the neighboring lot and is substantially separated by the grove of mature trees. There is no  encroachment onto the neighboring lot and the deck's proximity does not affect the neighboring  owner's use of the property for its intended business purpose. What is unique about your property and how do you feel it necessitates a variance? There are several reasons that support a variance that are unique to this property. The home was built  close to both lakeside setbacks not leaving enough room on the lakeside for a reasonable sized outdoor  area. The house is also a walkout and so the main floor has no direct access to the lakeside yard. There is  a continuous walkway across the lakeside of the house, but it is only a walkway and not wide enough for  sitting. The walkway is also a significant architectural feature adding to the character of the home.  The home is also a “V” shape with the west side of the “V” facing the neighbor to the west and being the  location of the main entry and carport. The home to the west is built right up to their side yard setback.  A deck cannot be located here because of the proximity of the neighbor and because of the  configuration of the home and its front entry. The only reasonable location for a deck that would provide outdoor space for gathering and enjoyment  of the lake is on the far east side of the house where a deck can be located behind the lakeside setbacks,  does not block the lower‐level windows of the house, does not require removal of mature trees,  requires minimal site disturbance, and does not alter the essential character of the house by preserving  the primary south façade facing the lake.  The east side of the house is already close to the side yard setback, and in fact the existing roofline is  already non‐compliant. Without a variance to the side yard setback, there is not enough room to have  an outdoor space that can accommodate a reasonable area for eating and gathering.  Explain how the need for a variance is based on circumstances that are not the result of landowner  action. None of the circumstances that necessitate a need for a variance are the result of landowner action. As  noted above, the location and shape of the existing dwelling on the property, the width of the lot, the  placement of large trees, the architectural significance of the home and its lake facing façade, and the  constraints of the setback and easement along the south property line, do not allow for a deck to be  attached at a different location. The location of the deck on the east side of the property is the only  feasible location. Explain how, if granted, the variance will not alter the essential character of your neighborhood and  Golden Valley as a whole. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or Golden Valley as a  whole. In fact, we feel that the proposed deck design enhances the beauty of the home by extending  out the lines and details already present, and by not interrupting the south façade by placing the deck  somewhere in the middle.  By approving the variance and allowing the existing deck to remain in place, we will be able to use and  enjoy the shoreline of the property. The deck's existing location and proposed modification is the most  appropriate location on the lot. The neighboring lot to the east is neither encroached upon nor impaired  by the deck's proximity to the property line. The lack of negative impact on the neighborhood is  evidenced by the letters of support enclosed with this application.    Thank you for your time and consideration.   Photographs of the Existing Deck at 1875 Kyle Place, Golden Valley Variance Application 22753826v1   Darren Benoit1919 Kyle PlaceTalia & Rob Jackson1915 Kyle PlaceJohn Sweet & Erik Brendtro1905 Kyle PlaceAllison Adrian &Spencer Gerberding1875 Kyle PlaceMinneapolis Clinic of Neurology4225 GoldenValleyRoadSweeney LakeDeck locationLarge mature 60’ spruce treesLetters of support from all surrounding neighbors     Date: April 27, 2022 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Myles Campbell, Planner Subject: 233 York Ave N Josh Kunde, Applicant Introduction Josh Kunde, the property owner, is seeking a variance from the City Code to build a garage addition at the above address. The applicant is seeking the following variances from City Code: Variance Request City Code Requirement The applicant is requesting a variance of 4 feet off the required 15 feet to a total distance of 11 feet § 113-88, Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District, Subd. (e)(1)(c)(1) 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. Background 2330 York Ave N is the current address for a single-family home built in 1953. It is located in the northernmost section of the City, west of Theodore Wirth Park and south of Valley View Park. The home has an existing attached single-car garage to the south of the main house. The lot itself is 100’ wide and has an area of 13,260 sq. ft. The applicant is looking to expand the existing garage on- site to allow for two cars to be stored indoors. The resulting garage would be roughly 25’ in width. 2 Summary of Request The applicant is requesting a variance from the requirements of the City’s Zoning Code regarding side yard setbacks. Current code requires a setback of 15’ from any side property line for properties that are at or above 100’ in width. This 15’ setback applies to the principal structure and any accessory structures attached to the principal structure. The existing home complies with this setback on either side, being 20.5’ from both the north and south property lines. The applicant here is requesting that the setback on the south side of the property to be reduced to 11’ instead of 15’ to allow for a wider building footprint. 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 3 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.” Improvements to sites with older garages have been a common home improvement in recent years as patterns of vehicle ownership have changed since the mid-20th century. In order to constitute practical difficulties: 1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner. A two-car garage has typically been considered reasonable use for a single-family property, as it is a requirement to demonstrate in new builds and due to Minnesota winters causing demand for more indoor storage. 25’ is not overly wide, and an 11’ setback preserves the majority of the required setback. Staff believes the proposal as shown does use the property in a reasonable manner. 2. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that is not caused by the landowner. Mature trees in the rear yard mean that a detached garage or a deeper tandem style garage would likely require their removal. This leaves a variance as the only option to get more interior garage space without impacting the trees to the rear of the structure. Staff believes the site does exhibit unique circumstances. 3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality The new garage will fall within the building envelope in terms of height, and will match the roofline and exterior finish of the home. The resulting setback preserves a decent amount of space between the home and the property line. 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 requests the smallest variance necessary to meet the applicant’s needs. Generally speaking the only reductions possible would involve shrinking the garage width, although given the existing location, any two car garage above 20’ in width would still require a variance. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance for 4 feet off the required 15 feet to a total distance of 11 feet 1 Date: April 27, 2022 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Subject: 6300 Olson Memorial Highway Connor McCarthy for United Properties, Applicant Introduction Connor McCarthy, on behalf of United Properties, is seeking two identical variances from the City Code related to the location of parking within a required front yard landscaped area for a new development at 6300 Olson Memorial Highway. He is requesting the following: Variance Request City Code Requirement The applicant is requesting variances of 25 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 10 feet for parking within a front yard landscaped area. § 113-151, Off-Street Parking and Loading, Subd. (b)(9)(a)(1) External Landscaping: Front Yard The minimum required landscaped areas, within which there shall be no parking or drive aisles, shall be 35 feet (front yard). Background 6300 Olson Memorial Highway is more familiarly known as the Optum site (due to its most recent ownership by United Health) and before that the Pako site (the Pako Corporation was the first business to locate there in 1960). The 28 acre property contains a roughly 340,000 square foot office building constructed in 1958 and that has been sitting vacant since 2016. In 1958, the site was rezoned from Open Development to Industrial – a designation that allows for office uses as well as manufacturing. The City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan reguided the property from Industrial to Office use, though the zoning designation was not changed to come into alignment until after the 2040 Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2020. As the plan was being drafted, the building was already vacant. With a strong local economy and real estate market, it was hoped that a new office user might purchase, renovate, and occupy the site. As part of the discussion around the proposed Future Land Use Map, some Planning Commissioners expressed interest in guiding the site 2 for Mixed Use. However, the City Council was concerned that introducing a new opportunity for commercial and residential development along Olson Memorial Highway would compete with evolving plans for a more active downtown and the site remained guided for Office use in the Comp Plan. It was expected that the southern stretch of Douglas Drive would remain an employment generator, as described in the Douglas Drive Corridor Study, and as it had been for decades. Over the past four to five years, staff have been approached by a handful of developers looking at potential options for the site. At least two tech/medical companies explored using the existing structure in some fashion, one developer inquired about using the site as a location for a charter school, and others have asked about the possibility of rezoning the property and dividing it into a more traditional suburban commercial and residential development, with fast food restaurants, a convenience store, and multifamily apartments. Staff has also been in close contact with the local realtor, representing the seller, and has toured the existing structure. The large footprint with specialized interior spaces has made reuse of the primarily one-story building challenging. United Properties, in close coordination with the property owner, contacted staff mid-year in 2021 to discuss a concept for a new business center at this location. Given the downturn in the office market – one that showed signs of softening even before the complications caused by COVID-19 – and the increasing demand for flexible R&D, light manufacturing, and warehousing space in the inner ring suburbs, they felt a modern business center use would be successful. The existing structure is not compatible with this vision, but with a cleared site there would be sufficient room for two large buildings with high ceilings, flexible floor plans, and good site maneuverability for trucking. Given the large number of office employees that used to occupy this location, the new design of Douglas Drive would easily be able to account for the expected daily trips generated by this new use. Staff familiarized the developer with the vision of the Douglas Drive study from the early 2000s and emphasized the need for high quality building elevations as the Olson Memorial Highway and Douglas Drive intersection is a prominent “gateway” into the center of Golden Valley. In order to accommodate the proposed R&D, light manufacturing, and warehouse uses, the guided land use and the zoning for the site needed to be changed to Light Industrial. The City Council approved these changes early in 2022. A new preliminary plat, which would divide the larger existing lot into two smaller lots and include dedicated right-of-way for a potential future connection, was also approved. Existing Conditions The site is approximately 28 acres. A 14 foot wide trail easement is located on a portion of the property that faces Douglas Drive and accommodates the Luce Line Regional Trail. A large portion of the site is covered with surface parking, while a wooded area with a wetland is located in the northeast corner adjacent to both Douglas Drive and the Union Pacific railroad tracks. Three stand- alone generators sit adjacent to the wooded area. Primary access to the site is via a signalized driveway on Douglas Drive. Driveways off of Country Club Drive, to the south, provides access to a small secondary parking lot. The driving range for the Golden Valley Country Club is immediately to the west. 3 The existing structure has a footprint of over 295,000 square feet with additional second story space closest to Olson Memorial Highway resulting in a total building area of approximately 304,000 square feet. The building is primarily constructed of tip-up concrete panels with brick cladding, and contains office space and a specialized data center constructed to meet the needs of the previous tenant. The front door faces east, but the structure sits back a large distance from Douglas Drive (over 300 feet). Over 1,300 parking spaces are striped throughout the large surface parking lots that surround the building. Landscaping within the parking lot is minimal. The majority of the site drains via the surface to the wetland to the northeast. Sanitary sewer service is handled by a 12 inch main under Douglas Drive. Potable water is provided via service from Country Club Drive; a separate fire line loops around the site and ties in to water mains under Country Club Drive and Douglas Drive. The existing lot area (including 2.7 acres of land that is currently in a roadway easement beneath Douglas Drive) is 30.7 acres. Lot 1, proposed to be to the north, would encompass 586,299 square feet (13.5 acres). Lot 2, to the south, would encompass 634,635 square feet (14.6 acres). As described in Chapter 4 of the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, this site has been identified as a target location to provide a future local street connection between Country Club Drive and the signalized intersection at Douglas Drive. In light of this, Engineering staff called-out the need for right-of-way to be dedicated through the site in order to provide land for construction of a future public road. Staff considered various layouts and alternatives, but determined that best option for locating this right-of-way is east/west between the two proposed lots (in the area currently identified as shared private access for the two buildings) in order to align with the signalized intersection at Douglas Drive. Dedication of land at 6300 Olson Memorial Highway for this future right-of-way is included as a condition of approval for the final plat. Summary of Request As proposed, the land required to be dedicated as right-of-way by the City would create a new front yard on each of the two new lots – both facing the shared internal access drive. While a landscaped buffer would be immediately adjacent to this right-of-way (both north and south), it would be only 10 feet wide and not the 35 feet typically required by the off-street parking section of the City Code. The 10 foot landscaped strips would be sufficient to meet zoning requirements if these were side yards and not front yards. The applicant is requesting a variance of 25 feet for each of the two lots in order to allow the project to move forward. The applicant notes that if not for the new right-of-way required by the City, the internal drive would remain private and therefore no new front yards would be created and no variances would be needed. If the project were forced to observe the full required width of the landscaped areas, the site would no longer be functional in light of the new zoning, given the need for parking and the ability for delivery trucks to access the loading docks. The project, as proposed, already provides an improvement over the large surface parking area through the creation of landscaped islands and defined drives. 4 In addition, even with the public dedication, the access drive will continue to look and operate as a private drive and would only become a more traditional public street if the driving range of the Golden Valley Country Club were to redevelop. Therefore, approving the variances would have no impact on the character of the surrounding area. 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 variances are generally in line with the purpose of the Zoning Code as well as the purpose of the Light Industrial Zoning District, which is to provide for the establishment of warehousing, offices, and light industrial developments. After a vacancy of close to six years, the variance requests would allow the site to be put back into productive use. In the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, one of the stated objectives of the Land Use Chapter is to redevelop parcels that are blighted, functionally obsolete, economically unsustainable, or incompatible with adjacent uses. The Economic Development Chapter has as an objective to preserve the City’s commercial/industrial base. Staff feels that this request is consistent with both of these objectives. In order to constitute practical difficulties: 1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner. Any light industrial development requires sufficient parking and a clear maneuverable area for deliveries by truck. As designed and proposed, there would be a sufficient amount of parking area to accommodate this activity. The introduction of the dedicated right-of-way, however, creates the need for the variances without changing how the property would be accessed or how operations would be carried out. Therefore, staff believes the applicant proposes 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. Without the City’s condition of approval that requires the right-of-way be dedicated for a future public street, new front yards would not be created and the need for the variances would be absent. The City’s careful long-term planning for possible future redevelopment is the sole contributing factor to the encroachment and not any action on the part of the landowner. In this case, the applicants’ problem (the need for the variances) is clearly due to circumstances that were caused by the City. Further, the dedication of right-of-way creates a southern lot with three front yards, resulting in a unique lot condition. 5 3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. The existing conditions consist of an extremely large surface parking lot (over 1,300 spaces) with minimal landscaping. The changes being proposed as part of the project would be an improvement over what is there today, even with the reduced landscaped area being requested. Properties in the surrounding area are also commercial or industrial in nature, with the property directly across Douglas Drive having a paved drive-thru only 20 feet from the front property line. Staff believes granting the variances 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 represents the smallest variance necessary to meet the applicant’s needs. Given the needs of a light industrial use, such as the one approved by the City Council in this instance, staff is challenged to find alternate layouts which would reduce or avoid the need for a variance while also meeting the aesthetic objectives of the Douglas Drive Corridor Study. Recommendation Based on the factors above, staff recommends approval of the variance requests for 25 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 10 feet for parking within a front yard landscaped area. DOUGLAS DRIVEDOUGLAS DRIVENO PARKINGNO PARKINGNO PARKING NO PARKINGNO PARKINGNO PARKINGNO PARKINGNO PARKINGNO PARKINGNO PARKING921187181818141412161317182018181891818181814141414COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE 35 FT PARKING ANDBUILDING SETBACK10 FT PARKING SETBACK20 FT BUILDING SETBACK10 FT PARKING SETBACK20 FT BUILDING SETBACK10 FT PARKING SETBACK10 FT PARKING SETBACK20 FT BUILDING SETBACKPROPOSEDBUILDING 1182,000 SFFFE: 889.00PROPOSEDBUILDING 2 217,000 SFFFE: 892.16COUNTRY CLUB DRIV EGOLDEN VALLEY GOLFRIGHT OF WAYCHICAGO NORTHWESTERN RAILROADRIGHT OF WAY20 FTTRANSMISSION LINE EASEMENT50 FT WIDE STREET ANDHIGHWAY EASEMENT14 FT WIDE TRAILEASEMENT35 FT PARKING ANDBUILDING SETBACKADAADA ADA ADA ADAADA ADAADA ADA ADA ADA ADA ADAADAADAADA ADAADA ADAADAADAADASEE SHEET C403 -ADA ENLARGEMENT 1SEE SHEET C403 -ADA ENLARGEMENT 2SEE SHEET C403 -ADA ENLARGEMENT 4SEE SHEET C403 -ADA ENLARGEMENT 3LOT 2LOT 1OUTLOT A 87.5 FT WIDE STREET DEDICATION20 FT BUILDING SETBACKN89°35'49"W24.00'N0°24'11"E13.50'70 FT WIDE STREET DEDICATIONPROPOSED CURB AND GUTTERPROPERTY LINEPROPOSED FENCESETBACK LINERETAINING WALLPROPOSED STANDARD DUTY ASPHALTPROPOSED CONCRETE PAVEMENTPROPOSED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREAPROPOSED CONCRETE SIDEWALKLEGENDPROPOSED HEAVY DUTY ASPHALTPROJECT NUMBERDRAWN BYCHECKED BYORIGINAL ISSUE:REVISIONS:NOT FORCONSTRUCTION160576021ER/ANDDGOLDEN VALLEYBUSINESS CENTERGOLDEN VALLEYBUSINESS CENTERGOLDEN VALLEY, MNNo.DescriptionDate2021 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 767 EUSTIS STREET, SUITE 100, ST. PAUL, MN 55114 PHONE: 651-645-4197 WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM © This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.\\twcfp01\MW_TWC\TWC_LDEV\United_Properties\GOLDEN VALLEY INDUSTRIAL\3 Design\CAD\PlanSheets\C4-SITE PLAN.dwg April 05, 2022 - 1:15pm NORTH SEE SHEETC301SEE SHEETC302PROPERTY SUMMARYGOLDEN VALLEY BUSINESS CENTERTOTAL PROPERTY AREA1,337,188 SF (30.70 AC)LOT 1 AREA556,697 SF (12.78 AC)LOT 2 AREA602,000 SF (13.82 AC)OUTLOT A AREA62,290 SF (1.43 AC)RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION116,260 SF (2.67 AC)NET PROPERTY AREA1,220,928 SF (28.03 AC)PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA959,817 SF (22.03 AC)PROPOSED PERVIOUS AREA245,889 SF (5.64 AC)TOTAL DISTURBED AREA1,205,706 SF (27.7 AC)ZONING SUMMARYEXISTING ZONINGOFFICEPROPOSED ZONINGLIGHT INDUSTRIALPARKING SETBACKSSIDE/REAR = 10'ROAD = 35'BUILDING SETBACKSFRONT = 35'SIDE = 20'REAR = 20'C400 OVERALL SITEPLANSITE PLAN NOTES1.ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL CITY/COUNTY REGULATIONS AND CODES AND O.S.H.A.STANDARDS.2.CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OFVESTIBULES, SLOPE PAVING, SIDEWALKS, EXIT PORCHES, TRUCK DOCKS, PRECISE BUILDING DIMENSIONS AND EXACTBUILDING UTILITY ENTRANCE LOCATIONS.3.ALL INNER CURBED RADII ARE TO BE <3'> OR <5'> AND OUTER CURBED RADII ARE TO BE <10'> UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED. STRIPED RADII ARE TO BE 5'.4.ALL DIMENSIONS AND RADII ARE TO THE FACE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.5.EXISTING STRUCTURES WITHIN CONSTRUCTION LIMITS ARE TO BE ABANDONED, REMOVED OR RELOCATED ASNECESSARY. ALL COST SHALL BE INCLUDED IN BASE BID.6.CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL RELOCATIONS, (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON PLANS) INCLUDINGBUT NOT LIMITED TO, ALL UTILITIES, STORM DRAINAGE, SIGNS, TRAFFIC SIGNALS & POLES, ETC. AS REQUIRED. ALLWORK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNING AUTHORITIES REQUIREMENTS AND PROJECT SITE WORKSPECIFICATIONS AND SHALL BE APPROVED BY SUCH. ALL COST SHALL BE INCLUDED IN BASE BID.7.SITE BOUNDARY, TOPOGRAPHY, UTILITY AND ROAD INFORMATION TAKEN FROM A SURVEY BY EGAN, FIELD & NOWAK,INC, DATED 08/18/2021.KIMLEY-HORN ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS, INACCURACIES, OR OMISSIONS CONTAINED THEREIN.8.TOTAL LAND AREA IS <30.7> ACRES WITHOUT R.O.W. PURPOSES 28.03 ACRES.9.PYLON / MONUMENT SIGNS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED BY OTHERS. SIGNS ARE SHOWN FOR GRAPHICAL &INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY SIZE, LOCATION AND ANY REQUIRED PERMITSNECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PYLON / MONUMENT SIGN.10.CONTRACTOR SHALL REFERENCE ARCH / MEP PLANS FOR SITE LIGHTING AND ELECTRICAL PLAN.11.NO PROPOSED LANDSCAPING SUCH AS TREES OR SHRUBS, ABOVE AND UNDERGROUND STRUCTURES, OR OTHEROBSTRUCTIONS SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING OR PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAYUNLESS SPECIFICALLY NOTED ON PLANS OTHERWISE.12.REFERENCE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE DETAILS.13.REFER TO FINAL PLAT OR ALTA SURVEY FOR EXACT LOT AND PROPERTY BOUNDARY DIMENSIONS.14.ALL AREAS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST SQUARE FOOT.15.ALL DIMENSIONS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST TENTH FOOT.16.ALL PARKING STALLS TO BE <9'> IN WIDTH AND <18.5'> IN LENGTH UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED.17.THERE ARE <0.97> ACRES OF WETLAND IMPACTS.18.FOR OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS, SEE THE <OFFSITE PLANS> IMPROVEMENTS PLANS.19.PAVEMENT SHALL BE THE FOLLOWING PER MNDOT MIX DESIGNS: LIGHT DUTY HEAVY DUTY 1.5” SPWEA340C 1.5” SPWEA340C 2.0” SPNWB330C 1.5” SPNWB330C 10” CLASS 5 AGGREGATE 1.5” SPNWB330C 10” AGGREGATE BASE 2” SAND SUBCUTKEYNOTE LEGENDCONCRETE SIDEWALK6" CONCRETE FILLED PIPE BOLLARDMATCH EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT/ CURB & GUTTERACCESSIBLE CURB RAMPACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGNACCESSIBLE PARKINGAREA STRIPED WITH 4" SYSL @ 45° 2' O.C.STANDARD DUTY ASPHALT PAVEMENTLANDSCAPE AREA - SEE LANDSCAPE PLANSHEAVY DUTY ASPHALT PAVEMENTHEAVY DUTY CONCRETE PAVEMENTB612 CURB & GUTTER (TYP.)TRANSITION CURBFLAT CURBCOMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY APRONCONCRETE RETAINING WALL- 12" WIDECONCRETE V-GUTTER- 24" WIDEABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQ NO PARKINGNO PARKINGNO PARKINGNO PARKINGNO PARKING201818189181818181414141410 FT PARKING SETBACK20 FT BUILDING SETBACK10 FT PARKING SETBACK20 FT BUILDING SETBACK10 FT PARKING SETBACK10 FT PARKING SETBACK20 FT BUILDING SETBACKIIIIJJJKIIIIIIIIIIIIAAEEFAAIIAI50.0'59.0'42.5' 10.0' 700.0' 10.0' 61.0'61.0'12.0'260.0'60.0'81.5'40.0'24.0'24.0' 20.0'653.3'20.7'HHHH9.0'24.0' 24.0'31.5'KI24.0'31.5'20.0'653.3'20.7'31.5'24.0'126.0'9.0'126.0'162.0'9.0'180.0'34.0'144.0'9.0'162.0' 24.0'PROPOSEDBUILDING 1182,000 SFFFE: 889.00GOLDEN VALLEY GOLFRIGHT OF WAYCHICAGO NORTHWESTERN RAILROADRIGHT OF WAY GOLDEN VALLEY GOLFRIGHT OF WAYCHICAGO NORTHWESTERN RAILROADRIGHT OF WAY20 FTTRANSMISSION LINE EASEMENT50 FT WIDE STREET ANDHIGHWAY EASEMENTAAGFGF9.0'18.5'ITYP.TYP.DDE49.29'107.6'PQPQPROPOSED R.O.W.PROPOSED R.O.W.PROPOSED R.O.W.GFDDGFGFFEEEESEE SHEET C403 -ADA ENLARGEMENT 1SEE SHEET C403 -ADA ENLARGEMENT 2LOT 1OUTLOT A 10.0'17.0'6.0'122.0'92.5'114.0'24.0'50.0'131.0'25.0'349.0'17.0'45.0'52.5'I87.5 FT WIDE STREET DEDICATION20 FT BUILDING SETBACK31.5'R15.0'R5.0'R15.7'R15.8'R15.3'R5.0'R3.0'R15.0'24.0'181.2'R50.0'R15.8'R15.8'6.0'DOUGLAS DRIVER50.0'30.5'6.0'10.0'60.0'81.5'40.0'17.0'139.5'13.0'10.0'10.0'OOOOOOR10.0'R10.0'R10.0'R10.0'R10.0'R10.0'R10.0'R10.0'R10.0'R10.0'R10.0'R12.5'R10.0'R10.0'R10.0'R10.0'R10.0'R10.0'R25.0'R25.0'R10.0'R9.0'R5.0'33.0'37.0'70.0'50.5'37.0'87.5'70 FT WIDE STREET DEDICATION10.0'PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTERPROPERTY LINEPROPOSED FENCESETBACK LINERETAINING WALLPROPOSED STANDARD DUTY ASPHALTPROPOSED CONCRETE PAVEMENTPROPOSED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREAPROPOSED CONCRETE SIDEWALKLEGENDPROPOSED HEAVY DUTY ASPHALTPROJECT NUMBERDRAWN BYCHECKED BYORIGINAL ISSUE:REVISIONS:NOT FORCONSTRUCTION160576021ER/ANDDGOLDEN VALLEYBUSINESS CENTERGOLDEN VALLEYBUSINESS CENTERGOLDEN VALLEY, MNNo.DescriptionDate2021 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 767 EUSTIS STREET, SUITE 100, ST. PAUL, MN 55114 PHONE: 651-645-4197 WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.\\twcfp01\MW_TWC\TWC_LDEV\United_Properties\GOLDEN VALLEY INDUSTRIAL\3 Design\CAD\PlanSheets\C4-SITE PLAN.dwg April 05, 2022 - 1:50pm SITE PLAN NOTES1.ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL CITY/COUNTY REGULATIONS AND CODES AND O.S.H.A.STANDARDS.2.CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OFVESTIBULES, SLOPE PAVING, SIDEWALKS, EXIT PORCHES, TRUCK DOCKS, PRECISE BUILDING DIMENSIONS AND EXACTBUILDING UTILITY ENTRANCE LOCATIONS.3.ALL INNER CURBED RADII ARE TO BE <3'> OR <5'> AND OUTER CURBED RADII ARE TO BE <10'> UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED. STRIPED RADII ARE TO BE 5'.4.ALL DIMENSIONS AND RADII ARE TO THE FACE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.5.EXISTING STRUCTURES WITHIN CONSTRUCTION LIMITS ARE TO BE ABANDONED, REMOVED OR RELOCATED ASNECESSARY. ALL COST SHALL BE INCLUDED IN BASE BID.6.CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL RELOCATIONS, (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON PLANS) INCLUDINGBUT NOT LIMITED TO, ALL UTILITIES, STORM DRAINAGE, SIGNS, TRAFFIC SIGNALS & POLES, ETC. AS REQUIRED. ALLWORK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNING AUTHORITIES REQUIREMENTS AND PROJECT SITE WORKSPECIFICATIONS AND SHALL BE APPROVED BY SUCH. ALL COST SHALL BE INCLUDED IN BASE BID.7.SITE BOUNDARY, TOPOGRAPHY, UTILITY AND ROAD INFORMATION TAKEN FROM A SURVEY BY EGAN, FIELD & NOWAK,INC, DATED 08/18/2021.KIMLEY-HORN ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS, INACCURACIES, OR OMISSIONS CONTAINED THEREIN.8.TOTAL LAND AREA IS <30.7> ACRES WITHOUT R.O.W. PURPOSES 28.03 ACRES.9.PYLON / MONUMENT SIGNS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED BY OTHERS. SIGNS ARE SHOWN FOR GRAPHICAL &INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY SIZE, LOCATION AND ANY REQUIRED PERMITSNECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PYLON / MONUMENT SIGN.10.CONTRACTOR SHALL REFERENCE ARCH / MEP PLANS FOR SITE LIGHTING AND ELECTRICAL PLAN.11.NO PROPOSED LANDSCAPING SUCH AS TREES OR SHRUBS, ABOVE AND UNDERGROUND STRUCTURES, OR OTHEROBSTRUCTIONS SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING OR PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAYUNLESS SPECIFICALLY NOTED ON PLANS OTHERWISE.12.REFERENCE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE DETAILS.13.REFER TO FINAL PLAT OR ALTA SURVEY FOR EXACT LOT AND PROPERTY BOUNDARY DIMENSIONS.14.ALL AREAS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST SQUARE FOOT.15.ALL DIMENSIONS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST TENTH FOOT.16.ALL PARKING STALLS TO BE <9'> IN WIDTH AND <18.5'> IN LENGTH UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED.17.THERE ARE <0.97> ACRES OF WETLAND IMPACTS.18.FOR OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS, SEE THE <OFFSITE PLANS> IMPROVEMENTS PLANS.19.PAVEMENT SHALL BE THE FOLLOWING PER MNDOT MIX DESIGNS: LIGHT DUTY HEAVY DUTY 1.5” SPWEA340C 1.5” SPWEA340C 2.0” SPNWB330C 1.5” SPNWB330C 10” CLASS 5 AGGREGATE 1.5” SPNWB330C 10” AGGREGATE BASE 2” SAND SUBCUTNORTH BUILDING DATA SUMMARYAREASPROPOSED PROPERTY1,220,928 SF (28.03 AC)BUILDING AREA182,000 SF (14% OF TOTALPROPERTY AREA)PARKINGREQUIRED PARKING:OFFICE(20%) WAREHOUSE(80%)146 SPACES @ 1250 36,400SF49 SPACES @ 13000 145,600SFTOTAL= 195 SPACESPROPOSED PARKING211 SPACES @1.31 RATIOADA STALLS REQ'D / PROVIDED7 STALLS / 7 STALLSC401 SITE PLANNORTHKEYNOTE LEGENDCONCRETE SIDEWALK6" CONCRETE FILLED PIPE BOLLARDMATCH EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT/ CURB & GUTTERACCESSIBLE CURB RAMPACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGNACCESSIBLE PARKINGAREA STRIPED WITH 4" SYSL @ 45° 2' O.C.STANDARD DUTY ASPHALT PAVEMENTLANDSCAPE AREA - SEE LANDSCAPE PLANSHEAVY DUTY ASPHALT PAVEMENTHEAVY DUTY CONCRETE PAVEMENTB612 CURB & GUTTER (TYP.)TRANSITION CURBFLAT CURBCOMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY APRONCONCRETE RETAINING WALL- 12" WIDECONCRETE V-GUTTER- 24" WIDEABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQPROPERTY SUMMARYGOLDEN VALLEY BUSINESS CENTERTOTAL PROPERTY AREA1,337,188 SF (30.70 AC)LOT 1 AREA556,697 SF (12.78 AC)LOT 2 AREA602,000 SF (13.82 AC)OUTLOT A AREA62,290 SF (1.43 AC)RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION116,260 SF (2.67 AC)NET PROPERTY AREA1,220,928 SF (28.03 AC)PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA959,817 SF (22.03 AC)PROPOSED PERVIOUS AREA245,889 SF (5.64 AC)TOTAL DISTURBED AREA1,205,706 SF (27.7 AC)ZONING SUMMARYEXISTING ZONINGOFFICEPROPOSED ZONINGLIGHT INDUSTRIALPARKING SETBACKSSIDE/REAR = 10'ROAD = 35'BUILDING SETBACKSFRONT = 35'SIDE = 20'REAR = 20' NO PARKINGNO PARKINGNO PARKING NO PARKINGNO PARKING9211871818181414121613171835 FT PARKING ANDBUILDING SETBACK10 FT PARKING SETBACK20 FT BUILDING SETBACKIIJJII40.0'60.0'310.0'12.0'61.0'KHIIEEAAAAAAI50.0'35.0'5.0' 0.5' 61.0' 10.0' 700.0' 10.0'61.0' 24.0'31.5'20.0'653.3'20.7'31.5'24.0'GFDGFGFFDIIIIIIIHHHHHILHILHILCCCCCCIIO30.0'CC162.0' 9.0' 162.0' 34.0' 162.0' 9.0' 126.0'117.0'9.0'153.0'COUNTRY CLUB DRIV EPROPOSEDBUILDING 2 217,000 SFFFE: 892.16COUNTRY CLUB DRIV E 14 FT WIDE TRAILEASEMENTFFGFGII18.5'9.0'ITYP.TYP.35 FT PARKING ANDBUILDING SETBACK18.5'TYP.18.5'9.0' TYP. 18.5'9.0'TYP.TYP.DDEEEEE49.29'TYP.TYP.35.0'QPQPQP167.5'221.5'35.0'PROPOSED R.O.W.PROPOSED R.O.W.SEE SHEET C403 -ADA ENLARGEMENT 4SEE SHEET C403 -ADA ENLARGEMENT 3LOT 2OUTLOT A 17.0'6.0'122.0'1 3 8 . 2 'I92.5'114.0'24.0'50.0'131.0'25.0'349.0'17.0'45.0'52.5'24.0'R45.0'R28.7'2 4 . 0 'R50.0'R25.0'N89°35'49"W24.00'N0°24'11"E13.50'R5.0'R15.8'R15.8'R5.0'6.0'DOUGLAS DRIVE30.5'6.0'40.0'60.0'17.0'129.5'13.0'10.0'OOOR10.0'R10.0'R10.0'R10.0'R10.0'R10.0'R10.0'R10.0'R12.5'R10.0'R10.0'R10.0'R10.0'R25.0'R25.0'R10.0'R3.0'33.0'37.0'70.0'50.5'37.0'87.5'PROJECT NUMBERDRAWN BYCHECKED BYORIGINAL ISSUE:REVISIONS:NOT FORCONSTRUCTION160576021ER/ANDDGOLDEN VALLEYBUSINESS CENTERGOLDEN VALLEYBUSINESS CENTERGOLDEN VALLEY, MNNo.DescriptionDate2021 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 767 EUSTIS STREET, SUITE 100, ST. PAUL, MN 55114 PHONE: 651-645-4197 WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.\\twcfp01\MW_TWC\TWC_LDEV\United_Properties\GOLDEN VALLEY INDUSTRIAL\3 Design\CAD\PlanSheets\C4-SITE PLAN.dwg April 05, 2022 - 1:15pm BUILDING DATA SUMMARYAREASPROPOSED PROPERTY1,220,928 SF (28.03 AC)BUILDING AREA217,000 SF (17% OF TOTALPROPERTY AREA)PARKINGREQUIRED PARKING:OFFICE(20%) WAREHOUSE(80%)174 SPACES @ 1250 36,400SF58 SPACES @ 13000 173,600SFTOTAL= 232 SPACESPROPOSED PARKING263 SPACES @ 1.21 RATIOADA STALLS REQ'D / PROVIDED7 STALLS / 7 STALLSPROPOSED CURB AND GUTTERPROPERTY LINEPROPOSED FENCESETBACK LINERETAINING WALLPROPOSED STANDARD DUTY ASPHALTPROPOSED CONCRETE PAVEMENTPROPOSED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREAPROPOSED CONCRETE SIDEWALKLEGENDPROPOSED HEAVY DUTY ASPHALTNORTH C402 SITE PLANSOUTHPROPERTY SUMMARYGOLDEN VALLEY BUSINESS CENTERTOTAL PROPERTY AREA1,337,188 SF (30.70 AC)LOT 1 AREA556,697 SF (12.78 AC)LOT 2 AREA602,000 SF (13.82 AC)OUTLOT A AREA62,290 SF (1.43 AC)RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION116,260 SF (2.67 AC)NET PROPERTY AREA1,220,928 SF (28.03 AC)PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA959,817 SF (22.03 AC)PROPOSED PERVIOUS AREA245,889 SF (5.64 AC)TOTAL DISTURBED AREA1,205,706 SF (27.7 AC)ZONING SUMMARYEXISTING ZONINGOFFICEPROPOSED ZONINGLIGHT INDUSTRIALPARKING SETBACKSSIDE/REAR = 10'ROAD = 35'BUILDING SETBACKSFRONT = 35'SIDE = 20'REAR = 20'SITE PLAN NOTES1.ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL CITY/COUNTY REGULATIONS AND CODES AND O.S.H.A.STANDARDS.2.CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OFVESTIBULES, SLOPE PAVING, SIDEWALKS, EXIT PORCHES, TRUCK DOCKS, PRECISE BUILDING DIMENSIONS AND EXACTBUILDING UTILITY ENTRANCE LOCATIONS.3.ALL INNER CURBED RADII ARE TO BE <3'> OR <5'> AND OUTER CURBED RADII ARE TO BE <10'> UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED. STRIPED RADII ARE TO BE 5'.4.ALL DIMENSIONS AND RADII ARE TO THE FACE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.5.EXISTING STRUCTURES WITHIN CONSTRUCTION LIMITS ARE TO BE ABANDONED, REMOVED OR RELOCATED ASNECESSARY. ALL COST SHALL BE INCLUDED IN BASE BID.6.CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL RELOCATIONS, (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON PLANS) INCLUDINGBUT NOT LIMITED TO, ALL UTILITIES, STORM DRAINAGE, SIGNS, TRAFFIC SIGNALS & POLES, ETC. AS REQUIRED. ALLWORK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNING AUTHORITIES REQUIREMENTS AND PROJECT SITE WORKSPECIFICATIONS AND SHALL BE APPROVED BY SUCH. ALL COST SHALL BE INCLUDED IN BASE BID.7.SITE BOUNDARY, TOPOGRAPHY, UTILITY AND ROAD INFORMATION TAKEN FROM A SURVEY BY EGAN, FIELD & NOWAK,INC, DATED 08/18/2021.KIMLEY-HORN ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS, INACCURACIES, OR OMISSIONS CONTAINED THEREIN.8.TOTAL LAND AREA IS <30.7> ACRES WITHOUT R.O.W. PURPOSES 28.03 ACRES.9.PYLON / MONUMENT SIGNS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED BY OTHERS. SIGNS ARE SHOWN FOR GRAPHICAL &INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY SIZE, LOCATION AND ANY REQUIRED PERMITSNECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PYLON / MONUMENT SIGN.10.CONTRACTOR SHALL REFERENCE ARCH / MEP PLANS FOR SITE LIGHTING AND ELECTRICAL PLAN.11.NO PROPOSED LANDSCAPING SUCH AS TREES OR SHRUBS, ABOVE AND UNDERGROUND STRUCTURES, OR OTHEROBSTRUCTIONS SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING OR PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAYUNLESS SPECIFICALLY NOTED ON PLANS OTHERWISE.12.REFERENCE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE DETAILS.13.REFER TO FINAL PLAT OR ALTA SURVEY FOR EXACT LOT AND PROPERTY BOUNDARY DIMENSIONS.14.ALL AREAS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST SQUARE FOOT.15.ALL DIMENSIONS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST TENTH FOOT.16.ALL PARKING STALLS TO BE <9'> IN WIDTH AND <18.5'> IN LENGTH UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED.17.THERE ARE <0.97> ACRES OF WETLAND IMPACTS.18.FOR OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS, SEE THE <OFFSITE PLANS> IMPROVEMENTS PLANS.19.PAVEMENT SHALL BE THE FOLLOWING PER MNDOT MIX DESIGNS: LIGHT DUTY HEAVY DUTY 1.5” SPWEA340C 1.5” SPWEA340C 2.0” SPNWB330C 1.5” SPNWB330C 10” CLASS 5 AGGREGATE 1.5” SPNWB330C 10” AGGREGATE BASE 2” SAND SUBCUTKEYNOTE LEGENDCONCRETE SIDEWALK6" CONCRETE FILLED PIPE BOLLARDMATCH EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT/ CURB & GUTTERACCESSIBLE CURB RAMPACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGNACCESSIBLE PARKINGAREA STRIPED WITH 4" SYSL @ 45° 2' O.C.STANDARD DUTY ASPHALT PAVEMENTLANDSCAPE AREA - SEE LANDSCAPE PLANSHEAVY DUTY ASPHALT PAVEMENTHEAVY DUTY CONCRETE PAVEMENTB612 CURB & GUTTER (TYP.)TRANSITION CURBFLAT CURBCOMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY APRONCONCRETE RETAINING WALL- 12" WIDECONCRETE V-GUTTER- 24" WIDEABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQ Date: April 27, 2022 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Myles Campbell, Planner Subject: 2234 Lee Ave N Amy and Miles Fiterman, Applicant Introduction Amy and Miles Fiterman, the property owners, are seeking a variance from the City Code to build a new home addition at the above address. The applicant is seeking the following variances from City Code: Variance Request City Code Requirement The applicant is requesting a variance of 14.5 feet off the required 35 feet for the east side property line, to a total distance of 20.5 feet § 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. This requirement shall not reduce the building envelope on any corner lot to less than 27 feet in width. The applicant is requesting a variance of 5 feet off the required 15 feet for the east side property line, to a total distance of 10 feet. § 113-88, Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District, Subd. (e)(1)(c)(1) 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. The applicant is requesting a variance of 4 feet over the § 113-88, Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District, Subd. (e)(2) Height Restrictions 2 allowed maximum height of 28 feet to a total distance of 32 feet from average grade. 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. The average grade for a new structure shall be no more than one foot higher than the average grade that previously existed on the lot. 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)(1) Principal Structure Side Setback 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. Background 2234 Lee Ave N is the current address for a single-family home built in 1977. The lot is 17,888 sq. ft. but is an irregular shape, facing a street on all but one side. The home’s existing driveway is oriented to the northwest toward Lee Ave, rather than the cul-de-sac to the south which provides street access for other homes along the street. At the time of construction in 1977, a set of variances were approved which reduced the variances along Lee Avenue to allow the home to be built in its current location. The variance at the time noted both the irregular frontage as well as topography as difficulties that necessitated a variance for construction. The existing home is setback 25’ from the street at its closest point, and 15’ from the shared property line with 2240 Lee Ave N, which was considered a side property line at the time. The applicant is seeking to build a set of additions on to the new home to increase its overall size and improve their use of the property. The additions include: - New tuck under garage in line with existing basement and moving the curb cut to face the cul-de- sac instead of existing location - Convert existing garage to living space - A master and secondary bedroom with new master bath - New second story above existing main level and stairs to roof In their variance application the applicants mention that they are looking to expand their home due to a growing family and the pandemic causing them to spend more time overall in their home. They’re also planning for aging family by locating bedrooms and the kitchen all on the main level. Additional details as to the request can be found in the full variance application which has been attached with this memo. 3 Summary of Requests The applicant is requesting four variances – two that relate to either the front or side setback of the property to allow for the new addition off the southeast side of the home. Similarly, for this addition a section of it would fall outside the allowed building envelope, requiring a variance, and finally a variance from the maximum height limits in R-1 zoning districts to allow for the new second story on the existing home. Starting with setbacks, when this property was built a 10’ reduction in the front setback from Lee Ave was allowed to provide additional buildable area. Given that the lot faces the street on all but one side, this 35’ setback would otherwise limit building options. The proposed garage/bedroom addition would fall to the same distance, 25’ from the property line along the cul-de-sac, while a proposed floating deck would extend slightly further, to a distance of 20.5’ from the property line. This deck would connect the new master bedroom to the existing living area on the main floor. In addition to the reduction in front yard setback, the bedroom/garage addition would also require a variance from the side yard setback requirements. What would normally be a 15’ side yard setback would be reduced to 10’ at its closest points, the two corners of the master and secondary bedrooms. Because this is an interior side lot line, the code’s building envelope requirements would also apply, as laid out in § 113-88 (e)(1)(c)(1): 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 (see figure below). While the plans do not include any demonstration of this tent shape, due to the average grade and structure heights shown in the plans for the new addition, at least the corners of the new structure would extend higher than 15’ at the setback and a portion of that addition would fall outside the buildable envelope, in excess of the exempted allowances for items such as eaves or chimneys. 4 The final request is an increase in the maximum allowed building height for the new second level. City Code limits principal structures in the R-1 zoning district to 28’ of maximum height measured either to the top of a flat roof, or the midpoint of the highest pitched roof. That height measurement is taken from the average front grade of the structure, which is not necessarily the same as the main level floor elevation. The calculation of this average grade is provided on sheet 1 of the plan set and replicated here. As shown in the diagram, 5 points of elevation are taken from those sides of the home facing the street for corner/triangle and other lots with multiple frontages. Here they are labeled A-E. These elevations are averaged, with the resulting elevation being considered the average grade from which building height, and building envelope requirements are measured. A 854.89 N corner of ex garage B 854.89 SW corner of ex garage C 846.52 SW corner of living room D 846.41 SE corner of living room E 846.50 SE corner of bedroom Total 4,249.19 (4,249.19/5) = 849.84, avg. grade 856.48, first floor elevation In the case of this lot the average grade is 6.64’ lower than elevation of the existing main floor, partially due to the lower elevation of the lot to the southeast where the addition is planned. Given that this measurement from grade reduces the allowed building height by starting from a Avg grade 15’ over avg grade 5 lower elevation, the applicant is seeking a variance for an additional 4’ in height to allow for the second story addition. 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 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. Avg grade 6 Front Setback: The 25’ requested setback for the home itself is in line with the previously approved variance in 1977, and the new garage location off the cul-de-sac is an improved access in staff’s eyes. This request is reasonable. The additional reduction for the deck however, to 20.5’ off the property line is more challenging. The deck could be reduced in length, still connect to the master bedroom, and fit within a 25’ setback, and so staff does not feel the additional deck request is reasonable. Side Setback: The existing home’s orientation puts it at an angle to the side yard lot line, creating difficulty in maintaining a side setback without increasing the front setback. While the setback here is reduced, the addition is of reasonable scale given the existing home. Building Envelope: The main level addition would have varying ceiling heights with the roof slopes, but range from approximately 8’-10’ in the areas of the addition. The roofs themselves would extend higher, and the northeast-most corner of the master bedroom would fall outside the 15’ building envelope. Given the minimal encroachment, staff find this reasonable. Max Height: While the average grade is lower than the main floor level, the second story addition is also shown with 13.5’ floor to ceiling dimension, well above what is required by building code for clearance, and serving a wholly aesthetic purpose. The applicant notes that the structure would appear as only 25’ from the Northwest face of the home, but staff will point out that it appears as 34’8” from the cul-de-sac. In previous variance cases the BZA has not granted a height variance above 3’ for a home addition. Staff does not find the request reasonable. 2. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that is not caused by the landowner. The lot exhibits a very irregular shape and frontage, creating challenges specifically for meeting the 35’ setback on all but one side of the structure. Staff believes the site does exhibit unique circumstances. That said, staff does not agree that the average grade being taken from multiple sides of the structure constitutes a practical difficulty regarding overall height. All corner lots in the City take average grade on multiple faces of the property, so as to ensure that from any right-of-way view the structure is to scale with others nearby. The same calculation has been applied here. The addition being placed on the lowest part of the lot has dragged the average grade down further, which is a result of the applicant’s plans. 3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality Given that the existing structure is only 25’ from Lee Ave N already, staff does not see the reduced setbacks creating any issues at a neighborhood scale. Similarly, the design for both additions is in keeping with the rest of the home’s existing finish, and would help to blend the addition to what exists today. Staff believes the proposed setbacks would not alter the essential character of the area. The structure’s height would be atypical for a single-family zoned property, especially when viewed from the cul-de-sac where the full building height of 7 34’ is visible. This is 6’ over the maximum height in the zoning district, and would impact 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. Front Setback Variance: as mentioned above, the deck shown on plans could be reduced in size to maintain a flat 25’ front setback across the property, or even removed entirely with no significant impact to the function of the home given internal connections on the main floor. Side Setback Variance: Pulling the addition off the side yard property line would require either reducing the addition’s footprint, which is not a large issue to staff, or require a more significant front yard setback reduction. Another alternative would be to put the addition to the north of the existing home, however this has drawbacks such as not relocating the garage to the cul-de-sac and necessitating the removal or shrinking of an existing paved patio. Building Envelope: The only modifications here to avoid clipping the envelope would be to scale back the floor area of the master bedroom, or to change the roof angle. This latter option would have some architectural impact in fitting with the existing home. Height: Reducing the second floor’s floor-to-ceiling height would reduce the overall structure height without impacting livability or triggering issues with building code. Dropping from 13.5’ to 10’ would require only a half-foot variance while still being above the minimum height required under building code. Recommendations Staff recommends denial of the variance for 14.5 feet off the required 35 feet, to a total distance of 20.5 feet from the southeast front property line – but staff would recommend approval of a variance for 10 feet off the required 35 feet, to a total distance of 25 feet from the southeast front property line. Staff recommends approval of the variance for 5 feet off the required 15 feet, to a total distance of 10 feet from the east side property line. Staff recommends denial of the variance for 4 feet over the allowed maximum height of 28 feet to a total distance of 32 feet from average grade. Staff recommends approval of the variance to waive the building envelope requirements for the portion of the garage/bedroom addition on the southeast side of the home. Staff recommends this building envelope approval be conditioned on the plans not being significantly altered prior to permitting. 14' - 4 3/4"8' - 4"15' SIDE SETBACKFPFAMILY ROOMKITCHENLOT LINEPROPOSED 25' SIDE SETBACK35' SIDE SETBACKLOT LINEA P P R O V E D 1 9 7 0 'S 2 5 ' S I D E S E TB A C K PROPOSED 10' SIDE SETBACKA P P R O V E D 1970'S 25' S ID E S E TB A C KPROPOSEDADDITION LEE AVE N CUL DE SACLEE AVE N.2240 LOT2234 LOTScale:Drawn by:Checked by:ARCHITECTThuftedal architecture + interiors5504 MERRITT CIREDINA, MN 55436TEL 612-743-6225thuftedal.comGENERAL CONTRACTORTBDPROJECTFiterman Addition andRemodel2234 Lee Ave. NGolden Valley, MN 55422ARCHITECT'S STAMPI hearby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my supervision and that I am a duly LicencedArchitect under the laws of the State of Minnesota.Ryan B. Thuftedal, AIASignature___________________________License #44757SHEETDate: 3/29/22SD plans12/9/21VARIANCE1/18/22OWNER REV.2/15/22OWNER REV.2/22/22VARIANCE3/29/22ArchitectsSTRUCTURAL ENGINEERALIGN structuralChirstian Soltermann PE241 Cleveland Ave S., B7St. Paul, MN 55105Review only1/16" = 1'-0"A1.0SITE PLANAuthorChecker1/16" = 1'-0"1SITE PLAN PROPOSEDAllowable Height Calculation:(per email with Myles Campbell (city) on 2/3/22)For Average Grade and Height restrictions we have taken the corner elevatoins of the home and averaged to acheive a level and then added the allowable 28' roof height to that. We then deducted the elevation of the main level to acheive an allowable height from the main level5 corners (as defined by zoning email on 2/3/22 are as follows per survey.A854.89N corner of ex garageB854.89SW corner of ex garageC846.52 SW corner of living roomD846.41SE corner of living roomE846.50SE corner of Main bedroomtotal 4,249.19/5849.84average grade for allowable height877.84+28' max allowable height856.48first floor elevation-height21.36' allowable height from first floorZoning ask is for 25.36' which is close to 1/2 of the difference from a front only to rear included average.Abcde CURRENT 15' SIDE SETBACKLOT LINEPROPOSED 25' SIDE SETBACKCURRENT 35' SIDE SETBACKLOT LINEAPPROVED 1970'S 25' SIDE SETBACKPROPOSED NEW 10' SIDE/REAR SETBACKLEE AVE N CUL DE SACLEE AVE N.PROPOSED ADDITOIN IN BLACKEXISTING HOME IN LINESPROPOSEDADDITIONNEW FRONT WALKNO DRIVEWAYNEW PROPOSED DRIVEWAYOFF CUL DE SACEXISTING PATIOLOT LINELOT LINELOT LINE2234EXISTING HOME2240 LOT15' - 0"10' - 0"25'-0"Scale:Drawn by:Checked by:ARCHITECTThuftedal architecture + interiors5504 MERRITT CIREDINA, MN 55436TEL 612-743-6225thuftedal.comGENERAL CONTRACTORTBDPROJECTFiterman Addition andRemodel2234 Lee Ave. NGolden Valley, MN 55422ARCHITECT'S STAMPI hearby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my supervision and that I am a duly LicencedArchitect under the laws of the State of Minnesota.Ryan B. Thuftedal, AIASignature___________________________License #44757SHEETDate: 3/29/22SD plans12/9/21VARIANCE1/18/22OWNER REV.2/15/22OWNER REV.2/22/22VARIANCE3/29/22ArchitectsSTRUCTURAL ENGINEERALIGN structuralChirstian Soltermann PE241 Cleveland Ave S., B7St. Paul, MN 55105Review only1" = 20'-0"A1.1SETBACKSAuthorChecker1" = 20'-0"1SITE PLAN PROPOSED CHANGES3LEE AVE N ENTRY VIEWLEE AVE N CUL DE SAC VIEW A2.41A2.1A2.3111A3.51A3.61A3.71A3.11A3.21A3.3----1A3.8----1A3.926' - 4"12' - 0"current set back line4' - 0"NEW DRIVEWAY129 SFMUDROOM1707 SFGARAGE4196 SFRoom6236 SFRoom7proposed set back lineADDITIONScale:Drawn by:Checked by:ARCHITECTThuftedal architecture + interiors5504 MERRITT CIREDINA, MN 55436TEL 612-743-6225thuftedal.comGENERAL CONTRACTORTBDPROJECTFiterman Addition andRemodel2234 Lee Ave. NGolden Valley, MN 55422ARCHITECT'S STAMPI hearby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my supervision and that I am a duly LicencedArchitect under the laws of the State of Minnesota.Ryan B. Thuftedal, AIASignature___________________________License #44757SHEETDate: 3/29/22SD plans12/9/21VARIANCE1/18/22OWNER REV.2/15/22OWNER REV.2/22/22VARIANCE3/29/22ArchitectsSTRUCTURAL ENGINEERALIGN structuralChirstian Soltermann PE241 Cleveland Ave S., B7St. Paul, MN 55105Review only1/8" = 1'-0"A1.2BASEMENTAuthorChecker1/8" = 1'-0"1BASEMENT LEVEL PLAN A2.41A2.1A2.21118' - 4"1A3.51A3.61A3.71A3.11A3.21A3.3----gallery wall15' - 6 1/4"showertubdouble sinkWCMAIN CLOSETPOWDERclosetbath roomREBECCA'SBEDROOMking size bedqueen bed1A3.8FPFAMILY ROOMKITCHEN----2' - 0"6' - 6"CLbath roombath rooment. closetwinecellar1A3.912' - 2 3/4"16' - 9 3/4"19' - 6"MAIN BATHMAIN BEDROOMNEW WALLS IN BLACKLIVINGLAUNDRYADDITIONScale:Drawn by:Checked by:ARCHITECTThuftedal architecture + interiors5504 MERRITT CIREDINA, MN 55436TEL 612-743-6225thuftedal.comGENERAL CONTRACTORTBDPROJECTFiterman Addition andRemodel2234 Lee Ave. NGolden Valley, MN 55422ARCHITECT'S STAMPI hearby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my supervision and that I am a duly LicencedArchitect under the laws of the State of Minnesota.Ryan B. Thuftedal, AIASignature___________________________License #44757SHEETDate: 3/29/22SD plans12/9/21VARIANCE1/18/22OWNER REV.2/15/22OWNER REV.2/22/22VARIANCE3/29/22ArchitectsSTRUCTURAL ENGINEERALIGN structuralChirstian Soltermann PE241 Cleveland Ave S., B7St. Paul, MN 55105Review only1/8" = 1'-0"A1.3MAIN PLANAuthorChecker1/8" = 1'-0"1MAIN LEVEL PLAN 1A3.51A3.61A3.71A3.21A3.3----1A3.836' - 9 1/4"15' - 11"GALLERY 550sf +/-----DNUP TO ROOFBOOK SHELVESPOCKET DOOROFFICEScale:Drawn by:Checked by:ARCHITECTThuftedal architecture + interiors5504 MERRITT CIREDINA, MN 55436TEL 612-743-6225thuftedal.comGENERAL CONTRACTORTBDPROJECTFiterman Addition andRemodel2234 Lee Ave. NGolden Valley, MN 55422ARCHITECT'S STAMPI hearby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my supervision and that I am a duly LicencedArchitect under the laws of the State of Minnesota.Ryan B. Thuftedal, AIASignature___________________________License #44757SHEETDate: 3/29/22SD plans12/9/21VARIANCE1/18/22OWNER REV.2/15/22OWNER REV.2/22/22VARIANCE3/29/22ArchitectsSTRUCTURAL ENGINEERALIGN structuralChirstian Soltermann PE241 Cleveland Ave S., B7St. Paul, MN 55105Review only1/4" = 1'-0"A1.5UPSTAIRS PLANAuthorChecker1/4" = 1'-0"1SECOND FLOOR PLAN A2.41A2.1A2.2A2.31111A3.51A3.61A3.71A3.11A3.21A3.3----1A3.8----new high roof area ADDITIION BELOWEXISTING ROOF BELOWEXISTING ROOF BELOWEXISTING ROOF BELOWScale:Drawn by:Checked by:ARCHITECTThuftedal architecture + interiors5504 MERRITT CIREDINA, MN 55436TEL 612-743-6225thuftedal.comGENERAL CONTRACTORTBDPROJECTFiterman Addition andRemodel2234 Lee Ave. NGolden Valley, MN 55422ARCHITECT'S STAMPI hearby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my supervision and that I am a duly LicencedArchitect under the laws of the State of Minnesota.Ryan B. Thuftedal, AIASignature___________________________License #44757SHEETDate: 3/29/22SD plans12/9/21VARIANCE1/18/22OWNER REV.2/15/22OWNER REV.2/22/22VARIANCE3/29/22ArchitectsSTRUCTURAL ENGINEERALIGN structuralChirstian Soltermann PE241 Cleveland Ave S., B7St. Paul, MN 55105Review only1/8" = 1'-0"A1.6ROOF PLANAuthorChecker1/8" = 1'-0"1Roof Plan BASEMENT LEVELPLAN rend0' -0"MAIN LEVEL PLAN9' -4"BASEMENTCEILING8' -1"T.O. FOOTING-4' -0"1A3.51A3.61A3.7----MAIN CLNG17' -2"SECOND FLOORPLAN19' -2"max. flat roof height25.36'2nd Ceiling32' -8"Roof Plan34' -8"1A3.8Allowable roof height if only one front yard setback used fromfront door side.requested roof height very close to 25'-0" max.averages the allowable with one front yard setbackwith three setbacks.roof height allowed by current code which averagesthe three front yard setbacks and dramatically drops the allowable height. 21.36' over main level28' - 0"+28'-0" max.from main levelScale:Drawn by:Checked by:ARCHITECTThuftedal architecture + interiors5504 MERRITT CIREDINA, MN 55436TEL 612-743-6225thuftedal.comGENERAL CONTRACTORTBDPROJECTFiterman Addition andRemodel2234 Lee Ave. NGolden Valley, MN 55422ARCHITECT'S STAMPI hearby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my supervision and that I am a duly LicencedArchitect under the laws of the State of Minnesota.Ryan B. Thuftedal, AIASignature___________________________License #44757SHEETDate: 3/29/22SD plans12/9/21VARIANCE1/18/22OWNER REV.2/15/22OWNER REV.2/22/22VARIANCE3/29/22ArchitectsSTRUCTURAL ENGINEERALIGN structuralChirstian Soltermann PE241 Cleveland Ave S., B7St. Paul, MN 55105Review only1/8" = 1'-0"A2.1ELEVATIONSAuthorChecker1/8" = 1'-0"1South Elevation BASEMENT LEVELPLAN rend0' -0"MAIN LEVEL PLAN9' -4"BASEMENTCEILING8' -1"T.O. FOOTING-4' -0"1A3.11A3.21A3.3MAIN CLNG17' -2"SECOND FLOORPLAN19' -2"2nd Ceiling32' -8"Roof Plan34' -8"----1A3.9Scale:Drawn by:Checked by:ARCHITECTThuftedal architecture + interiors5504 MERRITT CIREDINA, MN 55436TEL 612-743-6225thuftedal.comGENERAL CONTRACTORTBDPROJECTFiterman Addition andRemodel2234 Lee Ave. NGolden Valley, MN 55422ARCHITECT'S STAMPI hearby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my supervision and that I am a duly LicencedArchitect under the laws of the State of Minnesota.Ryan B. Thuftedal, AIASignature___________________________License #44757SHEETDate: 3/29/22SD plans12/9/21VARIANCE1/18/22OWNER REV.2/15/22OWNER REV.2/22/22VARIANCE3/29/22ArchitectsSTRUCTURAL ENGINEERALIGN structuralChirstian Soltermann PE241 Cleveland Ave S., B7St. Paul, MN 55105Review only1/8" = 1'-0"A2.2ELEVATIONSAuthorChecker1/8" = 1'-0"1West Elevation BASEMENT LEVELPLAN rend0' -0"MAIN LEVEL PLAN9' -4"BASEMENTCEILING8' -1"T.O. FOOTING-4' -0"1A3.51A3.61A3.7----MAIN CLNG17' -2"SECOND FLOORPLAN19' -2"2nd Ceiling32' -8"Roof Plan34' -8"1A3.8Scale:Drawn by:Checked by:ARCHITECTThuftedal architecture + interiors5504 MERRITT CIREDINA, MN 55436TEL 612-743-6225thuftedal.comGENERAL CONTRACTORTBDPROJECTFiterman Addition andRemodel2234 Lee Ave. NGolden Valley, MN 55422ARCHITECT'S STAMPI hearby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my supervision and that I am a duly LicencedArchitect under the laws of the State of Minnesota.Ryan B. Thuftedal, AIASignature___________________________License #44757SHEETDate: 3/29/22SD plans12/9/21VARIANCE1/18/22OWNER REV.2/15/22OWNER REV.2/22/22VARIANCE3/29/22ArchitectsSTRUCTURAL ENGINEERALIGN structuralChirstian Soltermann PE241 Cleveland Ave S., B7St. Paul, MN 55105Review only1/8" = 1'-0"A2.3ELEVATIONSAuthorChecker1/8" = 1'-0"1North Elevation BASEMENT LEVELPLAN rend0' -0"MAIN LEVEL PLAN9' -4"BASEMENTCEILING8' -1"T.O. FOOTING-4' -0"1A3.11A3.21A3.3MAIN CLNG17' -2"SECOND FLOORPLAN19' -2"2nd Ceiling32' -8"Roof Plan34' -8"----1A3.9Scale:Drawn by:Checked by:ARCHITECTThuftedal architecture + interiors5504 MERRITT CIREDINA, MN 55436TEL 612-743-6225thuftedal.comGENERAL CONTRACTORTBDPROJECTFiterman Addition andRemodel2234 Lee Ave. NGolden Valley, MN 55422ARCHITECT'S STAMPI hearby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my supervision and that I am a duly LicencedArchitect under the laws of the State of Minnesota.Ryan B. Thuftedal, AIASignature___________________________License #44757SHEETDate: 3/29/22SD plans12/9/21VARIANCE1/18/22OWNER REV.2/15/22OWNER REV.2/22/22VARIANCE3/29/22ArchitectsSTRUCTURAL ENGINEERALIGN structuralChirstian Soltermann PE241 Cleveland Ave S., B7St. Paul, MN 55105Review only1/8" = 1'-0"A2.4ELEVATIONSAuthorChecker1/8" = 1'-0"1East Elevation BASEMENT LEVELPLAN rend0' -0"MAIN LEVEL PLAN9' -4"BASEMENTCEILING8' -1"T.O. FOOTING-4' -0"1A3.51A3.61A3.7----MAIN CLNG17' -2"SECOND FLOORPLAN19' -2"2nd Ceiling32' -8"Roof Plan34' -8"1A3.813' - 6"Scale:Drawn by:Checked by:ARCHITECTThuftedal architecture + interiors5504 MERRITT CIREDINA, MN 55436TEL 612-743-6225thuftedal.comGENERAL CONTRACTORTBDPROJECTFiterman Addition andRemodel2234 Lee Ave. NGolden Valley, MN 55422ARCHITECT'S STAMPI hearby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my supervision and that I am a duly LicencedArchitect under the laws of the State of Minnesota.Ryan B. Thuftedal, AIASignature___________________________License #44757SHEETDate: 3/29/22SD plans12/9/21VARIANCE1/18/22OWNER REV.2/15/22OWNER REV.2/22/22VARIANCE3/29/22ArchitectsSTRUCTURAL ENGINEERALIGN structuralChirstian Soltermann PE241 Cleveland Ave S., B7St. Paul, MN 55105Review only3/16" = 1'-0"A3.2SECTIONSAuthorChecker3/16" = 1'-0"1Cross Section 2 BASEMENT LEVELPLAN rend0' -0"MAIN LEVEL PLAN9' -4"BASEMENTCEILING8' -1"T.O. FOOTING-4' -0"1A3.11A3.21A3.3KITCHENMAIN CLNG17' -2"SECOND FLOORPLAN19' -2"2nd Ceiling32' -8"Roof Plan34' -8"----1A3.913' - 6"Scale:Drawn by:Checked by:ARCHITECTThuftedal architecture + interiors5504 MERRITT CIREDINA, MN 55436TEL 612-743-6225thuftedal.comGENERAL CONTRACTORTBDPROJECTFiterman Addition andRemodel2234 Lee Ave. NGolden Valley, MN 55422ARCHITECT'S STAMPI hearby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my supervision and that I am a duly LicencedArchitect under the laws of the State of Minnesota.Ryan B. Thuftedal, AIASignature___________________________License #44757SHEETDate: 3/29/22SD plans12/9/21VARIANCE1/18/22OWNER REV.2/15/22OWNER REV.2/22/22VARIANCE3/29/22ArchitectsSTRUCTURAL ENGINEERALIGN structuralChirstian Soltermann PE241 Cleveland Ave S., B7St. Paul, MN 55105Review only3/16" = 1'-0"A3.5SECTIONAuthorChecker3/16" = 1'-0"1Longitudinal Section 1 BASEMENT LEVELPLAN rend0' -0"MAIN LEVEL PLAN9' -4"BASEMENTCEILING8' -1"T.O. FOOTING-4' -0"1A3.17'-10.5" ceiling1A3.21A3.3MAIN CLNG17' -2"SECOND FLOORPLAN19' -2"2nd Ceiling32' -8"Roof Plan34' -8"----1A3.9----Scale:Drawn by:Checked by:ARCHITECTThuftedal architecture + interiors5504 MERRITT CIREDINA, MN 55436TEL 612-743-6225thuftedal.comGENERAL CONTRACTORTBDPROJECTFiterman Addition andRemodel2234 Lee Ave. NGolden Valley, MN 55422ARCHITECT'S STAMPI hearby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my supervision and that I am a duly LicencedArchitect under the laws of the State of Minnesota.Ryan B. Thuftedal, AIASignature___________________________License #44757SHEETDate: 3/29/22SD plans12/9/21VARIANCE1/18/22OWNER REV.2/15/22OWNER REV.2/22/22VARIANCE3/29/22ArchitectsSTRUCTURAL ENGINEERALIGN structuralChirstian Soltermann PE241 Cleveland Ave S., B7St. Paul, MN 55105Review only3/16" = 1'-0"A3.7SECTION L3AuthorChecker3/16" = 1'-0"1Longitudinal Section 3 BASEMENT LEVELPLAN rend0' -0"MAIN LEVEL PLAN9' -4"BASEMENTCEILING8' -1"T.O. FOOTING-4' -0"1A3.11A3.21A3.3MAIN CLNG17' -2"SECOND FLOORPLAN19' -2"2nd Ceiling32' -8"Roof Plan34' -8"----1A3.9Scale:Drawn by:Checked by:ARCHITECTThuftedal architecture + interiors5504 MERRITT CIREDINA, MN 55436TEL 612-743-6225thuftedal.comGENERAL CONTRACTORTBDPROJECTFiterman Addition andRemodel2234 Lee Ave. NGolden Valley, MN 55422ARCHITECT'S STAMPI hearby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my supervision and that I am a duly LicencedArchitect under the laws of the State of Minnesota.Ryan B. Thuftedal, AIASignature___________________________License #44757SHEETDate: 3/29/22SD plans12/9/21VARIANCE1/18/22OWNER REV.2/15/22OWNER REV.2/22/22VARIANCE3/29/22ArchitectsSTRUCTURAL ENGINEERALIGN structuralChirstian Soltermann PE241 Cleveland Ave S., B7St. Paul, MN 55105Review only3/16" = 1'-0"A3.8SECTIONSAuthorChecker3/16" = 1'-0"1Longitudinal Section 4 Scale:Drawn by:Checked by:ARCHITECTThuftedal architecture + interiors5504 MERRITT CIREDINA, MN 55436TEL 612-743-6225thuftedal.comGENERAL CONTRACTORTBDPROJECTFiterman Addition andRemodel2234 Lee Ave. NGolden Valley, MN 55422ARCHITECT'S STAMPI hearby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my supervision and that I am a duly LicencedArchitect under the laws of the State of Minnesota.Ryan B. Thuftedal, AIASignature___________________________License #44757SHEETDate: 3/29/22SD plans12/9/21VARIANCE1/18/22OWNER REV.2/15/22OWNER REV.2/22/22VARIANCE3/29/22ArchitectsSTRUCTURAL ENGINEERALIGN structuralChirstian Soltermann PE241 Cleveland Ave S., B7St. Paul, MN 55105Review onlyA4.1EXTERIOR AXONSAuthorChecker1NE CORNER AXON2NW CORNER AXON3SE CORNER AXON4SW CORNER AXON Scale:Drawn by:Checked by:ARCHITECTThuftedal architecture + interiors5504 MERRITT CIREDINA, MN 55436TEL 612-743-6225thuftedal.comGENERAL CONTRACTORTBDPROJECTFiterman Addition andRemodel2234 Lee Ave. NGolden Valley, MN 55422ARCHITECT'S STAMPI hearby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my supervision and that I am a duly LicencedArchitect under the laws of the State of Minnesota.Ryan B. Thuftedal, AIASignature___________________________License #44757SHEETDate: 3/29/22SD plans12/9/21VARIANCE1/18/22OWNER REV.2/15/22OWNER REV.2/22/22VARIANCE3/29/22ArchitectsSTRUCTURAL ENGINEERALIGN structuralChirstian Soltermann PE241 Cleveland Ave S., B7St. Paul, MN 55105Review onlyA4.2VIEWSAuthorChecker1S VIEW Scale:Drawn by:Checked by:ARCHITECTThuftedal architecture + interiors5504 MERRITT CIREDINA, MN 55436TEL 612-743-6225thuftedal.comGENERAL CONTRACTORTBDPROJECTFiterman Addition andRemodel2234 Lee Ave. NGolden Valley, MN 55422ARCHITECT'S STAMPI hearby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my supervision and that I am a duly LicencedArchitect under the laws of the State of Minnesota.Ryan B. Thuftedal, AIASignature___________________________License #44757SHEETDate: 3/29/22SD plans12/9/21VARIANCE1/18/22OWNER REV.2/15/22OWNER REV.2/22/22VARIANCE3/29/22ArchitectsSTRUCTURAL ENGINEERALIGN structuralChirstian Soltermann PE241 Cleveland Ave S., B7St. Paul, MN 55105Review onlyA4.3VIEWSAuthorChecker1ENTRY VIEW2NORTH VIEW