Loading...
bza-agenda-sep-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 2467 036 9406.   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 2467 036 9406. Press *3 to raise your  hand during public comment sections.    1. Call to Order & Land Acknowledgement    2. Approval of Agenda    3. Approval of Minutes  August 23, 2022, Regular Meeting    4. Address: 4501 Merribee Dr  Applicant: Nancy Lyons  Request: To locate a shed in a front yard – closer than the principal structure and 33 feet off of the  required 35 feet to a distance of 2 feet from a front property line.    5. Address: 309 Edgewood  Applicant: Roger Friedell  Request: To allow an increase in average grade over the existing elevation by 2.5 feet, 1.5 feet over  what is allowed by right.    6. Address: 6601 Plymouth Ave  Applicant: Paul Patton and Barbara Pierson  Request: To construct a three‐season porch within the shoreland setback – 13 feet off of the required 50  feet to a distance of 37 feet from the ordinary high‐water line.    7. Address: 610 Ottawa  Applicant: Lori Bosclair  Request: To build a deck off an existing office building, 17 feet off the required 35 feet from the west  property line, and 4.5 feet off the required 20 feet from the north property line.     8. Adjournment   September 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 and the land acknowledgement was read by Chair Carlson.    Roll Call  Members present: Chris Carlson, Nancy Nelson, Chuck Segelbaum – Planning Commissioner   Members absent: Kade Arms‐Regenold, Richard Orenstein  Staff present:    Jason Zimmerman – Planning Manager, Myles Campbell – Planner     Approval of Agenda  MOTION made by Nelson, seconded by Carlson to approve the agenda of August 23, 2022, as submitted.   Motion carried    Approval of Minutes  MOTION made by Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Segelbaum to approve the July 26, 2022 meeting  minutes.   Motion carried    1. Address: 8020 Wynwood Road  Applicant: Aaron Johnson  Request: To waive the building envelope requirements from the side yard setback for a portion of the  new structure for the construction of a home addition  § 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (e)(1)(c)(1) Principal Structure Side Setback    Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, reminded the group that this item was tabled at the July BZA  meeting. Per direction of the BZA, the plans were revised and the variance request reduced.   Zimmerman summarized the request, provided background on the lot, and noted the impact area is  the upper portion of the second floor while the height requirement will still be met. Staff displayed  updated architectural plans.    Practical Difficulties   As proposed, the addition would add a master suite and a family room to the east end of the  existing home. Due to the time period in which the home was constructed, a larger, more  modern, living space is a reasonable request. The revised design of the addition attempts to  incorporate the site conditions and has minimized the area that falls outside of the building  envelope. Therefore, staff believes the proposal is reasonable in its revised form.  August 23, 2022 – 7 pm  City of Golden Valley    BZA Regular Meeting  August 23, 2022 – 7 pm       2   The design of the current home, which has the garage and basement constructed at a lower  level than the main floor, was not caused by the current owner but constructed decades ago.  While there are many homes that sit on lots with a sloping grade and include a tuck‐under  garage, which creates constraints through the average height calculation, this lot also slopes  from front to back. Staff believes the compounded site conditions impacting the plans for the  desired addition create circumstances that are unique.     As proposed, the addition would not be excessively tall and would not be out of line with the  rest of the neighborhood. While a majority of the homes along Wynwood are single‐story,  there are also a handful that have second stories. In addition, the increased distance from the  side setback line and therefore from the adjacent property and home help minimize any  impacts. Staff believes granting the variance would not alter the essential character.    Other Considerations  Staff assesses whether the request represents the smallest feasible variance or if there are other  options available:   Lowering the height of the addition to match that of the existing roofline, possibly by  removing the row of windows near the peak, could reduce further the need for the  variance. The applicant has already adjusted the plans by reducing the width of the addition  and pushing it further form the side setback line.    Recommendations  Based on the factors above, staff recommends approval of a variance to waive the building envelope  requirements from the side yard setback for a portion of the new structure, with the following  condition:   The approved plans shall be those submitted with the variance application and any significant  deviation from these plans would require a new application with the Board of Zoning Appeals.    Staff and members discussed the condition, where the side yard setback is measured from, as well as  how the average grade factors in.     Chair Carlson invited the applicant to speak.   Greg Kunze, Applicant, stated the hardship in this request is due to how the average grade is  established. Adding the 2to1 ratio hinge point is lower than the roof and the home can’t extend to  the setback line due to these factors. The applicant added how the aesthetic of the design matches  the neighborhood. Members asked the applicant about the roof style and snow and the applicant  went into detail on the design/build to direct snow/water away.    Chair Carlson opened the open forum at 7:22pm.    Stephanie Houselog  2315 Valders Ave N  City of Golden Valley    BZA Regular Meeting  August 23, 2022 – 7 pm       3  I support this variance; the owners are fantastic neighbors and we’d like to keep them in the  neighborhood.     There were no remote commenters.   Chair Carlson closed the open forum at 7:24pm.    Chair Carlson opened the Board Discussion.   Nelson thanked the applicant for returning with a revised plan after meeting with the BZA in July.  Members discussed the application and reviewed staff findings. Members agreed that the request  met the necessary findings.     A MOTION was made by Nelson and seconded by Commissioner Segelbaum to approve the variance  to waive the building envelope requirements from the side yard setback for a portion of the new  structure, with the following condition:   The approved plans shall be those submitted with the variance application and any significant  deviation from these plans would require a new application with the Board of Zoning Appeals.  Motion carried.    2. Address: 6800 Kingston Circle  Applicant: Matthew Sanders  Request: A variance of 7 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 28 from the north property line and  a proposed three‐season deck  § 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (e)(1)(a) Principal Structure Front Setback    Myles Campbell, Planner, reviewed the request, location of the lot in Golden Valley, and gave a  background on the property. Staff was sure to note for the group that according to zoning code, this  lot has three front yards. The homeowner would like an attached three season porch in what they  use as a rear yard. Staff reviewed dimensions and proximity to the road. Staff pointed out that the  request would be compliant with the front yard setback requirement except for one small section of  the property that jogs toward the home to make space for city ROW. It should be noted that if this  were a zoned rear yard, the project would be in compliance with rear yard setbacks.     Practical Difficulties   The new porch is proposed in a location that minimizes visual impact from the street and  from adjacent residential properties. It is not oversized for its use and would add to the  backyard.  Staff finds this request reasonable.   The lot facing public right‐of‐way on three sides is very unique for residential properties in the  city, and adding to this the variable property line along the north side.  Staff believes the site  exhibits unique circumstances.     The deck is located in a similar area to the existing patio, and would likely only be visible from  one street, Idaho Ave to the east. The new deck also leaves additional space between the  City of Golden Valley    BZA Regular Meeting  August 23, 2022 – 7 pm       4  west side property line to mitigate impacts on the neighbor. Staff believes that the requested  variances will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood and city.      Other Considerations  Staff assesses whether the request represents the smallest feasible variance or if there are other  options available:     A patio could be located in this area without a variance, but would not be protected from  weather or elements, which is a principal desire of the resident.    The deck depth could be further reduced to minimize the setback encroachment; however, the  floorplan is already conservatively sized and this would likely mean removing either the dining  area or seating.     Recommendation  Based on the factors above, staff recommends approval of a variance of 7 feet off the required 35  feet for a new porch on the north property line, to a total distance of 28 feet.     Chair Carlson invited the applicant to speak.     Matt Sanders, applicant’s architect, stated the process seemed straightforward until they applied for  building permits and found out they had three front yards, according to zoning code. The applicant  discussed process for matching the porch to the home and making sure it aligns with the character of  the neighborhood.     Members and the applicant discussed the porch size and how the dimensions came to be. Applicant  acknowledged they didn’t decrease the porch sq footage based on the variance but looked into  altering the location/angle, however there isn’t another location off the house to locate the porch.     Chair Carlson opened the open forum at 7:44pm.  There were no in person commenters.   There were no callers.   Chair Carlson closed the open forum at 7:46pm.    Chair Carlson opened the Board Discussion.   Commissioner Segelbaum discussed the front yard setback and continuity however he added the  anomaly of the third front yard and the concrete wall separating the yard from the road. He added  he agrees with staff. Chair Carlson echoed these statements.     A MOTION was made by Segelbaum and seconded by Carlson to approve of a variance of 7 feet off  the required 35 feet for a new porch on the north property line, to a total distance of 28 feet.  Motion carried  City of Golden Valley    BZA Regular Meeting  August 23, 2022 – 7 pm       5    3. Address: 234 Ski Hill Road  Applicant: Aleksey Derevyanko  Request: A variance of 3 feet over maximum height of 28 feet for a total height of 31 feet for the  construction of a new home.  § 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (e)(2) Principal Structure Height  Restrictions    Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, stated the lot is empty and the variance is related to  construction of a new home. This lot was originally part of one large lot with a home on it, the home  was demolished and the lot split into three. Two of the lots have been constructed on and this is the  final lot. The proposal for this construction is to have a tuck under garage and the revised plans have  a portion of the structure extending about the maximum height allowed in the R‐1 district.   Displaying extensive plans, staff pointed out the impacted area is primarily a pitched roof portion to  the rear of the structure but that a parapet on a lower flat roof also exceeds the maximum. The  design shows two full stories built over a tuck‐under garage and the applicant reports the water table  limits the ability to sink the structure further into the site.   Staff also noted the applicant has already altered the original plan so it fit within the building  envelope, whereas it didn’t before.     Practical Difficulties   As proposed, the new home would fill a lot that has been vacant since it was created in 2015.  The property is zoned for single‐family use. In Minnesota, a pitched roof is better suited to  handle snow in contrast to a flat roof. Therefore, staff believes the proposed use is reasonable.   The applicant points to a high water‐table and the topography of the lot as unique  circumstances that create the need for the variance. While there are certain challenges  associated with the location, there are a number of alternatives designs that would meet the  City’s zoning requirements, even if they were not preferred by the new homeowners. Absent  extreme conditions, a vacant lot should be able to be utilized in a conforming fashion.  Therefore, staff believes that the current problem is caused by the preferences of the landowner.   Adjacent to two other new homes, the design of the proposed structure would fit nicely and  complement the existing character of the neighborhood. The sloped roofline is located to the  back of the home and would be fairly unobtrusive even if built to the proposed height. Staff  believes granting the variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.    Other Considerations  Staff assesses whether the request represents the smallest feasible variance or if there are other  options available:   The initial plans submitted to the City were revised once already in order to avoid violations  of the building envelope as well as to reduce the overall height of the structure. Converting  the remaining pitched roof to a flat roof would further reduce the proposed height, though  City of Golden Valley    BZA Regular Meeting  August 23, 2022 – 7 pm       6  it does not appear it would remove the need for a variance. A lower flat roof also exceeds  the maximum height of 28 feet by a foot or less.    Recommendation  Based on the factors above, staff recommends denial of the variance request of 3 feet over the  maximum height of 28 feet to a total height of 31 feet for the construction of a new home.    Staff and members reviewed the building envelope and height maximum and staff pointed out the  advantage of a vacant lot allows the applicant to create a design that won’t require a variance at all.  Staff and members discussed the change in grade on the lot and how that factors in to the site plan  and building envelope. They discussed the water table, topography, mature trees on the lot, and a  pitch roof vs flat roof.     Chair Carlson invited the applicant to speak.   Fernando Lino, architect, and Aleksey Derevyanko, builder, were present to represent the  client/homeowner.   The previous owner is the neighbor and his request was to maintain the trees if a home was built, the  applicants stated this was their starting point.   The homeowner discussed the views of the home from the neighbors and the street, the roof pitch  to mitigate leaves in the gutters, and the sq footage of the home.    The applicant stated that in order to meet all the standards and maintain the home size, as designed,  the home would need to be moved to the north and trees would be removed. The conversation  continued on the average grade impacting the height requirement, the water table, and the rain  garden that will be installed as part of the design. The applicant pointed out that the homeowners  spent a year designing the home to make sure it fits in with the topography      Chair Carlson opened the open forum at 8:32pm.  Staff read an emailed comment from 235 Paisley and they are in support of the variance.     There were no in person commenters.     (name not given)  324 Meander  With the pitched roof, where would the water flow? Our home is at the bottom of the hill that this  house is on, and our concern is about water running towards our house. I’m also curious about the  flat roof, are you saying more trees would be removed if there was a flat roof to prevent leaves in the  gutters?     Alex Lanning  324 Meander  I am asking the variance be denied. The tall house is fine but as the trees come down, it will be  exposed and we will lose the green space.   City of Golden Valley    BZA Regular Meeting  August 23, 2022 – 7 pm       7    Chair Carlson closed the open forum at 8:41pm.    Staff responded to the water questions, using a topography map, and t water may flow towards the  neighboring lot, stay at the rear of the lot, and the water will then go to the rain garden. The  applicant echoed this and added that the lot is heavily wooded plus the design was created to  maintain as much tree coverage as possible.     Commissioner Segelbaum asked about neutral impact of the neighbors. Staff responded that  stormwater management stated runoff already occurs due to current topography, the direction of  water isn’t changing. Gutters and downspouts will alter the water direction and is an option.     Nelson noted that the architect already altered the design to fit the building envelope however the  ordinance is there to avoid 2 story houses over a garage. Carlson noted how dramatic the hill is  already and the home will dominate the area. The home could be moved, not need a variance, but  the trees ill be lost. Commissioner Segelbaum noted that the determination for this variance seems  to be related to a policy issue. Adding he’d rather let the City Council decide if this variance will be  approved since it relates to policies of house height as well as goals to maintain trees/greenspace.     The conversation continued on if tabling was the right choice but noting the architect already  reworked the design and stating the homeowner’s clear desires for the home and the land  preservation. Being that this variance is to allow a new construction to fit in to current topography  and not with an existing home, it doesn’t meet the practical difficulties requirements and the group  thinks Council should make the decision on what their policy will be.   Segelbaum noted that there isn’t a great impact to the land, preserving the trees reduces impact to  one neighbor, and the 100ft distance from the proposed home to the other neighbor could be  enough to justify the larger home and thus this variance. However, that’s a Council determination.  Everyone noted they hope Council approves it.     A MOTION was made by Segelbaum and seconded by Carlson to deny the variance request of 3 feet  over the maximum height of 28 feet to a total height of 31 feet for the construction of a new home.  Motion carried    4. Adjournment    MOTION made by Nelson, seconded by Carlson and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the  meeting at 9:02 pm.  Motion carried.                                                                                                        ________________________________                                                                                               Chris Carlson, Chair  _________________________________  Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant      Date:  September 27, 2022  To:  Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals  From:  Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager  Subject:  4501 Merribee Drive  Nancy Lyons, Applicant      Introduction  Nancy Lyons, the homeowner at 4501 Merribee Drive, is seeking variances from the City Code in  order to construct a shed in a front yard. The applicant is seeking the following:  Variances Requested City Code Requirement  The applicant is requesting  a variance to allow a shed  to be located closer to the  front setback than the  principal structure.  § 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd.  (f)(1)(a) Accessory Structures: Location    A detached accessory structure shall be located completely to the  rear of the principal structure, unless it is built with frost footings.  In that case, an accessory structure may be built no closer to the  front setback than the principal structure.  The applicant is requesting  a variance of 33 feet off of  the required 35 feet to a  distance of 2 feet for a shed  from the front property  line.  § 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd.  (f)(1)(b) Accessory Structures: Front Setback    Accessory structures shall be located no less than 35 feet from the  front lot line.    Background  The subject property is zoned Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) is currently just under 14,000 square feet. It  is a corner lot and fronts onto Merribee Drive to the north and Lee Ave North to the east. The right‐of‐ way to the east was previously owned by the property at 4444 Merribee Drive. In 1965, it was deeded to  the City as a right‐of‐way easement in order to provide access to new lots to the south.    2    In 2021, the applicant pursued constructing a shed near this right‐of‐way in a space she assumed was a  side yard but is in reality a front yard. A cement slab was poured prior to realizing this error. In working  with staff, the applicant further discovered that the existing fence to the east was outside of the  property line and sits within the right‐of‐way. As a result, the newly poured slab also extends beyond the  property line.    Because of the topography and the difference in elevation from the north portion of the lot to the south  (rear yard), the applicant wished to pursue a path that could allow the planned shed to remain in its  current location. After examination of the wide right‐of‐way to the east, Engineering staff determined  that there is excess land that could be vacated and returned to the property owner at 4444 Merribee, as  this was the original plat from which the right‐of‐way easement was obtained. Those owners have  agreed to sell the land to 4501 Merribee so that it can be combined with the existing lot and create a  larger front yard along Lee Ave.    On August 12, at its regular meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the lot  combination. The City Council will consider this request at its meeting on October 6.    Regardless, the construction of a shed in a front yard is not allowed by code, so two variances are being  pursued that would facilitate the placement of the shed along Lee Avenue in a relatively flat and  accessible portion of the yard.      2021 aerial photo (Hennepin County)  3      Lot combination exhibit with poured concrete pad (in orange)    Summary of Requests  The applicant is requesting two related variances in order to place the proposed shed in the front  yard facing Lee Avenue North. The first is a waiver from the requirement that accessory structures  be no closer to the street than the principal structure (Subd. (f)(1)(a) of Section 113‐88). The second  is a request for a reduction in the required front yard setback from 35 feet to 2 feet (Subd. (f)(1)(b)  of Section 113‐88).    Pointing to the topography of the lot (shown in the two‐foot interval contours above), the applicant  stresses that the conforming locations for a shed are both far from the other active areas of the property  and more challenging to access. After a shaky start in which the actual property lines were  misinterpreted, the property owners have worked closely with staff to explore possible solutions and  take the entitlement steps to create a yard that could legally accommodate the proposed shed.    Analysis  In reviewing this application, staff has maintained the points of examination to the considerations  outlined in Minnesota State Statute 462.357 – that the requested variance is in harmony with the  general purposes and intent of the Zoning Chapter, that it is consistent with the City’s  4    Comprehensive Plan, and that a property exhibit “practical difficulties” in order for a variance to be  granted.     Staff finds that the variance is generally in line with the purpose statement in the Zoning Code (“to  provide for detached single‐family dwelling units at a low density along with directly related and  complementary uses”), as it does not impact or change the principal use of the lot as a single‐family  residence, nor does it allow for additional density of population. Staff also finds the request  reasonable in light of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which has the goal of rehabilitation and  reinvestment in older housing stock as it ages.     In order to constitute practical difficulties:    1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner. As  proposed, the shed would be positioned in an area that both functions as a side yard and is  predominately screened from view by the existing fence. The intended size is not excessive  and it is a complementary use commonly found on single‐family lots. Staff believes the  proposed use is reasonable.    2. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that are  not caused by the landowner. In light of the desire to construct a shed to hold bicycles, yard  equipment, and other items, the applicant notes that due to the topography of the lot there  are few places where a shed could be located while still practically fulfilling that purpose. The  conforming portion of the lot is far removed from the active areas. The dramatic changes in  grade as well as the reduced depth of the yard facing Lee Ave are unique circumstances that  are not caused by the landowner.    3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. The  proposed location for the shed is in an area that is shielded from view from the public right‐ of‐way by a fence. The portion of the property facing Lee Ave functions as a side yard, and  the current placement of the home is nonconforming in that it sits roughly 12 feet from the  (front) property line. While the introduction of the proposed shed would be a change to the  lot, it would be minor and staff believes granting the variance would not alter the essential  character.    Additionally, staff assesses whether other options are available to meet the applicant’s needs  without requiring a variance, or whether the proposal requests the smallest variance necessary to  meet the applicant’s needs.      Given the nature of the site as a corner lot, the only conforming alterative for the placement  of a shed would be at the bottom of the hill in the rear yard. While this would avoid the need  for a variance, its location would be ill‐served for the intended purpose of providing storage  for bicycles and other equipment typically associated with the garage (at the top of the hill).  Alternatively, no shed could be constructed and all items would need to fit within the garage.    5    Recommendations  Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow an accessory structure to be located closer to  the front setback than the principal structure.    Staff recommends approval for the variance of 33 feet off of the required 35 feet to a distance of 2  feet for an accessory structure from the front property line.    Further, staff recommends including the following condition:  1. The approvals shall be contingent on the final approval by the City Council and the recording  of a plat that combines the existing lot with the vacated right‐of‐way along Lee Avenue.      Points of Consideration for “Practical Difficulty” Test Met Not Met  Property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner X   Problem due to circumstances unique to the property and not  caused by the landowner  X   If granted, would not alter the essential character of the  locality  X   Are other reasonable options available?  The conforming location for a shed would place it far from the active portion of the yard and,  given the topography, make it more challenging to access.        Date:  September 27, 2022  To:  Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals  From:  Myles Campbell, Planner    Subject:  309 Edgewood Ave  Roger Friedell, Applicant      Introduction  Roger Friedell, the property owner, is seeking a variance from the City Code to build a deck off of  the existing office building. The applicant is seeking the following variances from City Code:   Variance Request City Code Requirement  The applicant is requesting a  variance to allow an increase  in average grade over the  existing elevation by 2.5 feet,  1.5 feet over what is allowed  by right  § 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential Zoning District, Subd. (e)(2)  Height    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.    Background  309 Edgewood is the address of an existing single‐family home  built in 1948. The property is roughly 29,358 sq.ft. and is of a  relatively regular shape, facing Edgewood Ave to the east.  Relevant to this variance request, the front of the lot is currently  very flat in terms of its topography, and is at roughly the same  elevation as the street and curb along Edgewood Ave. This is not  ideal, as rather than shedding water towards the street, instead  water can pool and collect, and in a major rain event this could  lead to damage or issues with the structure.   2      The applicant proposes to do a complete tear down and rebuild of the site, removing the existing home  and adding a new one of their architect’s design. As part of this larger project, the applicant would like to  take the opportunity to correct some of the grading issues present with the lot, raising grade especially  in the front to address the current negative grade. The proposed home would also take advantage of the  sloping grade by having a rear walkout basement below the main floor. In raising the grade however, a  variance would be required due to a requirement of our zoning code’s restrictions around height.     Summary of Requests  Chapter 113‐88 of zoning code handles the Single‐Family Residential zoning district. Under Subsec.  (e)(2) the requirements for maximum height are laid out, restricting lots to 28’ as measured from  the average grade along the front façade. The applicant’s request is not related to this 28’ maximum  however, but instead a clarification on average grade stating, “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.” This stipulation is in place to avoid a person from circumventing the maximum height  requirement by building effectively a hill to build their home on. If you could raise the average grade  by 3 or 4 feet for any new structure, you’d effectively be getting extra height that is not included in  the structure’s height calculation.     The existing average  grade for this lot is  910.5. Again, this is  calculated by taking a  set of three points  along the front façade  of the home. Applying  the same standard to  the new home’s  façade, and utilizing  the proposed grading  plan from the  applicant, an average  of 913 was calculated,  2.5 feet over the  existing average. This  means the variance  being requested is for  that additional 1.5  feet of increase in the  average grade of the  property. In terms of finished floor elevation, the existing home is at 912.9 and the proposed home  would be at 914.6.       3      The applicant offered this as a way to  provide a greater change in elevation  between the home and the street.  Increasing the grade will allow the lot to  shed water away from the home, and the  applicant’s plans show space along the  south property line where swales will be  put in place to avoid runoff going onto the  neighboring property. The increase will also  help in other aspects of the design. For  example, the existing driveway is currently  at a 0% slope, meaning it is at the same  elevation as the street. By increasing grade,  the applicant shows this driveway slope  increasing to 4%, which should help with  runoff and prevent water from the street  flowing into the lot.     As noted earlier, the applicant’s plans do  not indicate a second story above the main  level, so while we’d expect the new  structure to be slightly taller than what is  existing today, it is clear to staff that this is  not simply an attempt to increase the  height of the structure beyond what would normally be allowed.     Engineering Staff Comments  As with all variances, we do share the details of each request with other city departments such as  engineering, environmental resources, building inspections, and the fire department. Especially given  the request of this nature being related to stormwater management, engineering and environmental  resources staff were consulted closely.     Engineering staff was generally supportive of the request, noting that increasing the grade to be above  that of the street was especially important in their eyes. They also appreciated the steps to avoid  directing runoff to the adjacent property to the south. That said they did argue that the proposed 2.5‐ foot increase was likely overkill if the goal here was to avoid issues with stormwater runoff.    Engineering noted that the applicant’s plans show a 4% slope for the driveway, this could be  reduced however to as low as 2% while still meeting the City’s minimum requirement for new  driveways.   While there is a floodplain slightly southwest of this lot, the high‐water elevation for that area is  902 feet.   o This means there’s no concerns on their end about the proposed walkout elevation of 905  feet, and leaves some room to shift this down further if a lower average grade variance  4    were to be approved, to avoid sacrificing the proposed 9’4” ceiling height for the lower  level.  o They also confirmed that the city sewer line elevation is around 894 feet, meaning that a  restroom on the lower level could still be accommodated.     Overall their recommendation was to approve a lesser variance than requested, which still allowed the  applicant some room to raise grades as needed to create separation from the street.     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 and the  Single‐Family Zoning District chapter, in that it does not change the intent of the lot to serve as a  single residential property.     Staff also finds the request reasonable in light of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which has among its  goals in regards to housing, “Manage development and redevelopment throughout the watershed  to minimize the risk of flooding” and “Ensure all new housing meets or exceeds the quality  standards established in City ordinances”    In order to constitute practical difficulties:    1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner.  The increase in grade is correcting an existing site issue that should be corrected given the  opportunity provided by the new build, overall staff finds this request reasonable.    2. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that is not  caused by the landowner.  While all lots often have flat or sloped areas in their topography to be worked around, very  few in the city have this issue of being at level with their associated street, which many  issues in regards to directing storm water flows. Staff believes the site exhibits unique  circumstances.    3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality  As noted while the new house will be slightly higher than what is existing in terms of finished  floor elevation, it will not have a second story above the main floor and this variance would  not be a major contributing factor in the change in the lot’s appearance with the new home.  Staff believes that the requested variances will not alter the essential character of the  neighborhood and city.    5    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.      As Engineering staff noted in their review, a lesser variance for increase in average grade  could allow for the applicant to correct the front grading issue without running into issues  with driveway slope or without dropping the walkout level to the same elevation as the  floodplain to the southwest.     Recommendations  Staff recommends denial of a variance to allow an increase in average grade over the existing  elevation by 2.5 feet, 1.5 feet over what is allowed by right.    Staff recommends approval of a variance to allow an increase in average grade over the existing  elevation by 2 feet, 1 foot over what is allowed by right.        Points of Consideration for “Practical Difficulty” Test Met Not Met  Property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner X   Problem due to circumstances unique to the property and not  caused by the landowner  X   If granted, would not alter the essential character of the  locality  X   Are other reasonable options available?  Yes, a reduced variance would still allow for improved drainage, and is staff’s recommendation.    Hennepin County Property Map Date: 9/6/2022 Comments: 1 inch = 100 feet PARCEL ID: 3211 82144 0001 OWNER NAME: G airbyat L . L. C. PARCEL ADDRESS: 3 09 Edgew ood Ave N, Go lden Valle y MN 5 5427 PARCEL AREA: 0 .67 acres, 29 ,35 8 sq ft A-T-B: Abstract SALE PRICE: $10 5,0 00 SALE DATE: 12/2011 SALE CODE: Excluded From Ratio Studies ASSESSED 2021, PAYABLE 2022 PRO PERTY TYPE: Reside ntial H OMESTEAD: No n-Homeste ad MARKET VALU E: $217,000 TAX TOTAL: $3,099.32 ASSESSED 2022, PAYABLE 2023 PROPERTY TYPE: Re sidential HOMESTEAD: Non-Ho mestead MARKET VALUE: $230 ,00 0 This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is not suitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2022 Edgewood Avenue#LICENSE NO.DATES1FEBRUARY 22, 2022Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345Phone (952) 474-796417917 Highway 7Web: www.advsur.comAdvanceSurveying & Engineering, Co.CLIENT NAME / JOB ADDRESSSHEET TITLEEXISTING CONDITIONSSURVEYSHEET NO.SHEET 1 OF 1DRAWING ORIENTATION & SCALE40200220065 TBDRAWING NUMBERDATE DRAFTED:DATE SURVEYED:FEBRUARY 21, 2022FEBRUARY 22, 2022# 42379Thomas M. BloomSHEET SIZE22 X 34SCALE - 1" = 20'LEGENDLEGAL DESCRIPTION:That part of the South 100 feet of the North 300 feet of Lot 3, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 322, HennepinCounty, Minnesota.SCOPE OF WORK & LIMITATIONS:1. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the legal description listed above. The scope of ourservices does not include determining what you own, which is a legal matter. Please check the legaldescription with your records or consult with competent legal counsel, if necessary, to make sure that it iscorrect and that any matters of record, such as easements, that you wish to be included on the survey have beenshown.2. Showing the location of observed existing improvements we deem necessary for the survey.3. Setting survey markers or verifying existing survey markers to establish the corners of the property.4. This survey has been completed without the benefit of a current title commitment. There may be existingeasements or other encumbrances that would be revealed by a current title commitment. Therefore, this surveydoes not purport to show any easements or encumbrances other than the ones shown hereon.5. Note that all building dimensions and building tie dimensions to the property lines, are taken from the sidingand or stucco of the building.6. It should be noted that this survey was done under snow and ice conditions and that all improvements may ormay not have been shown correctly. While we did our best to locate all improvements under the snow and ice,we can't be sure that all improvements were shown. Please look over the survey to be sure everything you needshown is shown correctly.7. Showing elevations on the site at selected locations to give some indication of the topography of the site. Wehave also provided a benchmark for your use in determining elevations for construction on this site. Theelevations shown relate only to the benchmark provided on this survey. Use that benchmark and check at leastone other feature shown on the survey when determining other elevations for use on this site or beforebeginning construction.8. We are showing the boundary lines per found monuments. We believe that the found monuments define thelocation of Lot 3 rather than the plat dimensions per the plat dated from 1944. Therefore, the dimensions asshown on the survey don't match exactly the legal description.STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS:"●" Denotes iron survey marker, set, unless otherwise noted.ROGER FRIEDELL309 EDGEWOOD AVENUEGOLDEN VALLEY 913.6FFE910.5910.0914.6FFE905.6FFE914.6 FFE905.0904.5908912TW 913.8BW 911.0912913.8907.5905.5910913.8913.5BW 908.0BW 908.0914.5 DECKSURFACE8" STEP8" STEP906905 9 0 4 905906907908909911912910913914910914.6FFE905.6FFE913.6FFE905.0907909910908911912FORREVIEWQualification:This electronic drawing (CAD) file was prepared by B.E. LANDSCAPEDESIGNS. for this project, and is an Instrument of Service owned by B.E.LANDSCAPE DESIGNS. and to be used solely with respect to thisproject. This electronic drawing (CAD) file shall not be used on otherprojects, for additions to this project or for completion of this project byothers without written approval by B.E. LANDSCAPE DESIGNS. Thisdrawing shall be used for information and reference only. All intentional orunintentional revisions, additions or deletions to these CAD files shall bemade at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions ordeletions and that party shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend B.E.LANDSCAPE DESIGNS. from any & all responsibilities, claims andliabilities.L300GRADINGPLANROGER FRIEDELL RESIDENCE309 EDGEWOOD AVE, GOLDEN VALLEY MNargetsingerlynn@gmail.comroger@friedell.com612-867-8850GRADING PLANSCALE= 1" = 10'-0"1     Date:  September 27, 2022  To:  Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals  From:  Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager  Subject:  6601 Plymouth Ave N  Paul Patton and Barbara Pierson, Applicants      Introduction  Paul Patton and Barbara Pierson, the homeowners at 6601 Plymouth Ave N, are seeking a variance  from the City Code in order to convert and expand a deck to a three‐season porch within the  shoreland overlay. The applicants are seeking the following:  Variance Requested City Code Requirement  The applicant is requesting  a variance of 13 feet off of  the required 50 feet to a  distance of 37 feet to allow  the construction of a three‐ season porch.  § 113‐149, Shoreland Management, Subd. (e)(1) Zoning Provisions:  Standards    Structure setback of 50 feet from ordinary high water for General  Development Waters (Bassett Creek)      Background  The subject property is zoned Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) is approximately 13,117 square feet in area.  It fronts onto Plymouth Ave to the north and abuts Bassett Creek to the south. The lot generally drops  down to the creek from the high point near the roadway. An elevated deck sits to the rear and the one‐ story home, built in 1955, has a walkout onto a patio that is covered with pavers. The property was  granted a number of variances in 1999 to allow for the construction of the deck. These involved making  legal existing nonconformities with respect to the front and side setbacks, as well as a 10‐foot variance  from the shoreland setback of 50 feet for the home. The proposed deck received a variance from the  side yard setback of 5.35 feet (off of the required 15 feet) but did not extend into the shoreland setback  which at the time was interpreted as a distance of 50 feet from the high water mark.    2       1991 property survey with notes from 1999    A more accurate interpretation of the shoreland overlay area, as well as modifications to the grading of  the stream bank as part of a restoration project, have resulted in an established ordinary high water  elevation of 871. A recent survey shows that measuring from this elevation contour puts the existing  deck (as well as a greater portion of the home) within the shoreland setback. The proposal for the new  three‐season porch would put it approximately 13 feet into the required 50 foot setback.      2020 property survey  Shoreland setback  3    The City’s shoreland overlay is intended to “regulate the subdivision, use and development of the  shorelands of public waters and for purposes of preserving and enhancing the quality of surface waters,  preserving the economic and natural environmental values of shorelands, and providing for the wise  utilization of waters and related land resources.” Bassett Creek has been identified by the DNR as a  General Development Stream and due to that classification, there is a shoreland overlay district that  extends 50 feet from the contour determined to the ordinary high water elevation. Within this setback,  most structures are prohibited in order “to preserve the quality and natural character of these protected  waters of the City.” Existing structures are allowed to remain but are deemed to be nonconforming and  may not be expanded without approval through a variance.      Proposed conditions    Summary of Requests  The applicants are requesting a variance to replace the existing deck with a larger three‐season  porch which would extend 13 feet into the shoreland setback. In acknowledging the new porch  would create a greater intrusion into the setback, the applicants point to a number of factors to  justify approval:   The porch would be limited to 18 feet wide by 12 feet deep.   It would extend into the shoreland setback by no more than 13 feet.   It would be elevated with only supporting posts intruding at the ground level.  4     A modified stairway would also be within the setback, but by no more than the amount  caused by the new porch.   The porch would not extend into the side setback.   110 square feet of patio paving could be removed and replaced with a permeable, planted  area.    Staff will note that extensive conversations around the proposed three‐season porch took place in 2021.  Planning and Engineering staff reviewed the request for an expansion of the existing deck and in the end  offered a limited compromise which was that support could be offered for a three‐season porch  constructed as part of a conversion of the existing deck, but that no support would be given for a  horizontal expansion of the deck/porch. Similarly, staff preferred not to see an expansion of the paved  area below the deck, and in fact encouraged the removal of an existing paved area in the southwest  portion of the lot much closer to Bassett Creek.    Ultimately, staff is striving to review the proposal with an eye towards the purpose of the shoreland area  (to preserve, to the extent possible, the natural look and feel of the 50 foot swath adjacent to the  ordinary high water elevation) as well as the consideration of the experience of those using the public  water (Bassett Creek) or viewing across it from the other side.    Due to the nature of the request, the State DNR Commissioner has been notified and staff will monitor  for any comments or questions in advance of the Board’s meeting on this item.    Analysis  In reviewing this application, staff has maintained the points of examination to the considerations  outlined in Minnesota State Statute 462.357 – that the requested variance is in harmony with the  general purposes and intent of the Zoning Chapter, that it is consistent with the City’s  Comprehensive Plan, and that a property exhibit “practical difficulties” in order for a variance to be  granted.     Staff finds that the variance is generally in line with the purpose statement in the Zoning Code (“to  provide for detached single‐family dwelling units at a low density along with directly related and  complementary uses”), as it does not impact or change the principal use of the lot as a single‐family  residence, nor does it allow for additional density of population. Staff also finds the request  reasonable in light of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which has the goal of rehabilitation and  reinvestment in older housing stock as it ages.     In order to constitute practical difficulties:    1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner. The use of  a three‐season porch, especially in a rear yard, is reasonable and typically would not trigger  the kind of scrutiny generated by this application. If not for the proximity to Bassett Creek,  staff would have no issue approving the use. Staff believes the proposed use is reasonable.    5    2. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that are  not caused by the landowner. While adjacency to Bassett Creek is a limiting factor in seeking  approval for the proposed three‐season porch, hundreds of other properties across the city  face similar regulations and are generally able to remodel or redevelop in ways that do not  require a variance. Staff has offered a compromise that takes advantage of the portion of the  rear yard most accommodating of a conversion of the nonconforming deck, but does not  believe additional expansion is warranted. Given this option and the preferences of the  applicants, staff does not find that unique circumstances are the cause of the landowner’s  problem.    3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. The  targeted requirements of the shoreland setback are designed primarily to limit the intrusion  of structures or other uses that may detract from the experience of using the protected  waters (in this case, Bassett Creek). The addition of an elevated three‐season porch visible  from the creek would contradict these efforts. Therefore, due to the sensitive nature of the  Shoreland Overlay District and the importance placed on maintaining the “natural  character” of the protected waters, staff believes granting the variance would alter the  essential character.    Additionally, staff assesses whether other options are available to meet the applicant’s needs  without requiring a variance, or whether the proposal requests the smallest variance necessary to  meet the applicant’s needs.      As discussed above, staff believes a three‐season porch constructed in place of the existing  deck would provide the enclosed experience desired by the applicants while still respecting  the intent of the shoreland setback, though the layout or size may not be the preferred  scenario.    Recommendations  Staff recommends denial of the variance request for 13 feet off of the required 50 feet to a distance  of 37 feet to allow the construction of a three‐season porch.      Points of Consideration for “Practical Difficulty” Test Met Not Met  Property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner X   Problem due to circumstances unique to the property and not  caused by the landowner   X  If granted, would not alter the essential character of the  locality   X  Are other reasonable options available?  A smaller, though more conforming, three‐season porch could be constructed in place of the  existing deck which would reduce the visual impact to Bassett Creek.    Zoning Code Variance Application Page 1 of 3 Street address of property in this application: Applicant Information Name (individual, or corporate entity) Street address Zip Phone Email Authorized Representative (if other than applicant) Name Street address Zip Phone Email Property Owner (if other than applicant) Name Street address Zip Phone Email Site Information Provide a detailed description of the variance(s) being requested: Provide a detailed description of need for a variance from the Zoning Code, including description of building(s), description of proposed addition(s), and description of proposed alteration(s) to property: 5/1/20 ’continued Physical Development-Planning Department | 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 763-593-8055 | FAX: 763-593-8109 | TTY: 763-593-3968 | www.goldenvalleymn.gov Minnesota State Statue 462.357 requires that a property exhibit “practical difficulties” in order for a variance to be considered. Practical difficulties:• result in a use that is reasonable• are based on a problem that is unique to the property• are not caused by the landowner• do not alter the essential character of the locality To demonstrate how your request will comply with Minnesota State Statute 462.357, please respond to the following questions. Explain the need for your variance request and how it will result in a reasonable use of the property. What is unique about your property and how do you feel that it necessitates a variance? Explain how the need for a variance is based on circumstances that are not a result of a landowner action. Explain how, if granted, the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of your neighborhood and Golden Valley as a whole. Zoning Code Variance Page 2 of 3 ’continued The City requests that you consider all available project options permitted by the Zoning Code before requesting a variance. The Board of Zoning Appeals will discuss alternative options to seeking a variance with you at the public hearing. Please describe alternate ways to do your project that do not require variances from the Zoning Code. Required Attachments ☐ ☐ Current survey of your property, including proposed addition and new proposed building and structure setbacks (a copy of Golden Valley’s survey requirements is available upon request; application is considered incomplete without a current property survey) ☐ ☐ One current color photograph of the area affected by the proposed variance (attach a printed photograph to this application or email a digital image to planning@goldenvalleymn.gov; submit additional photographs as needed) ☐ ☐ Application fee: $200 for Single-Family Residential, $300 for all other Zoning Districts ☐ ☐ Legal description: Exact legal description of the land involved in this application (attach a separate sheet if necessary) Signatures To the best of my knowledge, the statements found in this application are true and correct. I also understand that unless con-struction of the action applicable to this variance request, if granted, is not taken within one year, the variance expires. I have considered all options afforded to me through the City’s Zoning Code and feel there is no alternate way to achieve my objective except to seek a variance to zoning rules and regulations. I give permission for Golden Valley staff, as well as members of the Board of Zoning Appeals, to enter my property before the public hearing to inspect the area affected by this request. Applicant Name (please print): __________________________________________________ Signature: X________________________________________________________ Date: ______________ Authorized Representative (if other than applicant) Name (please print): __________________________________________________ Signature: X________________________________________________________ Date: ______________ Property Owner (if other than applicant) Name (please print): __________________________________________________ Signature: X________________________________________________________ Date: ______________ Please note: The City of Golden Valley will send notice of your variance request to all adjoining property owners as well as owners of proper-ties directly across streets or alleys. Your neighbors have the right to address the Board of Zoning Appeals at your public hearing. You are advised to personally contact your neighbors and explain your project to them before the public hearing. Zoning Code Variance Page 3 of 3 This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call 763-593-8006 (TTY: 763-593-3968) to make a request. Examples of alternate formats may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc. 6601 Plymouth Ave N. – 3 Season Porch 8/3/2022 Variance Application Supplement Variance application for a screen porch addition at 6601 Plymouth Ave N. Golden Valley, MN 55427 Owners: Paul Patton & Barbara Pierson 612-418-4895 (Paul) paul@dysym.com Legal description of the property (from the survey document): That part of Lots 367, 368, 377 and 378 lying North of a line running from a point on the west line of Lot 378 distance 223.35 feet northerly from the southwest corner thereof to a point on the east line of Lot 368 distance 99.79 feet southerly from the northeast corner thereof, BELMONT, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof. Supplemental Information cited in the variance application form: 1. Unique Conditions There are multiple conditions that are unique for this variance and serve to distinguish it. Thus, the granting of this variance will not erode zoning interpretations for other applications by setting a bad precedent. Briefly: 1. The amount of setback intrusion will not change or increase. 2. The proposed porch is elevated one story above the ground. Even in an extraordinary flood the only new intrusive elements are 3 support posts. 3. The ecology of the creek is preserved and improved (runoff vs. permeable area, native plants) 4. The appearance of/from the creek is not affected. 5. The essential character and appearance of the neighborhood is compatible. 6. It is not within the 100-year flood plain 1.1. Amount of setback intrusion does not change. The proposed 3 season porch does not increase the amount by which the house is over the 50-foot setback line of the Shoreland Overlay. The eastern part of the house is already within this setback by about 14 feet. This existing intrusion is a historical consequence dating from when the house was originally built in 1955. The proposed porch will be less intrusive: about 12 feet. 6601 Plymouth Ave N. – 3 Season Porch 8/3/2022 Variance Application Supplement 1.2. New porch is elevated. The 3-season porch is not a ground level addition. The house has a walk-out basement, but the new porch will be elevated on posts by one story to put it up on the main level. Thus, the only new features at ground level within the Shoreland Overlay setback area are several post footings and posts. The various possible effects on the creek are dominated by the pre-existing ground level intrusion of this house and the two much closer houses downstream, rather than the new porch. 1.3. New porch will not degrade the creek. Because of its placement and elevation, the new porch will not negatively affect the runoff, drainage, nearby vegetation, or any other aspect that would alter the creek's ecology and habitat, appearance, or environment vs. what is present now. Improvements to these will also be part of this project; thus, the net result is positive, not negative. • Drainage and Filtering: Currently rain is filtered by the lawn and the restored creek bank. The new porch will not alter the amount of rain reaching this area nor change the runoff pattern. • Ecology and Habitat: The proposed porch area does not currently contribute to the natural ecology of the creek shore and the new porch will neither improve nor degrade the part of our property that is directly involved in creek habitat. • Runoff: The proposed porch will be mostly above an existing patio and partly above existing lawn. With no change to existing surfaces the additional hard-surface/runoff area of this property would be slightly increased. However, as-proposed this will be more than offset by the reduction of other hard-surface patio areas that are beyond the shadow of the proposed porch. The reduction will be approximately 150 square feet. The variance may so stipulate (see the final sentence of this supplement document). 1.4. The view is not degraded. A city planner has stated that a concern we must address regarding the Shoreland Overlay setback is the preservation of the view from the water. The concern about a view from the water is primarily a concern for a lake rather than a barely navigable creek. We see only about a dozen people canoeing or kayaking down the creek during the entire summer; we miss some, so maybe it’s 2 dozen. As they come down the creek past the trees in the SW corner and into the area of our back yard, their view is downstream, not toward the house. Moreover because of the bank’s height and plant growth in summer it is not easy to see into any of the back yards to the north from a canoe or kayak. The view of houses as someone paddles past our back yard would be dominated by 1) the wall of the SE corner of our house which as-built is about 36 feet from the creek, followed by the next house downstream which has two stories that are only 15 feet from the water with a deck that is 5 feet away and 15 feet above the water, and then the next house after that which is even closer and has a similar deck almost at the water’s edge and a bridge over the creek to their back yard on the other side. 6601 Plymouth Ave N. – 3 Season Porch 8/3/2022 Variance Application Supplement Our proposed screen porch would not have a significant impact on the view from the water and in fact the screen porch would not have ANY effect on the view from the water except to someone who managed to stand up in their canoe or kayak to look up and over the bank behind them. In that case they might see a nice-looking porch well back from the creek. 1.5. Neighborhood character and appearance. In the immediate neighborhood: Our existing house and the two downstream houses (described in 1.4 just above) preclude any character or appearance negatives caused by the screen porch. These three intrusions all are at ground level and closer to the creek than the elevated porch will be. The appearance of the immediate neighborhood is entirely dominated by these existing ground level conditions; the new elevated porch will not be at all noticeable as an additional intrusion. For the wider neighborhood: As described within the variance application, a screen porch is a very common feature of Golden Valley homes. 1.6. No part of the porch is in the flood plain. The creek will not surround the closest posts (3) supporting the porch even during a 100- year flood. The closest post of the porch will be 15 feet beyond and 2 feet above the location and elevation of a 100-year flood as described by this reference: BCMWC 2015 Watershed Management Plan (revised 2017) https://www.bassettcreekwmo.org/application/files/7515/0825/5162/FINAL_REVISED_BCWMC_Section_2_August_2017_Rev3.pdf The 100-year flood elevation is shown in "Table 2-9 BCWMC Flood Profiles" as 873 at Florida (1/2 block east) and 874 at Hampshire (1/2 block west). The elevation used is the higher of these: 874. This elevation line is shown on the 2020 survey of the property and can be verified therein. The Variance6601_Illustration.pdf drawing shows the outline of the proposed screen porch superimposed on this survey drawing, along with emphasis of the 100-year flood level and the 50-foot setback lines. 2. Alternatives The proposed porch is located as far from the creek as it can be and still provide its purpose. There is no good alternative location; that is, moving it to the west to entirely replace the current deck does not significantly alter the intrusion and has several drawbacks: 2.1. Replace the current deck with the new screen porch 1) On the west end it would then impose upon the side setback, 2) A roofed structure there would be a much greater intrusion upon sightlines from the street and from our west neighbor's yard than the proposed design. These concerns are best served by putting the new screen porch as proposed, nearer the center behind the house. 3) If it replaced the deck the new porch would then be adjacent to a bedroom and bathroom. Access would be via an outdoor “hallway” from the main living area. A 6601 Plymouth Ave N. – 3 Season Porch 8/3/2022 Variance Application Supplement three-season porch is by its nature an extension of the main living area and thus should be connected to that area. As proposed, it will be outside of the living/dining area and the door can be left open to use it as part of the house. 4) The intrusion upon the Shoreland Overlay setback would not be significantly changed; it still would intrude in this location too. It would intrude by somewhat less and I agree that the difference is certainly measurable; however, the intrusion as related to the purpose of the Shoreland Overlay setback is entirely similar. 5) As described in the variance application document and in section 1.3 of this supplement, the impact of the porch on the permeable area of the property is much better in our preferred location vs. moving it to the west. 2.2. Make it smaller. As proposed the porch is a medium sized room that is as small as possible while still fulfilling its purpose. It is, in fact, smaller than we would prefer while remaining acceptable. Making it smaller yet would remove the possiblity of enjoying it as a small dining area that would seat 4 people: note that the northwest quarter of its area is needed as walk-through space. Reducing its depth also would significantly complicate the stair design: as proposed the revised stairs will come straight down along the south wall. As to width, this is significantly constrained by existing windows and doors that limit the locations where a porch wall might attach to the house. 3. Summary 3.1. It is fair and reasonable to allow this variance. It is both fair and reasonable to allow a property owner to add a 3-season porch to their home. At this address there are special concerns, and a property that adjoins public waters does include responsibility to preserve this for others. The Shoreland Overlay is part of that responsibility. Each of the points above is about how this porch addition will not affect or subvert that responsibility. This property does not comply with modern setback standards on all four sides, but that does not revoke the owner’s expectation of a right to use their property in a way that is fair and reasonable. That is, of course, why there is such a thing as a variance: to preserve that right when there are mitigating and exceptional conditions. My proposal is the best plan I can create for a 3-season porch at this location, and I have made choices specifically to abide by the intent and purpose of the Shoreland Overlay setback. This plan does not – indeed it cannot – meet those standards exactly. A variance for this fair and reasonable use is appropriate and should be granted. 3.2. Therefore: Please grant a variance that will allow the construction of a new 3 season porch with the following stipulations: • The building envelope of the new porch will be no larger than 18 feet east-to-west and no larger than 12 feet north-to-south. 6601 Plymouth Ave N. – 3 Season Porch 8/3/2022 Variance Application Supplement • The building envelope of the new porch will extend beyond the 50-foot Shoreland Overlay setback line (as shown by the certified survey) by no more than 13 feet. • The porch will be elevated up to the main level of the house. The only new intrusions within the 50-foot setback at ground level up to at least 7 feet above ground will be the porch's supporting posts and post footings (buried concrete pillars). Explanatory note: the 3 southern posts and 1 post at the NE corner (if required for the building code and structural soundness) will be within the Shoreland Overlay setback. The other two posts at north center and the NW corner, if required, are outside of the setback. The redesigned straight stair will also have new supports within the setback area, like the existing supports of the current angled stairway. • The stairs from the existing deck will be modified to descend along the south wall of the new porch; however, this will not increase the intrusion into the Shoreland Overlay setback; that is, no part of this stairway will encroach upon the 50-foot setback by more than the amount caused by the new porch’s building envelope (limited to 13 feet, above). • The building envelope of the new porch will not extend at all into the side setback. • If desired, this variance may include a requirement that at least 110 square feet of existing patio paving will be removed and replaced with a permeable, planted area.     Date:  September 27, 2022  To:  Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals  From:  Myles Campbell, Planner    Subject:  610 Ottawa Ave N  Lori Bosclair, Applicant      Introduction  Lori Bosclair, the property owner, is seeking a variance from the City Code to build a deck off of the  existing office building. The applicant is seeking the following variances from City Code:   Variance Request City Code Requirement  The applicant is requesting a  variance of 17 feet off the  required 35 feet to a distance  of 18 from the north property  line and a proposed deck  § 113‐93, Light Industrial Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(a)(1) Front  Setback     The required minimum front setback shall be 35 feet from any  front lot line along a street right‐of‐way line. All front yards shall  be maintained as landscaped green areas.  The applicant is requesting a  variance of 4.5 feet off the  required 20 feet to a distance  of 15.5 from the north  property line and a proposed  deck  § 113‐93, Light Industrial Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(b)(3) Side  Setback    For lots adjoining a Commercial, Light Industrial, or Industrial  Zoning District or railroad right‐of‐way, the required side yards  shall be no less than 20 feet in width and the required rear yards  shall be no less than 20 feet in depth.       2      Background  610 Ottawa is the current address for an office building originally built in 1979. The lot is just over 18,000  sq. ft. and faces Ottawa Ave to the West. The building is current headquarters location for the Bosclair  Corporation, a real estate development and property management company incorporated since 1974.     The existing building is oriented towards the north of the property, with a surface parking lot wrapping  around the building to the south and east. 17 parking spaces are provided on‐site for employees or  visiting customers, and the east side of the building is where the loading areas are included in the  building for shipping and storage.     The applicant plans to add a deck of the west of the building in what is currently a lawn area. The deck  would extend 17 feet off the face of the building. The applicant notes in their application that the desire  for the deck was spurred in part by the COVID‐19 pandemic and desire from employees to have outdoor  space associated with the office. At its closest points, the new decl would be 18 feet to the west  property line and 15.5 feet from the north.     Summary of Requests  The applicant is requesting a variance from the front and side yard setback requirements for  principal structures – Chapter 113‐93 of zoning code handles the Light Industrial (LI) zoning district.  Under Subsec. (f)(1)(a)(1) a 35’ front yard setback is required for any part of a principal structure,  and further it is required this area be maintained as landscaped green areas. For side yards abutting  another Industrial or Commercially zoned property, a side yard setback of 20’ is typically required.  The requirement for landscaped setbacks towards the street has an exception in Sec. 113‐151. ‐ Off‐ Street Parking and Loading, which allows for a drive aisle but not parking to interrupt landscaped  areas. Otherwise the Light Industrial zoning district does not have a maximum impervious surface  requirement, and so the landscaping requirement here is intended to preserve some dedicated  greenspace.    The existing office building is built to the 35’ front setback, and has a legally non‐conforming 10’ side  setback. As shown in the diagram below, the new deck would be offset to be further inset on the lot  from that north property line.     3        The deck would be 17’x27’8” in size, allowing for a variety  of seating areas (21 total seats) for employees. The deck  would be accessed from the same vestibule leading to the  rest of the office building. The deck would be built to  accommodate the sloped topography for this portion of  the lot, as shown in the packet materials, being nearly flush  with the ground on the south end, and elevated at the  north.     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 and the  Light Industrial Zoning District chapter, which states as its purpose, “The purpose of the Light  Industrial Zoning District is to provide for the establishment of warehousing, offices, and light  industrial developments.” While outdoor gathering space is maybe atypical for the district, here it is  clearly intended to support the use of the structure as an office building and as an employee  amenity, and does not change that land use to something else.     Staff also finds the request reasonable in light of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which has among its  goals in regards to economic development, “Encourage reinvestment and contemporary uses in  existing properties”   4      In order to constitute practical difficulties:    1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner.  While not commonly seen in light industrial districts, a space for employees to gather  outdoors associated with a principal office use is not wholly out of place. And while the deck  could be reduced in size, overall staff finds this request reasonable.    2. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that is not  caused by the landowner.  Staff does not believe the site exhibits unique circumstances.  It is of a relatively standard  size and shape, and is not impeded by floodplains or wetlands. The only physical design  challenge not created by the applicant might be the north‐sloping topography to the front of  the lot. Rather than avoiding this area however, the proposed deck plans show the deck is  located in this area, and can be constructed despite the topography.     3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality  The deck would be visible from Ottawa Ave N and would be closer to that street than either  of the other buildings along the east side of Ottawa. That said, given the few properties  along the street to compare to, staff isn’t concerned about the impact on streetscape. An  existing mature tree to the front of the building would hopefully be preserved along with the  deck project although this point is not addressed by the applicant. Staff believes that the  requested variances will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood and city.    Additionally, staff assesses whether other options are available to meet the applicant’s needs  without requiring a variance, or whether the proposal requests the smallest variance necessary to  meet the applicant’s needs.      The deck as shown is quite large, being just over 470 sq.ft. and seating 21. Reducing the size  of the deck could reduce the front setback request or potentially eliminate the needed side  setback request.   Just south of the building, in between it and the parking lot is a gravel area which could be  used to create a patio area for employees to use without needing a variance.     Recommendations  Staff recommends denial of a variance of 17 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 18 from  the west property line    Staff recommends denial of a variance of 4.5 feet off the required 20 feet to a distance of 15.5 feet  from the north property line           5    Points of Consideration for “Practical Difficulty” Test Met Not Met  Property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner X   Problem due to circumstances unique to the property and not  caused by the landowner   X  If granted, would not alter the essential character of the  locality  X   Are other reasonable options available?  Yes, a patio could be constructed south of the building without a variance, or the deck could be  reduced in size.    F. C. JAGKSO[V LAND SURVEYOR REGISTERED UNDER LAWS OF :TATE OF MINNESOTA LIC[NSIM BY ORDINANCE OF CITY OF MINNEA'IM'S 8616 EAST 55TH STREET 55417 727-.3484 J, oarbepor'g Cert1wte yi 4 4 MFG. CO./ ev. iY STATES ELECTRIC D JS - INS I V. 37 N S,"3e t" elle tm OpHRR GASKET CO. LITTON CO. TUPPRWARE 4708 #4700 4680 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE IB A TRUE AND CORRECT PLAT OF A SURVEY OF The Test 210.0 feet of the 01it '31,0.0 fait; . of the ,North 100.0 feet of ibs 'youth 335.0 feet of the Southeast 1/4 of h :rllort6vist 1/4 of Section 19,Tammshlp49,`RaiAs 24, except that part taken for Ottava Avtuua, "' Hennepin County,Minnesota. AS SURVEYED BY ME THIS 11th. DAY OF April --.D. 1978 Revised Aug. 25th. 1978 SIGN[ r F. C. J KSON, MtNNKSOT ISTRATION. Na. 3600 35'-0" 18'-0"10'-0"15'-6 3/8"1/16" = 1'-0"1 Site Plan AC AIR CONDITIONER ACOUST ACOUSTIC/ACOUSTICAL ACT ACOUSTIC TILE ADH ADHESIVE AFF ABOVE FINISH FLOOR AGGR AGGREGATE ALT ALTERNATE ALUM ALUMINUM AP ACCESS PANEL ARCH ARCHITECTURAL ASPH ASPHALT AVE AVENUE BD/BDSBOARD/BOARDS BFE BOTTOM OF FOOTING BITUM BITUMINOUS BKT BRACKET BLDG BUILDING BLK BLOCK BLKG BLOCKING BLVD BOULEVARD BM BEAM/BENCH MARK BOT BOTTOM BR BEDROOM BRG BEARING BRK BRICK BSMT BASEMENT BTWN BETWEEN CAB CABINET CB CATCH BASIN CEM CEMENT CFB CEMENT FIBER BOARD CG CORNER GUARD CIP CAST IRON PIPE CJ CONTROL JOINT CL CENTER LINE CLG CEILING CLKG CAULKING CLO CLOSET CMU CONC. MASONRY UNIT CNTR COUNTER CO COMPANY COL COLUMN COMB COMBINATION COMP COMPOSITION CONC CONCRETE CONST CONSTRUCTION CONT CONTINUOUS CONTR CONTRACTOR CORP CORPORATION CORR CORRIDOR CPT CARPET CR CURTAIN ROD CSK COUNTERSINK CT CERAMIC TILE CU FT CUBIC FOOT CU IN CUBIC INCH CU YD CUBIC YARD D DRYER DBL DOUBLE DEPT DEPARTMENT DET DETAIL DF DRINKING FOUNTAIN DIA DIAMETER DIAG DIAGONAL DIM DIMENSION DIV DIVISION DN DOWN DPRF DAMPPROOF DR DINING ROOM/DOOR DS DOWNSPOUT DT DRAPERY TRACK DW DISHWASHER DWG DRAWING DWR DRAWER E EAST EA EACH EIFS EXT. INSUL FIN SYSTEM EL ELEVATION ELEC ELECTRIC/ELECTRICAL ELEV ELEVATOR ENGR ENGINEER ENT ENTRANCE EQ EQUAL EQUIP EQUIPMENT EST ESTIMATE EW EACH WAY EWC ELECTRIC WATER COOLER EX EXISTING EXC EXCAVATE EXH EXHAUST EXP JT EXPANSION JOINT EXT EXTERIOR F TO F FACE TO FACE FAB FABRICATE FD FLOOR DRAIN FDN FOUNDATION FEC FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINET FEP FINISHED END PANEL FE FIRE EXTINGUISHER FF FINISH FACE FH FIRE HOSE FIG FIGURE FIN FINISH/ FINISHED FIX FIXTURE FL FLOOR FLASH FLASHING FLUOR FLUORESCENT FM FACE OF MASONRY FOW FACE OF WALL FPRF FIREPROOF FR FRAME FRT FREIGHT FS FACE STUD FSH FACE OF SHEATHING FT FOOT/FEET FTG FOOTING FURN FURNISH FURR FURRING F.V. FIELD VERIFIED G GAS GA GAUGE GAL GALLON GALV GALVANIZED GAR GARAGE GB GRAB BAR GC GENERAL CONTRACTOR GEN GENERAL GI GALVANIZED IRON GL GLASS/GLAZING GOVT GOVERNMENT GPBD GYPSUM WALLBOARD GPM GALLON PER MINUTE GR GRADE GRTG GRATING GS GREASE SHIELD GYP GYPSUM HB HOSE BIB HC HOLLOW CORE HD HEAD HDRL HANDRAIL HDW HARDWARE HM HOLLOW METAL HORIZ HORIZONTAL HR HOUR HT HEIGHT HWY HIGHWAY ID IDENTIFICATION/INSIDE DIA IN INCH INCL INCLUDE INC INCORPORATE INFO INFORMATION INSUL INSULATE/INSULATION INT INTERIOR INV INVERT JAN JANITOR JCT JUNCTION JT JOINT JST JOIST KD KNOCK DOWN KIT/K KITCHEN L LINEN LAB LABORATORY LAD LADDER LAM LAMINATE LAT LATITUDE LAV LAVATORY LB/LBS POUND/POUNDS LBR LUMBER LD LOAD LDG LOADING LG LENGTH LH LEFT HAND LIB LIBRARY LIN LINOLEUM LNDY LAUNDRY LOA LENGTH OVERALL LONG LONGITUDE LR LIVING ROOM LT LIGHT MACH MACHINE MAS MASONRY MATL MATERIAL MAX MAXIMUM MC MEDICINE CABINET MECH MECHANICAL MEMB MEMBRANE MEMO MEMORANDUM MEZZ MEZZANINE MFG MANUFACTURED MFR MANUFACTURER MH MANHOLE MIN MINIMUM MIR MIRROR MISC MISCELLANEOUS MLDG MOULDING MO MASONRY OPENING MOD MODULAR MTL METAL MTD MOUNTED MULL MULLION N NORTH NIC NOT IN CONTRACT NO/# NUMBER NOM NOMINAL NTS NOT TO SCALE OA OVERALL OC ON CENTER OFF OFFICE OPNG OPENING OPP OPPOSITE ORIG ORIGINAL OSB ORIENTED STRAND BOARD OZ OUNCE P&G PITCH & GRAVEL PASS PASSENGER PCF POUNDS PER CUBIC FOOT PED PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC COATING PER PERIMETER PERF PERFORATE PERP PERPENDICULAR PIL PILASTER P LAM PLASTIC LAMINATE PL PLATE PLAS PLASTER PLMB PLUMBING PLYWD PLYWOOD PNEU PNEUMATIC POL POLISHED PORC PORCELAIN PSF POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT PSI POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH PT PAINT/POINT PTD PAPER TOWEL DISPENSER PTN PARTITION PREFAB PREFABRICATED PREFIN PREFINISHED PROP PROPERTY PUR PURLINS QR QUARTER/QUARTER-ROUND QT QUARRY TILE QTY QUANTITY R RISER R&S ROD & SHELF RAD RADIATION/RADIUS RB RESILIENT BASE RC RESILIENT CHANNEL RCT RUBBER COMPOSITION TILE RD ROAD/ROUND/ROOF DRAIN RECP RECEPTACLE REC RECESSED REF REFERENCE REFRIG REFRIGERATOR REG REGULAR/REGISTER REINF REINFORCE/REINFORCING REQD REQUIRED RESIL RESILIENT RET RETURN RH ROBE HOOK/RIGHT HAND RFG ROOFING RM ROOM RO ROUGH OPENING RS REDUCER STRIP RWD REDWOOD RWL RAIN WATER LEADER S SOUTH SAN SANITARY SB SPLASH BLOCK SC SOLID CORE SCHED SCHEDULE SD SOAP DISH S DISP SOAP DISPENSER SEC SECOND SECT SECTION SH SHELF/SHINGLES SHR SHOWER SHT SHEET SHTG SHEATHING SID SIDING SIM SIMILAR SLID SLIDING SM SMOOTH (FINISH) SND SANITARY NAPKIN DISPENSER SNR SANITARY NAPKIN RECEPTACLE SPEC SPECIFICATION SQ SQUARE SS SERVICE SINK SSA SINGLE STRENGTH A S STL STAINLESS STEEL ST STREET STD STANDARD STL STEEL STOR STORAGE STR STRINGER STXT SPRAY TEXTURE SUB FL SUBFLOOR SUSP SUSPENDED SV SHEET VINYL S4S SURFACED FOUR SIDES T TREAD T&G TONGUE & GROOVE TB TOWEL BAR TC TOP OF CURB TECH TECHNICAL TEL TELEPHONE TEMP TEMPERED TERR TERRAZZO TEX TEXTURE TFE TOP OF FOOTING ELEV THRESH THRESHOLD THRU THROUGH TK BD TACKBOARD T.O TOP OF . . . TPH TOILET PAPER HOLDER TRANS TRANSOM TV TELEVISION TW TOP OF WALL TYP TYPICAL UL UNDERWRITER'S LAB, INC UNO UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE VAN VANITY VB VAPOR BARRIER/VINYL BASE VEN VENEER VENT VENTILATOR VERT VERTICAL VEST VESTIBULE VIN VINYL VWC VINYL WALL COVERING VCP VITRIFIED CLAY PIPE VCT VINYL COMP TILE W WEST/WASHER W/ WITH W/O WITHOUT WC WATER CLOSET WD WOOD WDW WINDOW WI WROUGHT IRON WP WATERPROOF WR WATER RESISTAN WS WEATHERSTRIP WSCT WAINSCOTING WT WEIGHT WWF WELDED WIRE FABRIC YD YARD ABBREVIATIONS (These patterns are scaled for 1-1/2"= 1'-0"details) FOAM/POURED IN PLACE INSUL EARTH CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT STEEL RIGID INSULATION OR BRICK/ MANUFACTURED STONE CONCRETE SAND GRANULAR FILL GYPSUM BOARD ROUGH WOOD QUARRY OR CERAMIC TILE WOOD STUD WALL WOOD BLOCKING OR SHIM BATT INSULATION (INSUL-10) PLYWOOD 1 1 AXXX 1 DOOR NUMBER ROOM NAME / NUMBER INTERIOR/EXTERIOR WALL TYPE, FLOOR- CEILING TYPE REVISION CLOUD DETAIL CALLOUT BREAK LINE HDCP SYMBOL ELEVATION / WORK POINT NORTH ARROW KEYNOTES ADDENDUM, CHANGE ORDER, PROPOSAL REQUEST, ARCHITECTS SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS INTERIOR ELEVATION DETAIL SECTION ELEVATION A X X AXXX X AXXX AXXX A B C D 1i Room name 101 X AXXX N C D B UNIT NUMBER / NAME DETAIL NUMBERName 4xxx 101 x SYMBOLS KEY W2430 1i 1t CASEWORK TAG PARKING TAG WINDOW TAG HATCH KEY HWY 55100 PROJECT LOCATION SITE N STREET VIEW FROM OTTAWA AVE N CORRELATION AND INTENT OF THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS §1.2.1 The intent of the Contract Documents is to include all items necessary for the proper execution and completion of the Work by the Contractor. The Contract Documents are complementary, and what is required by one shall be as binding as if required by all; performance by the Contractor shall be required only to the extent consistent with the Contract Documents and reasonably inferable from them as being necessary to produce the indicated results. §1.2.2 Organization of the Specifications into divisions, sections and articles, and arrangement of Drawings shall not control the Contractor in dividing the Work among Subcontractors or in establishing the extent of Work to be performed by any trade. Per Supplementary instructions Specification Section 00 81 00 A.1.2.4 -Precedence: In the event of inconsistencies among the documents, Architect will interpret them in accordance with the requirements specified herein and the overall intent of achieving a finished,code complying product throughout the buildings. B.1.2.5 -Where standard specifications, such as Fed. Spec, ANSI, ASTM, or other standards are referred to herein, if no date or edition is indicated, the latest or most recent edition at date of issue including all supplements, shall apply to this project. The Architect and Engineers will not answer questions directly from subcontractors. All subcontrctor questions must be directed to the General Contractor (GC) and Architect will respond to questions via the GC. General Contractor:Architect:Structural: Frerichs Construction Kaas Wilson Architects BKBM Engineers 3600 Labore Rd, Suite 8 1301 American Blvd E., Suite 100 6120 Earle Brown Dr #700 Saint Paul, MN 551110 Bloomington, MN 55425 Minneapolis, MN 55430 Barry Vulcan Jim Schloemer Tina Wyffles P: (651) 787.0687 jims@kaaswilson.com twyffles@bkbm.com 35'-0" 18'-0"NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONDate Drawn By Checked By Project Number 1301 American Blvd. E. Suite 100 Bloomington, MN 55425 tel: (612) 879-6000 fax: (612) 879-6666 www.kaaswilson.com Copyright Kaas Wilson ArchitectsAs indicated8/9/2022 3:48:01 PMC:\Revit Local\22027-Boisclair-Golden Valley-Office Improvements_alexf27LEY.rvtCover Sheet Checker Author 08/02/2022 22027 Boisclair Office Improvements Lori Boisclair A000 Boisclair Office Improvements 610 Ottawa Avenue North Golden Valley, MN 55422 610 Ottawa Avenue North Golden Valley, MN 55422 Structural Engineering: BKBM Engineers 6120 Earle Brown Dr #700 Minneapolis, MN 55430 P: 763.843.0420 Drawing Index Sheet Number Sheet Name Original Issue Date Current Revision Date A000 Cover Sheet 08/02/22 08/09/22 A100 Code Review 08/02/22 08/09/22 A300 Floor Plans 08/02/22 A400 Enlarged Deck Framing Plan & Deck Details 08/02/22 08/09/22 Rev. No.RevisionDate1Addendum 0108/09/223/64" = 1'-0"3 Site Plan 1 UP UP DW394 SF- Training Room 002 118 SF- Storage 006 190 SF- Mechanical 003 226 SF- Fitness 001 332 SF- Corridor 015 133 SF- Stair B 021 43 SF- Gender Neutral 004 ?-?Occ. ? ? ?-?SF/Occ. 16 OCCUPANTS x .2" = 8" 36" PROVIDED 12'-0"58'-0" Egress Path 330 SF- Lobby 101 74 SF- Vest 100 119 SF- Reception 102 116 SF- Office 103 100 SF- Office 105 117 SF- Office 104 113 SF- Office 107 86 SF- Copy Room 106 95 SF- Stair B 121 424 SF- Garage 112 249 SF- Break Room 111 76 SF- Unisex 110 46 SF- Unisex 109 13 OCCUPANTS x .2" = 6.5" 36" PROVIDED 45 OCCUPANTS x .2" = 9" (PREVIOUSLY 13 OCCUPANTS); 36" PROVIDED 60' EGRESS PATH63' EGRESS PATH 32 OCCUPANTS x .2" = 6.4" 36" PROVIDED 470 SF-32Occ. Deck 100a B-15SF/Occ. Occupant load calculated as unconcentrated assembly, 15 sf per occupant 1 1 160 SF- Copy Area 200 119 SF- Office 201 199 SF- Corridor 215 228 SF- Conference 202 123 SF- Office 203 121 SF- Office 205 190 SF- Office 204 123 SF- Office 206 118 SF- Stair B 221 494 SF- Open Office 209 298 SF- Office 210 47 SF- Gender Neurtal 208 70 SF- Gender Neutral 207 60' EGRESS PATH 25 OCCUPANTS x .2" = 5" 36" PROVIDED 2 HOUR RATED ASSEMBLY Fire Walls 1 HOUR RATED ASSEMBLY Stairs, elevators, shafts, corridors, partitioning UNRATED RATED ASSEMBLY Room Number Room Name - Accessibility Type Occupancy - Load Factor Room Area - Occupant Load Occupant Load Required Exit Width Exit Width Provided Code Plan Key Exit Door Req'D 3'-0" 45 Occ. Prov. 3' -0" Name : Unit Type 101 R2 200SF/Occ. 150 SF-2 Occ. 1. 2015 Minnesota State Building Code & Chapter 1305 with state ammendments to 2012 International Building Code. 3. 2015 Minnesota Accessibility Code /Chapter 1341 -Section 1113: Proposed alteration is less than 85% -Section 1106: Proposed alteration meets required min. accessible parking spaces (3) 4. Minnesota State Building Conservation Code fo Existing Buildings, Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1311 -No change to occupancy -Only areas altered must comply 4. 2015 Minnesota Fire Code 5. Special Fire Protection Systems /MSBC Chapter 1306 6. 2014 National Electrical Code, Chapter 1315 7. 2015 Minnesota State Plumbing Code /Chapter 4714 8. 2015 Minnesota Mechanical & Fuel & Gas Code 9. 2015 Minnesota Energy Code Code Review (copied from previously-appoved office renovation, for reference only) Construction Type IIB Fire Resistance Requirements by Element (IBC Tables 601 and 602) Building Element Construction Type IIB Structural Frame 0Hr Ext. Bearing Walls 0Hr Int. Bearing Walls 0Hr Ext. Non Bearing Walls -- Int. Non Bearing Walls 0Hr Floor Construction 0Hr Roof Construction 0Hr Corridor Rating (IBC Table 1017.1) Corridor walls on levels 1 and 2 shall comply with the 1 hour rating requirement. Allowable Height and Building Areas (IBC Table 503) Occ.Tabular Area/Floor Height (S-Feet) B 23,000 SF 4 -55' ALLOWABLE HEIGHT:4 stories, 55' ACTUAL HEIGHT: 2 stories, 24'-6'' ALLOWABLE AREA PER FLOOR:23,000 sf ACTUAL AREA PER FLOOR: Basement =1,620 sf Level 1 =2,450 sf Level 2 = 2,450 sf TOTAL AREA DETERMINATION (IBC 506.4): (23,000) x (3) = 69,000 sf ACTUAL TOTAL BUILDING AREA: 6,520 sf ACCESSORY OCCUPANCIES (IBC 508.3.1) Accessory assembly areas with a floor area less than 750 sf are not considered separate occupancies. No Rooms/Spaces Greater than 750SF Proposed 2. Occupancy Classification B -Business (100 SF/Occupant) Basement:17 occupants (1,620 SF) Level 1:25 occupants (2,450 SF) Level 2:25 occupants (2,450 SF) 3. Plumbing Fixture Count (Chapter 29) OCCUPANT LOADS FOR PLUMBING FIXTURE COUNT Water Closets (Table 2902.1) All Levels (Min. 1 Bathroom on all Levels): B 34 occupants x 1/25 = 1.4 (Men) 34 occupants x 1/25 = 1.4 (Women) Req'd -3 total (1:1 men/women) Provided Unisex -5 water closets Total -5 water closets Overall Building Requirements Accessible Parking Requirements (IBC 1106) Total parking spaces provided = 22 stalls Between 1 to 25 stalls requires = 1 stalls acc. Total Access. Parking Stalls Req'd = 1 stalls Total Access. Stalls Provided =1 stalls The project is an exterior deck addition to the existing office building. No changes are proposed to the existing building. Code plans and analysis, copied from the previously-approved 2018 office renovation, have been included for reference only. The only modifications to the previously-approved code plans are to indicate area of proposed deck and occupant load of deck egress door and exterior vestibule door (revised). See clouded area of 2/A100. EXISTING BUILDING: Construction Type IIB Occupancy: B-Business Fully Sprinkled STAIRS ARE PROPOSED TO BE OPEN TO BASEMENT, LEVEL 1, AND LEVEL 2: From the Conservation Code 803.2 Vertical openings. Existing vertical openings shall comply with the provisions of Sections 803.2.1, 803.2.2 and 803.2.3. 803.2.1 Existing vertical openings. All existing interior vertical openings connecting two or more floors shall be enclosed with approved assemblies having a fire-resistance rating of not less than 1 hour with approved opening protectives. Exceptions: 5. In Group B occupancies, a minimum 30-minute enclosure shall be provided to protect all vertical openings not exceeding three stories. This enclosure, or the enclosure specified in Section 803.2.1, shall not be required in the following locations: 5.1. Buildings not exceeding 3,000 square feet (279 m2) per floor. 5.2. Buildings protected throughout by an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. To Comply with Section 803.2.3 Stair A is not part of the means of egress per tables 1015.1 and 1021.2(2) of the Minnesota State Building code. There are less than 29 occupants and the maximum travel distance from the furthest point of the level to stair B is less than 75'-0". Therefore, we are proposing that Stair A be open to Level 2 and the basement level. EGRESS DOORS: Our Egress doors are swinging inward per 1008.1.2 below. Our total Occupant load is 66 people/2 Exits = 33 people per door. 1008.1.2 Door swing. Doors shall swing in the direction of egress travel where serving a room or area containing an occupant load of 50 or more persons or a Group H occupancy. 2015 MN ACCESSIBILITY CODE Section 803 Dressing Fitting, and Locker Rooms 803.5 Coat hooks and shelves. Accessible coat hooks provided within the room shall accommodate a forward reach of side reach complying with Section 308. Where provided, a shelf shall be 40 inches minimum and 48 inches maximum above the floor. Section 903 Benches 903.3 Size. Benches shall have seats 42 inches minimum in length, and 20 inches minimum and 24 inches maximum in depth. 903.4 Back Support. The bench shall provide for back support or shall be affixed to a wall. Back support shall be 42 inches minimum in length and shall extend from a point 2 inches maximum above the seat surface to a point 18 inches minimum above the seat surface. Back support shall be 2 1/2 inches maximum from the rear edge of the seat measured horizontally. 903.5 Height. The top of the bench seat shall be 17 inches minimum and 19 inches maximum above the floor, measured to the top of the seat. 903.6 Structural Strength. Allowable stresses shall not be exceeded for materials used where a vertical or horizontal force of 250 pounds is applied at any point on the seat, fastener mounting device, or supporting structure. 903.7 Wet locations. Where provided in wet locations the surface of the seat shall be slip resistant and shall not accumulate water Applicable Building Codes Section 1015 Guards 1015.2 Where required. Guards shall be located along open-sided walking surfaces, including mezzanines, equipment platforms, aisles, stairs, ramps and landings that are located more than 30 inches (762 mm) measured vertically to the floor or grade below at any point within 36 inches (914 mm) horizontally to the edge of the open side. Guards shall be adequate in strength and attachment in accordance with Section 1607.8. 1015.3 Height. Required guards shall be not less than 42 inches (1067 mm) high, measured vertically as follows: 1.From the adjacent walking surfaces. 2.On stairways and stepped aisles, from the line connecting the leading edges of the tread nosings. 3.On ramps and ramped aisles, from the ramp surface at the guard. 1015.4 Opening limitations. Required guards shall not have openings that allow passage of a sphere 4 inches (102 mm) in diameter from the walking surface to the required guard height.NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONDate Drawn By Checked By Project Number 1301 American Blvd. E. Suite 100 Bloomington, MN 55425 tel: (612) 879-6000 fax: (612) 879-6666 www.kaaswilson.com Copyright Kaas Wilson ArchitectsAs indicated8/9/2022 3:48:02 PMC:\Revit Local\22027-Boisclair-Golden Valley-Office Improvements_alexf27LEY.rvtCode Review Checker Author 08/02/2022 22027 Boisclair Office Improvements Lori Boisclair A100 610 Ottawa Avenue North Golden Valley, MN 55422 Structural Engineering: BKBM Engineers 6120 Earle Brown Dr #700 Minneapolis, MN 55430 P: 763.843.0420 1/8" = 1'-0"1 Level -1 Code Plan 1/8" = 1'-0"2 Level 1 Code Plan 1/8" = 1'-0"3 Level 2 Code Plan Rev. No.RevisionDate1Addendum 0108/09/221 UP DWEXISTING PLAN GENERAL NOTE EXISTING FLOOR PLANS ARE BASED ON ORIGINAL DRAWINGS AND ARE FOR GENERAL REFERENCE ONLY. ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS MAY VARY AND ARE TO BE FIELD VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR. A300 3 Vest 100 Reception 102 Office 104 Office 103 Office 105 Office 107 Garage 112 Unisex 109 Unisex 110 Break Room 111 Lobby 101 Stair B 121 Copy Room 106 Corridor 115 Stair A 120 17'-0"27'-8"1 A300 FIELD VERIFY EXISTING COLUMN OR PIER SUPPORTING ROOF AND/OR FLOOR BEAMS FROM EAST. COORDINATE DOOR LOCATION SUCH THAT NEW OPENING AND NEW LINTELS DO NOT INTERFERE WITH EXISTING PIER OR COLUMN A400 1 A300 5 A300 6 Level 1 0" A300 2 L4x3 1/2x3/8 (LLV) TEMPORARY BRICK SUPPORT, GALVANIZED. ANGLE LENGTH = LOOSE BRICK LINTEL LENGTH PLUS ADDITIONAL 8" EACH END L4x3 1/2x3/8 (LLV) GALVANIZED LOOSE BRICK LINTEL. ANGLE LENGTH = OPENING WIDTH + 8" BEARING EACH END. LOCATE VERTICAL LEG TIGHT TO BACK FACE OF BRICK CONTRACTOR FIELD VERIFY ASSUMED EXISTING WALL ASSEMBLY (8" CMU WITH BRICK VENEER). NOTIFY ARCHITECT & ENGINEER IF WALL ASSEMBLY DIFFERS FROM THIS L6x3 1/2x5/16 (LLV). ANGLE LENGTH = OPENING WIDTH + 8" BEARING EACH END. 5/16" CONTINUOUS BOTTOM PLATE. WIDTH = CMU WALL WIDTH MINUS 1/2" (FIELD VERIFY) INSTALLATION SEQUENCING NOTES 1. INSTALL TEMPORARY BRICK SUPPORT IN MORTAR JOINT (3) BRICK COURSES MIN ABOVE TOP OF NEW OPENING. 2. CAREFULLY REMOVE BRICK BENEATH TEMPORARY BRICK SUPPORT ANGLE AS NECESSARY FOR NEW LINTEL INSTALLATION (ASSUMED 8" BEYOND EDGE OF NEW OPENING EACH SIDE). SALVAGE QUANTITY OF BRICKS NECESSARY FOR REINSTALLATION. 3. SAWCUT ALONG EXISTING BLOCK JOINT ON ONE SIDE AT L6x3 1/2 ANGLE BEARING. 4. DRIVE L6x3 1/2 ANGLE IN SAWCUT (8" MIN BEARING EACH END). 5. REPEAT STEPS 3 & 4 FOR OTHER L6x3 1/2 ANGLE. 6. REMOVE EXISTING BLOCK BELOW ANGLES. 7. WELD BOTTOM PLATE TO ANGLES. 8. INSTALL LOOSE BRICK LINTEL. 9. TOOTH BACK IN SALVAGED BRICK AROUND NEW OPENING. 10. REMOVE TEMPORARY BRICK SUPPORT AND REPAIR BRICK MORTAR JOINTS AS NECESSARY. 3/16 2-12 2-12 3/16 Level 1 0" Level 2 10'-8" Truss Brg. 20'-8" 1 A300 2 A400 Typ 3'-10"Level 1 0" Level 2 10'-8" Truss Brg. 20'-8" 2 A400 Typ Level 1 0" Level 2 10'-8" Truss Brg. 20'-8" 2 A400 Typ 3'-10"NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONDate Drawn By Checked By Project Number 1301 American Blvd. E. Suite 100 Bloomington, MN 55425 tel: (612) 879-6000 fax: (612) 879-6666 www.kaaswilson.com Copyright Kaas Wilson ArchitectsAs indicated8/9/2022 3:48:03 PMC:\Revit Local\22027-Boisclair-Golden Valley-Office Improvements_alexf27LEY.rvtFloor Plans Checker Author 08/02/2022 22027 Boisclair Office Improvements Lori Boisclair A300 610 Ottawa Avenue North Golden Valley, MN 55422 Structural Engineering: BKBM Engineers 6120 Earle Brown Dr #700 Minneapolis, MN 55430 P: 763.843.0420 3/16" = 1'-0"4 Level 1 1/2" = 1'-0"1 Section @ Patio Door 1 1/2" = 1'-0"2 Lintel @ Patio Door 3/16" = 1'-0"3 West Elevation Rev. No.RevisionDate3/16" = 1'-0"5 North Elevation 3/16" = 1'-0"6 East Elevation 1 A300 J1 J1 B1 B1 B1 B1 B1 B1 B1 B1 B1 WP1 CP2 WP1 CP1 B1 WP1 CP3 WP1 CP3 WP1 CP1 WP1 CP2 1 3 2 WP1 CP1 WP1 CP3 WP1 CP2 CP1 CP2 17'-0"27'-8"3 A400 Typ 5 A400 Typ at Post 4 A400 Typ 6 A400 Typ AT SOUTH EDGE POSTS 4 A400 TypA 7 A400 Typ * ** * * * * * 2 A400 Typ 2 A400 Typ 2 A400 Typ 8'-6" MAX CTC 5'-8 9/16"2'-0" 8'-6" MAX CTC 6'-3 1/4"CENTER OF POST6'-9"CENTER OF POST6'-9"CENTER OF POST6'-9"3 EXISTING FLOOR ASSEMBLY -GC TO FIELD VERIFY EXISTING FLOOR ASSEMBLY -GC TO FIELD VERIFY 1 SIMPSON ECCLRQ STYLE COLUMN CAP AT BEAM TO POST CONNECTION. PROVIDE PLYWOOD SHIMS AS NECESSARY PER DETAIL 4/A400. 2 SIMPSON CCTQ STYLE COLUMN CAP AT BEAM TO POST CONNECTION. PROVIDE PLYWOOD SHIMS AS NECESSARY PER DETAIL 4/A400. 3 PROVIDE TENSION TIES BETWEEN DECK JOISTS AND EXISTING CMU WALL PER DETAIL 7/A400. KEYNOTES WOOD FRAMING SCHEDULE MARK SIZE MATERIAL B1 J1 WP1 3-2x12 2x12 @ 16" OC 6x6 TREATED SOUTHERN PINE NO. 2 TREATED SOUTHERN PINE NO. 1 TREATED SOUTHERN PINE NO. 2 NOTES: 1. AT BASE OF WP1 WOOD POSTS, PROVIDE SIMPSON ABW66Z STANDOFF POST BASE WITH ADDITIONAL CORROSION PROTECTION. WOOD POST NOT TO BE IN CONTACT WITH SOIL. SOLID PACK GROUT UNDER STANDOFF PLATE BEFORE POST INSTALLATION AND PROVIDE ANCHOR ROD SIZE PER POST BASE MANUFACTURER, EMBEDDED 4" TO CONCRETE AND SET W/ ADHESIVE. CONCRETE PIER SCHEDULE MARK SIZE REINFORCING CP1 16"Ø 4-#5 VERT, #3 TIES @ 10" OC CP2 CP3 20"Ø 24"Ø 6-#5 VERT, #3 TIES @ 10" OC 8-#5 VERT, #3 TIES @ 10" OC NOTES: 1. EXTEND TIES TO WITHIN ONE-HALF TIE SPACING OF TOP OF PIER. PROVIDE MINIMUM OF 2 TIES WITHIN 5" OF TOP OF PIER. 2. EXTEND VERTICAL REINFORCEMENT TO 2" CLEAR TOP OF PIER. 3. CONCRETE STRENGTH = 4,000 PSI MIN. REINFORCING STEEL Fy = 60 KSI. 4. TOP OF PIER ELEVATION = 6" ABOVE GRADE. 5. EMBED PIERS 5'-0" MINIMUM BELOW GRADE. EXISTING PLAN GENERAL NOTE EXISTING FLOOR PLANS ARE BASED ON ORIGINAL DRAWINGS AND ARE FOR GENERAL REFERENCE ONLY. ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS MAY VARY AND ARE TO BE FIELD VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR. DECK RAIL -SEE SHOP DRAWINGS FOR DIMENSIONS, FINISH, AND FASTENING DECKING EXTEND PAST RIM FACE ¼" PREFIN MTL FLASHING OVER BEAM & FASCIA BOARDS SELF ADHERING, SELF HEALING, BITUTHENE MEMBRANE FLASHING SEALING T.O. RIM & FASCIA BOARD WOOD BEAM -SEE STRUCT CONT. 2X RIM -SEE STRUCT 2x SOLID WD. BLOCKING BETWEEN DECK JOISTS @ GUARDRAIL ATTACHMENT POINTS SELF ADHERING, SELF HEALING, BITUTHENE MEMBRANE FLASHING SEALING T.O. RIM & FASCIA BOARD 1/2" = 1'-0"1 Level 1 - Deck Framing Plan NTS3Section @ Wood Beam NTS4Section @ Deck Edge NTS5Section @ Beam/Column Connection NTS6Section @ Concrete Pier/Deck Connection NTS7Section @ Existing Wall/Deck Connection NTS8Section @ Existing Wall/Deck Connection 2 NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONDate Drawn By Checked By Project Number 1301 American Blvd. E. Suite 100 Bloomington, MN 55425 tel: (612) 879-6000 fax: (612) 879-6666 www.kaaswilson.com Copyright Kaas Wilson ArchitectsAs indicated8/9/2022 3:48:04 PMC:\Revit Local\22027-Boisclair-Golden Valley-Office Improvements_alexf27LEY.rvtEnlarged Deck Framing Plan & Deck Details Checker Author 08/02/2022 22027 Boisclair Office Improvements Lori Boisclair A400 610 Ottawa Avenue North Golden Valley, MN 55422 Structural Engineering: BKBM Engineers 6120 Earle Brown Dr #700 Minneapolis, MN 55430 P: 763.843.0420 Rev. No.RevisionDate1Addendum 0108/09/223" = 1'-0"2 Deck - Section @ Rail DECK RAILINGS TO COMPLY WITH "SECTION 1015 GUARDS" OF THE 2020 MINNESOTA BUILDING CODE, SEE CODE PLAN ON SHEET A100 1/4" = 1'-0"9 Level 1 - Furniture Plan 1 Zoning Code Variance Application Page 1 of 3 Street address of property in this application: Applicant Information Name (individual, or corporate entity) Street address Zip Phone Email Authorized Representative (if other than applicant) Name Street address Zip Phone Email Property Owner (if other than applicant) Name Street address Zip Phone Email Site Information Provide a detailed description of the variance(s) being requested: Provide a detailed description of need for a variance from the Zoning Code, including description of building(s), description of proposed addition(s), and description of proposed alteration(s) to property: 5/1/20 ’continued Physical Development-Planning Department | 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 763-593-8055 | FAX: 763-593-8109 | TTY: 763-593-3968 | www.goldenvalleymn.gov Minnesota State Statue 462.357 requires that a property exhibit “practical difficulties” in order for a variance to be considered. Practical difficulties:• result in a use that is reasonable• are based on a problem that is unique to the property• are not caused by the landowner• do not alter the essential character of the locality To demonstrate how your request will comply with Minnesota State Statute 462.357, please respond to the following questions. Explain the need for your variance request and how it will result in a reasonable use of the property. What is unique about your property and how do you feel that it necessitates a variance? Explain how the need for a variance is based on circumstances that are not a result of a landowner action. Explain how, if granted, the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of your neighborhood and Golden Valley as a whole. Zoning Code Variance Page 2 of 3 ’continued