bza-agenda-dec-28-2023
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 185 8024,.
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, enter meeting code 2467 185 8024, and password 1234.
Press *3 to raise your hand during public comment sections.
1. Call to Order & Land Acknowledgement
2. Approval of Agenda
3. Approval of Minutes
November 27, 2023 Minutes
4. Address: 5509 Lindsay
Applicant: Vladimir Sivriver & Iryna Sivriver
Request: 113‐89, Moderate Density Residential (R‐2) Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(a)
Front Yard Setback Requirements: 20 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 15 ft. at its closest
point to the front yard (east) property line.
5. Council Updates
6. Adjournment
December 28, 2023 – 7 pm
City Council Chambers
Hybrid Meeting
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES [DRAFT]
This meeting was conducted in a hybrid format with in person and remote options for attending,
participating, and commenting. The City used Webex to conduct this meeting and members of the public
were able to monitor the meeting and provide comment by calling in.
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7pm and the land acknowledgement was read by Chair Nelson.
Roll Call
Members present: Anthony Corrado, Nancy Nelson, Richard Orenstein, Elizabeth Parkes,
Gary Cohen – Planning Commissioner
Members absent:
Staff present: Myles Campbell – Planner
Approval of Agenda
Chair Nelson asked for a motion to approve the agenda.
MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Corrado to approve the agenda of November 28, 2023.
Motion carried
Previous meeting minutes were not submitted
1. Address: 208 Meander Road
Applicant: Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMHC)
Request: § 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (e)(1)(a) Principal
Structure Front Setback: 6.1 feet off the required 35 feet to a total distance of 28.9 feet from the
front property line for a new home.
Nelson noted this item was tabled at the previous BZA meeting.
Myles Campbell, Planner, reviewed the item and original request for the variance. Due to the BZA
offering feedback and they came up with two other variance request options; staff reviewed those.
Original Request (Option A)‐ Front Yard Setback: 6.1 feet off of the required 35 feet to a distance of 28.9
feet from the front (west) property line
Option B ‐ Rear Yard Setback: 6.5 feet off of the required 25 feet to a distance of 18.5 feet from the rear
(east) property line
Option C‐ Rear Yard Setback: 7.7 feet off of the required 25 feet to a distance of 17.3 feet from the rear
(east) property line
November 28, 2023 – 7:00 pm
Hybrid Meeting
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting Minutes
Nov 28 2023 – 7 pm
2
Staff reviewed the property’s location in the City and noted it’s currently an undeveloped lot. It was tax
forfeited to the City in 1973, rezoned from open space to single‐family residential by City Council earlier
this year for construction of an affordable single‐family home. The irregularly shaped lot follows the
curve in Meander Road and Meander is offset from its ROW, with 10‐15’ off the curb on the west side
and 20‐25’ on the east.
Staff reviewed comments from the City Forester regarding the health of existing trees and aside from a
Willow leaning towards the house, the other trees are healthy and likely will not impact the home.
Practical Difficulties
The variance allows for a reasonably scaled home with attached garage, and ample greenspace
between the home and the back of curb. Staff does find this request reasonable.
The lot has an irregular shape that limits where a conforming building footprint can be located.
Additionally, an alternative that may reduce or eliminate the variance, providing a detached
garage to the north of the home, would require the removal of several existing mature trees.
Staff believes the site exhibits unique circumstances.
The resulting setback and distance to the curb would not be at odds with other homes in and
around the neighborhood, and the applicant’s design seeks to fit the character of the
neighborhood with elements like the attached garage. Staff believes that the requested
variances will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood and city.
*With a better chance to preserve existing Oak and Walnut trees closer to the street, Options
B&C further minimize any impacts on the surrounding neighborhood
Recommendations
Staff recommends approval of a variance for either Option B or C, which preserve a 15’ buffer around
those trees.
Option B: A variance of 6.5’ off the required 25’ to a total distance of 18.5’ from the rear property
line for a new home.
Option C: A variance of 7.7’ off the required 25’ to a total distance of 17.3’ from the rear property
line for a new home.
There were a few questions about the trees and Commissioner Cohen asked if the Forester commented
on the number of Ash trees and Emerald Ash Borer. Staff noted that a few trees were labeled incorrectly,
originally, and the City requires final landscape permits be done by a master forester so there is greater
detail in the identification.
Chair Nelson invited the applicant to speak.
Julia Spencer, Applicant, the team originally proposed a reduction of the front yard setback and at the
October meeting the Board asked the applicant to explore different options to preserve the front yard
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting Minutes
Nov 28 2023 – 7 pm
3
setback. Now we bring two additional concepts and they take into consideration feedback from the City
Forester. The willow will likely come down and be replaced per the City’s requirement and the
determined by the forester. If the original request is not preferred and approved, we prefer Option C.
Chair Nelson opened the public hearing 7:27pm.
In person comments were taken first.
Mark Westby
204 Meander Road
I believe the updated proposals impact the neighborhood’s character as it’s characterized by large lots
with homes set back a considerable distance from the front. This uniformity contributes to the visual
appeal and charm of the area. The request to modify the rear setback also seems to deviate from the
norm. In this neighborhood the average distance between the rear property line and the closest structure
is over 70 feet and the closest is 25 and the aforementioned request is 18 feet. In a recorded conversation
with the City Forester, he did acknowledge the 15‐foot critical root zone for the walnut, but also stated
due to the condition of the tree and the angle, he wouldn't recommend doing anything within 20 feet of
that tree. All the proposed plans have the garage within 15 feet of the tree. It was also noted at the
Council meeting that it is possible to build on this lot without a variance, I think this option should be
explored.
Online comments were taken.
Aaron Brden
209 Meander Road
I agree with the last commenter that these plans do not appear to preserve the essential character of the
neighborhood as the lot is smaller than others and the proposed home is close to the road.
Chair Nelson closed the hearing at 7:32pm.
Chair Nelson opened the Board discussion.
Orenstein noted the practical difficulty standards have all been met and he believes option C is a good
request; Parkes echoed this statement. Chair Nelson stated it’s a reasonable use and the lot is oddly
shaped and doesn’t believe the essential character is altered as long as they follow the front yard
setback. Corrado noted that the new plan submissions meet the essential character whereas he felt like
the original did not. He added that no home would have an impact and this group can’t stop a home
from being built there. Commissioner Cohen pointed out that any lot leftover for residential
development will be odd shaped like this one. The City’s goal is to increase single family housing and
there are studies proving that there’s a need for housing in Golden Valley.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting Minutes
Nov 28 2023 – 7 pm
4
MOTION made by Orenstein seconded Parkes by to adopt staff findings and approve the variance of 7.7
feet off of the required 25 feet to a distance of 17.3 feet from the rear (east) property line for a new
home.
Motion carried
Council Updates
No Council Updates but the big topic right now is budgets.
Adjournment
MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Parkes and the motion carried unanimously to adjour
n the meeting at 7:42 pm.
Motion carried
________________________________
Nancy Nelson, Chair
_________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant
1
Date: December 28, 2023
To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
From: Myles Campbell, Planner
Subject: 5509 Lindsay St.
Vladimir Sivriver, Applicant
Introduction
Vladimir Sivriver, the property owner, is seeking a variance from the City Code to build a new
home with a reduced secondary front yard setback. The applicant is seeking the following:
Variance Request City Code Requirement
The applicant is
requesting a variance of
20 ft. off of the required
35 ft. to a distance of 15
ft. at its closest point to
the front yard (east)
property line.
§ 113‐89, Moderate Density Residential (R‐2) Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(a)
Front Yard Setback Requirements
The required minimum front setback for single‐family and two‐family
dwellings shall be 35 feet from any front lot line along the street right‐of‐way
line. Decks and open front porches, with no screens, may be built to within
30 feet of a front lot line along a street right‐of‐way line.
Background
5509 Lindsay St is an undeveloped parcel of land, originally
platted for development as a single‐family home in 1959 as
part of the Lindsay addition. The property was acquired by
the Department of Transportation as part of the expansion
of Highway 100, and then replatted and sold to the current
property owner, Vladimir Sivriver. The lot itself is
approximately 13,196 sq. ft. and just under 83 ft. wide at
the front property line and 104 ft. at the rear. It is zoned R‐
2, moderate density zoning, which allows single‐family
homes, duplexes, and rowhouses by right. That said, while
two‐family homes are allowed, this site does not meet
minimum lot width requirements for anything other than a
single‐family home.
2
The applicant is hoping to build a single‐family home on the lot, and had previously applied for
a similar variance in late 2020 for the same purpose. The building footprint would be 3,003
sq.ft. which would keep it below the maximum percentage of lot cover allowed. The home
would have two‐stories above grade with a partially finished basement, and would include a 3‐
car garage.
Summary of Requests
Because this is a corner lot, fronting on Lindsay and Lilac, it is subject to the front yard setback
requirement of the R‐2 district on both street sides. § 113‐89, Subd. (f)(1)(a) establishes the
minimum front setback at 35 feet from the property line. In order to fit the home’s footprint
and especially the attached garage, this required setback would be reduced to varying degrees
along the eastern portion of the home due to the property line running at an angle as opposed
to parallel, but at its nearest the garage would be 15 feet from the property line. The required
setbacks on all sides as well as the proposed amounts are shown below.
Front Side (street) Side (interior) Rear
Required 35’ 35’ 12.5’ 25’
Proposed 35’ 15’‐28.38’ 17’ 25’
The applicant points out that the reduced setback along Lilac is encumbered by how the
Department of Tranpsportation platted the property, as the DOT retained a largere amount of
ROW area between the property line and the curb than the city’s typical standards. While this
does limit the build area, staff would point out that this property line was established by DOT
and without input from the City. And in either case, a front setback variance would be needed
for the design. If the property line had been set at the City standard depth, the house at its
closest point would still be only 24’ from the property line.
Shown on the site plan and highlighted to
the left, light green represents the home’s
footprint, dark green the area of ROW that
would have fallen inside the property line
using the City’s standard ROW depth. The
blue hashed line shows the requested 15’
setback, the red shows the standard 35’
setback.
While the applicant is seeking to reduce
the street side setback, it is worth pointing
out that the interior setback of the home’s
west side is set 5.5’ further in than the
3
minimum required in order to fit a second story. From § 113‐89, Subd. (f)(1)(c)(2), lots having a
width greater than 65 feet but less than 100 feet can build to a height of no more than 15 feet
at the setback, and then must bring the structure further into the site to get more height, at a
2:1 ratio. By bringing the wall of the home in to 17’ from 12.5’ the applicant gains 11’ in
potential height for that side wall.
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 regulations of the Moderate Density Residential Zoning District. It is in line with the purpose
of the R‐2 district, which is “to provide for single‐family and two‐family dwellings at a moderate
density (up to eight units per acre) along with directly related and complementary uses.”
In reviewing the request for consistency with the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, staff also
found that the plans mostly matched the intent and goals of the plan’s housing chapter. The
construction of a new home by the applicant represents a clear reinvestment in what is
currently a disinvested‐in and vacant property. Similarly, the home maintains a significant
amount of open space and pervious surfaces, in line with the City’s goals for environmentally
sustainable housing. Since this is an R‐2 property, we would normally wish to see this lot used
for some type of moderate density workforce or lifecycle housing, but since the lot fails to meet
the buildability requirements for a duplex, this priority is lessened.
In order to constitute practical difficulties:
1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner.
While the home is designed in a complementary fashion to the property and
surrounding neighborhood, the proposed plan shows a three‐car garage as the primary
cause of the encroachment into the setback. While a two‐car garage is a reasonable
request given Minnesota winters and City code requiring them for new builds, the third
stall is an extra affordance for lots that have the space to allow for them by‐right. Staff
feels this would be an unreasonable use for which to grant a variance.
2. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that is
not caused by the landowner.
Given that this is a new construction, the necessity for a variance is largely dependent
on the design put forward by the applicant. That said the larger ROW is a circumstance
unique to those properties along Lilac impacted by the highway expansion, and being a
corner lot and subject to strict setbacks on two sides compounds the issue. Staff finds
there are unique circumstances.
4
3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality
Along Lilac there are more than a few homes with front setbacks below the 35’ required
by code. These insufficient setbacks largely stem from the expansion of highway 100
rather than variances, but they do mean that a short setback such as the one proposed
by the applicant would not be out of place. The applicant’s plans also maintain the
required setback on the interior side property line to the west, minimizing the impact on
neighbors. Staff finds that this 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. As was recommended in 2020 when a similar variance was
heard, part of staff’s major reticence for this variance is the options available to reduce or
eliminate the variance:
The Garage could be reduced to fit 2 vehicles, reducing the setback request and making
the new request more reasonable in staff’s opinion.
The footprint could be shifted to the west without encroaching on the 12.5’ setback and
the height reduced or second story stepped back to fit the building envelope.
While it would require more significant redesign, a detached garage, or combination of
attached a detached garages could be pursued
Given the lot is vacant and large enough to accommodate any number of redesigned
footprints, there are many other potential options available. These may not fit the
applicant’s top choices for the home, but are reasonable alternatives that may require
no variances whatsoever.
Recommendations
Staff recommends denial of the variance request of 20 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance
of 15 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line.
Points of Consideration for “Practical Difficulty” Test Met Not Met
Property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner X
Problem due to circumstances unique to the property and not
caused by the landowner
X
If granted, would not alter the essential character of the locality X
Are other reasonable options available? Yes, see notes above on alternatives
ScaleProject numberDateDrawn byAVASTUDIO.HOUZZ.COMAVA STUDIO6641 W 18TH STREET ST LOUIS PARK MN 55426PHONE 612 532 8159EMAIL PROHOMEEXTERIOR@YAHOO.COM12" = 1'-0"6/24/2020 8:07:36 PMA100Cover Page5509Golden Valley5509 Lindsay St6/10/2020Alexander BocharnikovALL PLANS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE GENERALCONTRACTOR AND THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.AVA STUDIO LLC. IS NOT RESPONSIBLEFOR ANY PROBLEM AS A RESULT OF AN ERROROMISSION ON THESE PLANS.FRAMING NOTES:-ALL EXTERIOR WALLS TO BE 2X6 @ 16" O.C. WITH A DOUBLE TOP PLATE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.-WALL FRAMING SHALL BE S.P.F. STUD GRADE OR BETTER UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE (U.N.O.)-ALL HEADERS SHALL BE (2) -2X10 U.N.O.-EXTERIOR SHEATHING SHALL BE 7/16" MATERIAL CONSISTING OF ORIENTED STRAND BOARD (OSB).-ALL FLOOR AND CEILING SYSTEMS TO CHECKED AND DESIGNED BY THE DESIGNATED MANUFACTURER. TRUSS PLANS TO BE ON SITE @ TIME OF FRAMING-PRESSURE TREATED WOOD IS TO BE USED WHERE WOOD IS IN CONTACT WITH CONCRETE AND AT 2X6 MUD SILL. TREATED MEMBERS TO BE S.Y.P. #2 OR BETTER.-FOR OPENINGS IN EXTERIOR WALLS (OR WALLS WITH LATERAL LOADING:a) 0'-0" -4'-0" = 1 JACK STUD b) 4'-0" -8'-0" = 2 JACK STUDSc) 8'-0" -12'-0" = 3 JACK STUDSd) GREATER THEN 12' = CONSULT ENGINEER.-POSTS CALLED OUT ARE NUMBER OF KING STUDS REQUIRED PER SIDE OF OPENING.CONCRETE NOTES:-ALL CONCRETE FOOTINGS AND FOUNDATION SYSTEMS ARE DESIGNED FOR A 2000 P.S.F. SOIL-FOUNDATION WALLS SHALL BE FULL HEIGHT AT UNBALANCED FILL GREATER THEN 3'-4"-1/2" ANCHOR BOLTS EMBEDDED 7" MINIMUM @ 4' O.C. MAX. 12" MIN. FROM EACH END. MINIMUM OF 2 BOLTS IN EACH SILL PLATE-PAD FOOTINGS REINFORCEMENT IS TO BE LOCATED 3" FROM BOTTOM OF FOOTING TYP. (WHEN REQUIRED)-CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL STEEL REBAR SIZING PER STATE AND LOCAL BUILDING CODES-MIN. 5000 PSI CONCRETE @ ALL FOOTINGSINSULATION:-ALL EXTERIOR WALLS TO HAVE A MINIMUM RATING OF R-20-ALL ATTIC SPACES ARE TO HAVE A MINIMUM RATING OF R-49-ALL FLOOR SPACES OVER UNCONDITIONED SPACE OR CANTILEVERED ARE TO HAVE A MINIMUM RATING OF R-30SHEETROCK:-ALL CEILINGS ARE TO HAVE 5/8" NON-SAG GYPSUM BOARD U.N.O.-ALL WALLS ARE TO HAVE 1/2" GYPSUM BOARD U.N.O.-GARAGE CEILING AND WALLS THAT ADJOIN HOUSE WALLS ARE TO BE 5/8" TYPE "X" GYPSUM BOARD U.N.O.-ALL EXTERIOR WALLS OF GARAGE AND HOUSE THAT ARE WITHIN 5' SETBACK TO HAVE 5/8" TYPE "X" EXTERIOR GRADE GYPSUM BOARD ON EXTERIOR SIDE OF WALL AND 5/8" TYPE "X" ON INTERNAL SIDE OF WALL.DOORS AND WINDOWS:ALL WINDOWS AND DOORS TO NE DOUBLE GLASS PANELS WITH LOW-E RATINGS.-ANY WINDOW WITHIN 24" OF A DOOR SWING MUST BE TEMPERED -ANY WINDOW ABOVE A TUB MUST BE TEMPERED -ANY WINDOW WITHIN A STAIRWAY MUST BE TEMPERED-WINDOW GLAZING MUST BE AT LEAST 18" ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR WHEN WINDOW IS ABOVE 6' FROM GRADE.-ALL BEDROOMS TO HAVE AT LEAST ONE WINDOW THAT HAS A CLEAR EGRESS OPENING OF 5.7 SQ. FT. WITH MIN. DIMENSIONS OF 24" IN HEIGHT AND 20" IN WIDTH, SILL HEIGHT NOT TO BE GREATER THEN 44" ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR.-WINDOWS WITH SILLS WITHIN 3' OF THE FLOOR THEY SERVE AND ARE 72" ABOVE GRADE MUST EITHER HAVE A FALL PREVENTION OR OPENING LIMITER DEVICE PER CODE.MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL:-ALL ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE VERIFIED AND INSTALLED PER CODE BY APPROVED TRADES AND INSTALLERS.PLAN INFORMATIONCODE INFORMATIONSINGLE FAMILY CONSTRUCTION2015 Minnesota Residential Building code2015 Minnesota Residential Energy code2017 National Electric Code 2015 Minnesota Mechanical and Fuel Gas Code2015 Minnesota Plumbing CodeSOIL TYPE:DESIGNED WITH 2000 PSF SOILS, ALL FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION MUST FACTOR IN THIS AT MINIMUMWIND EXPOSURE:DESIGNED WITH "EXPOSURE B" CLASSIFICATIONS AND WIND GUSTS OF 90 MPH PER 2015 MN IRC CODE REGULATIONS.GENERAL NOTES:-ALL FOUNDATION WALL STRUCTURAL INFORMATION USED TO CONSTRUCT THE FOUNDATION SYSTEM IS TO BE ON SITE WHEN POURING OR BUILDING WALLS.-ALL STRUCTURAL BEAMS, POSTS & TALL WALLS ARE TO BE BUILT PER I-LEVEL SPECIFICATIONS.-ALL MANUFACTURED FLOORS & ROOF TRUSSES ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS.-ALL MANUFACTURED FLOOR & ROOF TRUSS SPECIFICATIONS ARE TO BE ON SITE DURING INSTALLATION.WINDOW AND EXTERIOR DOOR U-FACTOR TO BE 0.30 OR BETTERGLASS SOLAR HEAT GAIN COEFFICIENT (SHGC) TO BE 0.28 OR BETTERSheet ListSheetNumberSheet NameA100 Cover PageA200 ElevationsA300 Foundation / BasementA400 Main LevelA500 Upper LevelA600 SectionA700 Detail PlanA800 Braced Wall NotesA900 Braced Wall PlansArea ScheduleArea Level NameNot Placed Not Placed Mech Room /StorageNot Placed Not Placed Front PorchNot Placed Not Placed Deck (optional)Not Placed Not Placed 3 Season Porch2272 SF Foundation /Basement LevelUnfinishedBasement2368 SF Main Level Main Level627 SF Main Level Garage1021 SF Upper Level Upper LevelREVISION DATE : SITE PLAN BY OTHERSWINDOW FALL PREVENTION DEVICES AND WINDOW GUARDS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM F 209012" = 1'-0"13D View 1
Main Level891' -2 1/4"T.O. Main Level901' -3 3/8"Upper Level902' -10 1/8"T.O. Upper Level910' -11 1/4"T.O. Foundation889' -6"8' - 1 1/8"1' - 6 3/4"10' - 1 1/8"1' - 6 3/4"21' - 3 15/32"0' - 6"Average Grade886' -2"24' - 1 15/32"17' - 4 3/8"30' - 6 1/16"ScaleProject numberDateDrawn byAVASTUDIO.HOUZZ.COMAVA STUDIO6641 W 18TH STREET ST LOUIS PARK MN 55426PHONE 612 532 8159EMAIL PROHOMEEXTERIOR@YAHOO.COMAs indicated6/24/2020 8:07:37 PMA200Elevations5509Golden Valley5509 Lindsay St6/10/2020Alexander Bocharnikov1/4" = 1'-0"1FrontALL PLANS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE GENERALCONTRACTOR AND THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.AVA STUDIO LLC. IS NOT RESPONSIBLEFOR ANY PROBLEM AS A RESULT OF AN ERROROMISSION ON THESE PLANS.1/8" = 1'-0"2Rear1/8" = 1'-0"3Right1/8" = 1'-0"4Left
22' - 0"32' - 0"12' - 0"28' - 6"9' - 6"7' - 3"14' - 9"7' - 6"7' - 10"9' - 4"6' - 0"2' - 0"Unfinished Basement Unexcavated1A60066' - 0"4' - 0"40' - 0"16' - 0"60' - 0"24' - 0"19' - 0"17' - 0"60' - 0"60' - 0"Future BedroomMech RoomFlex RoomFutureBath9' - 0"ScaleProject numberDateDrawn byAVASTUDIO.HOUZZ.COMAVA STUDIO6641 W 18TH STREET ST LOUIS PARK MN 55426PHONE 612 532 8159EMAIL PROHOMEEXTERIOR@YAHOO.COM1/4" = 1'-0"6/24/2020 8:07:38 PMA300Foundation /Basement5509Golden Valley5509 Lindsay St6/10/2020Alexander Bocharnikov1/4" = 1'-0"1Foundation / Basement LevelALL PLANS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE GENERALCONTRACTOR AND THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.AVA STUDIO LLC. IS NOT RESPONSIBLEFOR ANY PROBLEM AS A RESULT OF AN ERROROMISSION ON THESE PLANS.
REF.UPOVEN32' - 0"22' - 0"54' - 0"28' - 6"9' - 6"7' - 3"14' - 9"10' - 0"7' - 11 3/4"8' - 4"11' - 7 3/4"5' - 6"6' - 6"5' - 6"60' - 0"24' - 0"19' - 0"17' - 0"15' - 4"9' - 4"Great RoomFoyerOffice1/2 BathClosetLaundryHis closetHer closetMaster Bath6' - 0"1A600Dining RoomPantryClosetMudoomMaster SuiteFuture porchDeck futureKitchenHEAT RISER4' - 0"40' - 0"16' - 0"60' - 0"1' - 8"8' - 0"1' - 2"16' - 0"1' - 8"FIREPLACE18' - 6"1' - 0"20' - 6"60' - 0"2' - 0"2' - 0"12' - 0"ScaleProject numberDateDrawn byAVASTUDIO.HOUZZ.COMAVA STUDIO6641 W 18TH STREET ST LOUIS PARK MN 55426PHONE 612 532 8159EMAIL PROHOMEEXTERIOR@YAHOO.COM1/4" = 1'-0"6/24/2020 8:07:39 PMA400Main Level5509Golden Valley5509 Lindsay St6/10/2020Alexander Bocharnikov1/4" = 1'-0"1Main LevelALL PLANS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE GENERALCONTRACTOR AND THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.AVA STUDIO LLC. IS NOT RESPONSIBLEFOR ANY PROBLEM AS A RESULT OF AN ERROROMISSION ON THESE PLANS.
13' - 3"5' - 0"5' - 9"3' - 11 1/2"3' - 5 1/4"7' - 0"24' - 0"8' - 0"28' - 0"9' - 4"5' - 0"10' - 0"7' - 3"14' - 9"Great RoombelowBedroom 1Bedroom 2Bedroom 3Hall7' - 10"14' - 0"21' - 0"16' - 0"37' - 0"12' - 0"32' - 6"37' - 0"2' - 0"13' - 1 3/4"2' - 6"12' - 4 1/4"12' - 0"ScaleProject numberDateDrawn byAVASTUDIO.HOUZZ.COMAVA STUDIO6641 W 18TH STREET ST LOUIS PARK MN 55426PHONE 612 532 8159EMAIL PROHOMEEXTERIOR@YAHOO.COM1/4" = 1'-0"6/24/2020 8:07:40 PMA500Upper Level5509Golden Valley5509 Lindsay St6/10/2020Alexander BocharnikovALL PLANS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE GENERALCONTRACTOR AND THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.AVA STUDIO LLC. IS NOT RESPONSIBLEFOR ANY PROBLEM AS A RESULT OF AN ERROROMISSION ON THESE PLANS.1/4" = 1'-0"1Upper Level
Foundation /Basement Level881' -6"T.O. Basement889' -7 1/2"Main Level891' -2 1/4"T.O. Main Level901' -3 3/8"Upper Level902' -10 1/8"T.O. Upper Level910' -11 1/4"T.O. Foundation889' -6"Garage Foundation885' -6"8' - 1 1/8"1' - 6 3/4"10' - 1 1/8"1' - 6 3/4"8' - 1 1/2"12' - 1 3/8"7' - 8"19' - 1 7/32"Average Grade886' -2"ScaleProject numberDateDrawn byAVASTUDIO.HOUZZ.COMAVA STUDIO6641 W 18TH STREET ST LOUIS PARK MN 55426PHONE 612 532 8159EMAIL PROHOMEEXTERIOR@YAHOO.COM1/4" = 1'-0"6/24/2020 8:07:40 PMA600Section5509Golden Valley5509 Lindsay St6/10/2020Alexander BocharnikovROOF :VENT ROOF 1/300 TH. VALLEYS &ALL ROOF/WALL INTERSECTIONS30 YR ARCHITECTURAL ASPHALTIC SHINGLES15# ASPHALT FELTICE & WATER SHIELD (FIRST 6'-0" AND ALL VALLEYS AS PER CODE)ENG. ROOF TRUSSES @ 24" O.C.1/2" PLYWD. SHTG. W/ CLIPSAIR CHUTE (PROVIDE UNOBSTRUCTED AIR FLOW)(R-49) BLOW IN INSULATION4 MIL. POLY VAPOR BARRIER5/8" GYP. CEILING BD.FASCIA :2X6 SUB FASCIA6" ALUMINUM FASCIAALUMINUM VENTED SOFFIT @ FRONT ELEVATIONWALL :1/2" GYP. BD. TYP.4-MIL. POLY VAPOR BARRIER(R-20) FBGLS. BATT INSULATION2X6 STUDS @ 16" O.C.7/16" OSB SHEATHINGTYVAKE HOUSE WRAPSIDING PER ELEVATION7/16" OSB RIM SHEATHINGRIM BETWEEN MAIN AND UPPER LEVELS2X4 CONTINUOUS RIBBON BD.(R-20) CLOSED SELL FOAM INSUL. RIMDURASEAL OR SAME QLTY.20" X 8" CONC.FTG. W/ (2) #4 REBAR 5000 PSI MIN COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHRIM BETWEEN LOWER AND MAIN LEVELS7/16" OSB RIM SHEATHINGTREATED 2X6 SILL PLATE & SILL SEAL TYP.(R-20) CLOSED SELL FOAM INSUL. RIMDURASEAL OR SAME QLTY.FOUNDATION1/2" DIAMETER A.B. W/ 7" MIN. EMBEDDED & 2" SIDE X 1/8" THICK SQUARE OR ROUND COUNTERSINK WASHERS @ 48" AND WITHIN 12" FROM EACH CORNER & WINDOW WELL(R-10) 2" (XPS) FOAM INSULATION COMPLYING WITH ASTM C5786 MILL CONTINUOUS SLIP SHEET TO TOP OF CONCRETE WALLASPHALT EMULSION PAINT WATERPROOFINGWEATHER RESISTANT OPAQUE PROTECTIVE COATING TO 6" BELOW GRADE MIN.DRAIN TILE TO SUMP PUMP8" X 108" POURED IN PLACE CONCRETE WALLHORIZONTAL 3 ROWS OF #4VERTICAL #6 36" O.C.2X4 CONTINUOUS RIBBON BD.ALL PLANS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE GENERALCONTRACTOR AND THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.AVA STUDIO LLC. IS NOT RESPONSIBLEFOR ANY PROBLEM AS A RESULT OF AN ERROROMISSION ON THESE PLANS.1/4" = 1'-0"1Section 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
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
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.