Loading...
06-24-08 BZA Agenda Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, June 24, 2008 7pm 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers I. Approval of Minutes - May 27,2008 II. The Petitions are: 400 Dakota Avenue South (08-06-07) Tim & Cathy Cope, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements . 17 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 18 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a deck on the rear of the home. 1845 Hampshire Lane (08-06-08) David & Marjorie Gardeen, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements . 7.66 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 7.34 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (east) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a deck on the rear of the home. 2310 Byrd Avenue North (08-06-09) Beau Farrell, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements . 16 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 19 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (west) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a deck on the side of the home III. Other Business IV. Adjournment Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 27, 2008 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, April 22, 2008 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Sell called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Members, Hughes, Segelbaum, Sell, Weisberg a Commission Representative McCarty. Also present were City Plann and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman I. Approval of Minutes - April 22, 2008 4223 Glencrest Road (08-05-0 Wooden Dreams, Applicant r Robert and Brid et Burk MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Hughes and motion ca approve the April 22, 2008 minutes as submitted. Co from voting. II. The Petitions are: Request: 11. , Subd. 11 (A) Stairs and Landings re tha the allowed 25 sq. ft. of stairs/landings into ard setback area. he construction of a new stoop. er from Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements . 6.3 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 28.7 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new stoop. Hogeboom explained that the applicant is requesting variances in order to construct a new front stoop. He stated that the hardship noted by the applicant is the lack of safety. Currently a person can not stand on the front stoop and open the door at the same time. Segelbaum asked if the house is built right up to the front setback line. Hogeboom noted that the house was built 33.7 feet at its closest point to the front property line. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 27, 2008 Page 2 Hughes asked if the proposed new front stoop will be covered. Hogeboom said the proposed new stoop will not be covered. Howard Theis, Wooden Dreams, representing the applicant, reiterated that the proposed new front stoop will not be a covered entry. It will just be front steps going into the front setback area. Hughes asked if the stoop is going to be constructed of wood. Theis explained that the stoop will be constructed of brick and bluestone. Hughes said that this variance reconstruction. He added said he agrees the requ had thought about any a is Segelbaum questioned the hardship. Theis explained that the cur t only 3 % feet in size and the homeowner needs more room in r to st steps and open the front door. McCarty asked if the front door could be approached differen side. Theis said that could be an option but the way t stoop is more congruent with the style of the hous property and added that their proposal also wor placed. from the o i build the front a survey of the y the driveway is Bridget Burke, homeowner, stated that the safety issue because people woul the house. oop to the side won't solve step back in order to enter oominent part of the homeowners nor request and it seems reasonable. McCarty able he was just wondering if the applicant Hughes asked if the Theis said the w according to cur steps would be higher than the previous steps. ghtly higher because they will have to be built equirements. conded by Weisberg and motion carried unanimously to g variance requests: re than the allowed 25 sq. ft. of stairs/landings into the front yard a to allow for the construction of a new front stoop. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 27, 2008 Page 3 2404 McNair Drive (08-02-02 - continued) Cheryl Wahlin, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 1 0(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements Hogeboom reminded the Board that thO February 26, 2008 Board of Zoning A tabled to allow the applicant time garage. He explained that the a back with the same variance way to construct the prop . 7 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 28 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (west) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage with livi Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10 Setback Requirements . 1.5 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. point to the side yard (so Purpose: s were tabled at the e stated that the requests were en ptions to build their proposed en with several builders and is now he feels that her proposal is the best at she spoke with six different builders. One builder e entryway that would cost $120,000. She said she . ion they would lose all of the windows in the living builder proposed to get rid of the dining room making Ie. She showed the Board a proposal that would not require d up with a garage that would only be 18 feet in depth. She r proposal that indicated a 24 feet wide by 22 feet deep require a slightly smaller variance. he applicant if she is still planning on building living space above the propose <c arage. Wahlin said they are not planning on building above the garage at this point, but they may in the future. Weisberg asked for clarification on whether the applicant is asking for 4 feet or 7 feet off the front yard requirements. Wahlin clarified that she is now asking for 4 feet off the required 35 foot front yard setback requirement. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 27, 2008 Page 4 Segelbaum noted that since the applicant is now proposing a 24-foot wide garage if she would still require the requested side yard variance. Wahlin said she thinks she still needs a side yard variance because of the angle of the lot line. Sell stated that the variance requests would be for 4 feet off of the front yard requirements and 1.5 feet off of the side yard requirements. McCarty stated that the Board was clear about what they were looking for back in February. He added that he is willing to work with the applicant but the '11 other options for this proposed garage. Wahlin explained that with any other option she won't have an garage into the home. She'd have to walk outside of the gar house. McCarty noted that the applicant presented plans th the garage into the house. Wahlin reiterated that she can't p room as alternative plans suggest. Weisberg asked if there if there is an entry into said no. rent garage. Wahlin McCarty said he is not willing to grant t the garage addition in this case could wouldn't gain the entry into the ho (toward the front) with the gara would make her dining room u request because he thinks ntly. Wahlin stated that she d if she doesn't go forward nly have an 18-foot deep garage and it McCarty suggested mov' that if the entry location w garage and the gar wo would have an entry different location in the garage. Wahlin stated d th there would be a doorway in the middle of the e to be even wider to accommodate that, or she . die of her living room. re are other options and suggested she make the garage suggested allowing a larger side yard variance then the et wide which would allow for stairs inside the garage for the to the neighboring property at 2310 Byrd and asked how this garage m. Wahlin said the neighbor's back yard and deck would face the proposed garage. Weisberg said he thinks that encroaching on the neighbor's deck is more egregious than building the garage more toward the front yard. McCarty noted that all the houses on that street are lined up so to have this garage in front would really stick out. Hughes asked how close the neighbor's deck is the property line. Wahlin said it is fairly close to the property line. Segelbaum asked if the neighbors have any concerns. Wahlin said the neighbor's are not objectionable. Hughes agreed that it is a bigger deal to build the proposed garage closer to the neighbor's deck than it is to build forward Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 27, 2008 Page 5 toward the street. McCarty said he thinks the garage will be more noticeable if it is built more toward the front than if it is built 1 more foot toward the side. Cleon Wahlin, Applicant, stated that if the garage is just made wider there would have to be a lot more dirt removed and that it works better with the elevation of the lot to build the garage forward more to the front. Segelbaum noted that if the applicants construct a 27 -foot wide garage then they would need a 3 foot variance. Hughes reiterated that it bothers him more to a arage to be built closer to the neighbor rather than toward the front. He ad neighbor's rights are important too and a slight front yard varianc 0 McCarty suggesting that the Board allow the applicant's to b . away from the side yard property line because there are ma without variances. Sell stated that he doesn't think anyone w that has a garage with an entry into the living room. nanimously to deny ft. at its closest point to the ft. off the required 12.5 ft. th) property line to allow MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Segelbaum the request for 7 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a di front yard (west) property line and approv to a distance of 11 ft. at its closest poin for the construction of a garage additio 108 Turnpike Road (08- David & Joan Fren . Request: 11.21, Subd. 10(0) Cornices and Eaves es more than the allowed 30 inches to a distance of .8 inches into the setback area. urvey of the property and explained that the applicant's home om the front yard property line. The applicants would like to d roof over the front steps that would encroach into the front yard Jay Fisher, ustom Home Service, representing the applicants, showed photos of the existing house and a rendering of the roof overhang they are proposing. Segelbaum asked if there will be an overhead roof constructed above the garage as well as above the front door. Fisher said yes. He stated that they are proposing an eyebrow across the garage but that part of the proposal is within the 30" of allowed overhang into the setback area. He added that the homeowners could construct a porch within the zoning code requirements but a porch would not work in this situation. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 27, 2008 Page 6 Sell asked how the proposed gable roof would be supported. Fisher said the roof would be supported with brackets, not posts going down to the ground. Weisberg asked how much further out the gable over the front door is compared to the proposed eyebrow over the garage. Fisher said the gable over the front door is approximately 42 inches deep. Segelbaum asked if the dimension of the stairs will be staying the same. Fisher said yes. Hughes said that architecturally the propo Segelbaum agreed that there would be He noted that the existing house was at a ould 't work in this e existing stairs are Weisberg asked about the hardship. Fisher said they would like t entryway. McCarty asked how this proposal is different from a porch. porch has supports that go to the ground. He reiterated that t probably build a porch in the same location without a situation with the style of the house. Fisher added floating and they wouldn't be able to support a p ill be an asset. he surrounding properties. the front yard setback. MOVED by Weisberg, seconde approve 16.8 inches more than the setback area. motion carried unanimously to ches to a distance of 46.8 inches into from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(1) Front Yard Setback ements . 11 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 24 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (south) property line. To allow for the construction of a garage addition. Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and noted that this is a corner lot and therefore has two front yard setback areas but the area where the applicant wants to build the garage addition is actually on the side of the house. He stated that the hardship noted by the applicant is that they currently have a single stall garage. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 27, 2008 Page 7 McCarty asked about the width of the existing garage. Hogeboom said he wasn't sure. McCarty guessed that the existing garage is approximately 13 feet wide. He questioned the location of the storage shed located on the property. Segelbaum referred to a fence located along the south property line and asked who it belonged to. Hogeboom said he doesn't know who owns the fence. Vasiliy Mamnev, Applicant, stated that it is a simple project. They currently have a one stall garage and they would like to have a two stall garage. Sell asked the applicant how long he has lived in this house. Ma asked the applicant if he built the shed. Mamnev said yes. . Sell McCarty asked the applicant about the width of the existing approximately 13 or 14 feet in width. Weisberg referred to a photo of the property and would encroach on the neighboring house at 10 Hughes referred to a red brick area locate proposed new garage addition would b Mamnev said yes. garage and asked if the tion of those bricks. Segelbaum asked the applicant said the fence is 6 feet in hei h there as well. Mamnev sai and trees are located. long the south property line. Mamnev uil gelbaum asked if he planted the trees red to the survey and showed where the fence Segelbaum asked the survey and state would like to s h te width of the garage would be. McCarty referred to ge would be 29 feet wide in the front. He said he mized. verall dimensions of the garage would be. Sell stated that be 29 feet wide in the front and 37 feet in the back. educing the width of the garage in front to 25 feet to make the t 6 feet off the required 35 feet instead of the requested 11 feet off the . Sell suggested allowing one more foot in order to make the width of the garag even number. McCarty suggested allowing the width of the garage to be 24 feet in width. Sell stated that the proposed garage is over the 1,000 square feet allowed. McCarty said if they allow the applicant to construct a 24-foot wide garage than he would be under the 1,000 square feet allowed. Mamnev said he would like to build an entry door into the garage and he wasn't sure if he could with a 24 feet wide garage. Segelbaum suggested the applicant make a Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 27, 2008 Page 8 connection between the existing garage and new garage addition instead. Mmnev said he will reconfigure the entry door location. MOVED by Sell, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to approve 8 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 27 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (south) property line to allow for the construction of a garage addition. III. Other Business ark Grimes, Staff Liaison Sell reminded the Board Members of the upcoming board and co dinner. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9: 1 0 pm. Mike Sell, Chair Hey Planning 763-593-8095/ 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: June 4, 2008 Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals Joe Hogeboom, City Planner 400 Dakota Avenue South Tim and Cathy Cope, Applicants To: From: Subject: Tim and Cathy Cope are the owners of the property located at 400 Dakota Avenue South. Mr. and Ms. Cope are seeking to construct an addition onto their existing deck. The proposed deck, planned to be located to the rear of the existing home, will conform to setback and other zoning requirements. However, the home, which was constructed in 1970, is located 18 feet from the front yard street right-of-way line. Therefore, to complete the proposed addition, the applicants must receive a waiver to front yard setback requirements. Upon inspection of the construction of the home located at 400 Dakota Avenue South in 1970, it was noted by City Inspector Dan Lynch that the structure was 17 feet into the front yard setback area. At that time, construction on the home was ordered to cease. The (then) owner of property appeared before the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) , requesting a waiver to (former) Section 3.07(1) of City Code, requesting 17 feet off the required 35 foot required front yard setback area. This request was denied. However, the BZA permitted the home to exist as a non-conforming use. Questioning this ruling, the Village Council referred the matter back to the BZA for further consideration. The BZA officially denied the applicant's request for a variance to front yard setback requirements. However, the matter was revisited by the Village Council on February 9, 1970. At that time, it was ruled that the home would be allowed to remain as a non-conforming use, disallowing any future expansion to the footprint of the home. Mr. and Ms. Cope purchased the home in 1994, and were not made aware of this stipulation. Earlier this year, Mr. Cope applied for a permit to construct an addition to his current deck to allow for an outdoor whirlpool. The whirlpool, if constructed, would provide support to Ms. Cope who suffers from frequent back pain. At that time, the applicants became aware of the regulations in place on their property. On May 20,2008, Planning and Development Director Mark Grimes requested the City Council to amend the existing waiver for 400 Dakota Avenue South, allowing structural expansion to occur in the rear of the home. The Council unanimously agreed to Director Grimes' request, amending language in the pre-existing variance to read: "At no time shall there by (sic) any further expansion of the residential structure at 400 Dakota Avenue South covered by Building Permit #9036, except that said residential structure may be expanded to the rear side of the house and the house may be repaired, rebuilt or remodeled so long as there is no expansion to exterior dimensions." Although this amendment opens up the possibility of expanding the existing home in the back, a new variance is needed for this proposed addition because the intent is different from the original variance obtained in 1970 (which was simply intended to bring the existing home into conformance with City Code.) Currently, the proposed project requires a variance from the following section of City Code: . Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(1) - Front Yard Setback Requirements The City's Zoning Code states a principal structure in the Single Family (R-1) Residential Zone shall be no less than 35 feet from the front street right-of-way. Mr. and Ms. Cope are requesting 17 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 18 feet at its closest point to the front street right- of-way line to allow the construction of a deck in the rear of the home. Staff recommends approval of this variance, due to the following circumstances: 1. The property cannot be put to a reasonable use if restricted to build in the rear. Disallowing any additions to the home limit the home's usefulness and could possibly impact its future marketability. Staff, as well as the applicants, views these restrictions as a hardship. 2. The situation is due to circumstances unique to the property, and has not been created by the current landowner. Since the construction of the home, trees and other natural features in the neighborhood have matured, allowing a buffer and natural screening between homes. 3. The proposed variance will not alter the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Please contact me at jhogeboom@cLgolden-valley.mn.us or 763-593-8099 if you have any questions or concerns about this proposed variance. Attachments Location Map (1 page) Board of Zoning Appeals Application (3 pages) Applicant's Narrative (1 page) Property Survey (1 page) Photos (3 Pages) Executive Summary for Action, Agenda Item 3K dated May 20,2008 (1 page) Village Council Minutes dated February 9, 1970 (1 page) Letter from (then) Chief Building Inspector Dan Lynch dated January 27, 1970 (1 page) Petition for Board of Zoning Appeals Waiver Application dated December 23, 1969 (2 pages) Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes dated January 13, 1970 (1 page) Letter from (then) City Attorney Robert Skare dated January 22, 1970 (2 pages) Letter from (then) City Ordinance Administrator Jon Westlake dated January 21, 1970 ( 1 page) Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes dated January 26, 1970 (1 page) 110 25 6324 6320 6500 6330 15 :2 100 w!:S1'!:l:t~ Ave i 105 ~1 Q 6237 100 6145 6101 120 US 120 140 145 140 200 205 200 220 225 220 240 245 240 ~ 300 325 320 345 MIl 360 1m 'i \ ~ flI V> 105 110 115 6!i85 120 125 6!i80 6540 135 145 0 0 0 \tI !tl 0 "Ii 100 0 ~ 0 0 ~ VI ~ <I; IS ~ ~ o 700 o 0,.15 0 0 o Cl) . M~g~~~Ar-~S' CQ;1FVtt~~'l:l~SS~ il 100 31 6030 6010 120 f:f ~~ Z ... iIt 125 140 145 160 180 20S i LAUREL AVE o 6100 o o o $Ill City of Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Zoning Code Variance Application 1. Street address of property involved in this application: bfo 0 j)~7/f- AvG'.A/t.!~ So t,L{~ 2. Applicant: '7/tn d-A CA:r?fv 0f~ Name 1(00 ~/ft:orA- ;fvE Address ,....... .....-;ti :;;;.oi,U rr 60f-.!)E.AI vA-UEY. /11;1 -SSo/ / f:, City/State/Zrp l"7[m 6/.2- it?;? ~3f Cell Phone 0~) Cf S".:J- If 1.(1 '7030 Business Phone 763 21;l. 8";1..'10 Home Phone f...J:mY) Co u3S-7Cf .) c-{c/. C-Orn . Email Address 3. Detailed description of building(s), addition(s), and alteration(s) involved in this petition. The site plans and drawings submitted with this petition will be the basis of any variance that may be approved and cannot be changed before or after the building permit is issued. A- lol! X. 10 /c' e'j(~~"'~ ~:.:~ ~ ~!s1?~... ~. .~ ex~Srl~ 1j.{j)7/ acco.J11}'kO c1de.- a... ho'f-N ar;rul u/i'll 6e- ?-;1. c/lo$-eA 6'1- C{ q-q ~-bo . o (/ 4. A brief statement of the hardship which provides legal grounds for the granting of this variance (see Frequently Asked Questions for an explanation of a "hardship"). Attach letter, photographs, or other evidence, if appropriate. rtJ}UZfl. iJ.14S J~t(~ IIJtlS '~f-If- Jr~ /1 t 7 a CO'ylA!.;-/JD-" (,oaS I a. as/the If- le..sfJ775Ph 7>1 Ct~it- or- i/lfL- ~-A n)t-T. .~. Wel~ u/uz,d(1.,e-- of- (( /~ ciip7"1 f,L;JUZ,l I/~IL u4d~,f fAL h~"'-M- 7>, (~"7~tf~ .$~ &~f/acl~ 1e.:1I'~-j- 5. To the best of my knowledge the statements found in this application are true and correct. I a so understand that unless construction of the action applicable to this variance request, if granted, is not taken within one year, the variance expires. ~~~ant ~~ 6. If the applicant is not the owner of all property involved in this application, please name the owner of this property: Print Name of owner Signature of owner Variance Application Submittal: The following information must be submitted by the application deadline to make a complete application. If an application is incomplete, it will not be accepted: Completed application form, including signatures of surrounding property owners. A current or usable survey of the property must be attached. See the handout on survey requirements. A brief statement of the hardship which provide grounds for the granting of this variance (see Frequently Asked Questions for an explanation of a "hardship"). Attach letter, photographs, or other evidence, if appropriate. You may submit detailed description of building(s), addition(s), and alteration(s) involved in this project. The site plans and drawings submitted with this application will be the basis of any variance that may be approved and cannot be changed before or after the building permit is issued. Variance application fee, as follows: $125 - single family residential; $225 - other Signatures of Surrounding Property Owners Note to the variance applicant: As part of the variance application process, you will need to attempt to obtain the signatures of all surrounding property owners. This includes all properties abutting the applicant's property and directly across the street. If on a corner, this means across both streets. To obtain these signatures, you will need to personally visit each of these property owners, tell them about your project (we encourage you to bring along a copy of your building plans) and have them sign the area, below. The signature is meant only to verify that you have told them about your project and gives them opportunity to comment. If you have attempted to contact a property owner on two separate occasions and not found them at home, you may simply write something to the effect "made two attempts, owner not home" and then write their address. City staff will also send a written notice informing these property owners of the time and place of the BZA meeting. Note to surrounding property owners: This is an application by your neighbor for a variance from the City Zoning Code. Please be aware of any possible effect the granting of this variance could have on your property. You will also be receiving a written notice informing you of the time and place of the variance meeting. , . By signing this form, you are only verifying that you have been told about the project, not that you necessarily agree or object to the project. If you wish, you may comment on the project. Comments can contain language of agreeing with the project, objecting to the project or other statements regarding the project. 1/111 ~ /nuv ~ v Print Name Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature I ~M \\- Fe (\1"'/1 ~ Q \,<9<- ~~~&~- / ( " Address 35" C> /J,4--ktJlR A.v.t ~, Address 3bS" f)~~DIt. flw-S Address Address Address Address Address 1t Mr. Mark Grimes City Planning Director 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 April 21, 2008 Dear Mr. Grimes, My name is Tim Cope. My wife Cathy and I have been proud homeowners at 400 Dakota Ave., Golden Valley Mn. 55416 since early 1994. Recently we engaged a contractor to expand an existing wooden deck at the back of our house by approximately 10 feet by 10 feet. Once the deck is completed we planned to install a hot tub in that area, a birthday gift to my wife who experiences frequent back pain. The existing deck is approximately ten feet in the air and supported by various posts. The proposed extension would be at the same level and built over an existing cement patio, thus no new land area would be used because of this addition. When our contractor requested a building permit they were denied due to a building restriction placed on the house when it was built in 1968/9 which prevents the house from being enlarged. Unfortunately, we were never informed of that restriction when we purchased the house. This is a request to please waive that restriction so that we can. expand part of an existing deck over an existing patio. I do not know what prompted the original restriction however I do know that the neighborhood has certainly changed over the last 40 years. It is now a mature area with our house surrounded by numerous grown trees. We do not plan to change any of the existing landscape other than to extend an existing deck over an existing patio. The footprint of the house is not being enlarged inasmuch no foundation walls are being built or moved and we are not removing or moving any existing trees or other landscape. I believe this request fits within the city guidelines for orderly development and redevelopment and certainly has no adverse effects on the health, safety and general welfare of people living in Golden Valley. Just the opposite, it may actually help with the health my family. There is no impact to transportation, surface water, sanitary sewers, or water supply. Ifthere is a requirement to take soil samples to determine the adequacy of the proposed footing we certainly intend to comply. Enclosed are pictures of our house taken from various perspectives showing the front of the house, the existing deck the existing patio, and surrounding landscape. We have only one neighboring house on the northwest side. There is no housing behind us and no housing is permitted on the east side of our house. We really will not be effecting or bothering anyone with a simple deck expansion. We respectfully request that you favorably consider allowing us to make this change to our existing deck. If you have any questions or need additional information please do not hesitate to contact either one of us. Thank you for your consideration. thai this ;satrtlP ,- -.' . ' '. ".--: /' ' '< I. .. ./ J~ -'''''--.. - !', ,,,. "~-'-~la.... /, I '-':-"1"-)" '''t . ' . "'......,'...... -..... J ~ / ~ 1.:~ X' l' . ----- -,. 1 / I . ./. 1 A ~ i,,/'...' ~'~. J ~tl., / _-",..-:-.";-'r- .))1..............;/ .....', ~ /') I ./:;' /,/ ' / ,;...1 , y~ ~'- /' ,/ --," .' -- ~ ~.j , - '- - ..pI" ~,,:,..' \ / Memorandum Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Councillllleeting May 20, 2008 Agenda Item 3. K. Reconsideration of Council Action - Variance Request - 400 Dakota Avenue South Prepared By Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Summary At the May 13,2008 Council/Manager meeting, the Council discussed a request by Tim Cope who owns the property at 400 Dakota Avenue South. Mr. Cope is requesting that the City . Council allow him to expand the deck that is attached to the rear of his house. In 1970, the City.Council approved a variance for the. house that allowed it to be located 18 feet from the right-of-way from Dakota Avenue South rather than the required 35 feet. One of the conditions of the variance was that the exterior dimensions of the house could. not be 'excpanded. At the May 13 meeting, the Council gave direction to staff to prepare a motion for. consideration by the City Council that would allow Mr. Cope to apply for a variance to expand the house by adding to the existing rear deck. As part of this motion, the consensu.s of the Council was to include that only expansions to the rear of the house would be considered for a variance and expansion of the house to the sides or front would not be permitted. . Attachments VillageCotJncil Minutes dated February 9,1970 (1 page) Certificate of Survey dated November 14, 1968 (1 page) Letter from Tim Cope dated April 21, 2008 (1 page) Pictures of front and back of house (1 page) Council/Manager Meeting Executive Summary dated May 13, 2008 (1 page) Recommended Action The motion of the City Council regarding the request by Bennie Rozman for the property at 400 Dakota Avenue South is amended by altering Part B to state the following: At no time shall there by any further expansion of the residential structure at 400 Dakota Avenue South covered by Building Permit #9036, except that said residential structure may expanded to the rear side of the house and the house may be repaired, rebuilt or remodeled so long as there is no expansion"Vf1he exterior dimensions. '1M DA/(aTA AvE'. So. ADJOURNED MEETIEG of the VILLAGE COUNCIL Fe'bruaI'Y 9 j 1910 .AD. a.dJourned meeting of: the Yillage C01.meil was he1<1 at 1:30 P.M. ~ February 9~ 1970~ at 7800 Golden Valley Road. Present were Bieaj JenaeDs; Paulson$ Stockma,n~ emd Teresi;. Village l.fanager" Barkley G. Omans; Village Clerk, Helen l'enn:'i.man; Building Inspector 1> Dan Lynch. Be: ReqUeB.!,_t:~Waivel" - ~OO D~ve.nue Sou.th.>> Bennie Ro~: Mr. Bemiie RoZ1.'llm1 and Jul:f.ua M. Rivkin of: Arl;:ay Builders were present. The Village Me.nager reviewed. the baekgl"Olmd and conditions f'ol" granting ""he waiver. MOVED by Jensen seconded by Paulson cal"J::'ied unanimously to grant the wa:iver upon the following conditions: "The pet.ition for a. waiver of Section 3.07 for 17' on a home under constructioD at }~OO Dakota Avenue Soutb to a !'ron"' yard setback 01: 18' off the Southwest right-of-vay of Dakota. Aitenue, constit.uting a vT&iver of' 11' from the required 35', is hereby granted subject to the following express conditions which. sha.ll rom with the property a.t'f'ected hereby: A - At no time shall there l,y e.u::f further construC'tion on the propeI""'.;Y' legally descl~ibed as Outlot 1, Trach' s 2nd Addition, which legal descriyi;ion eoyel"S the anti.reo lot ot record at. 400 Dakota. Avenue South, rnmed 'by the lleti- ticner herein, Bennie RaDian, other than for the f-rtructure covel"ad .0,- Building Permit 69036; provided, however,"'chat the foregoing ~estrietions shall not apply to any construc- tion on the Esstel"ly 113."{3' of Out;lot 1 Tl'ach's 2nd Addition. 13 - At no tme shall i;here be any funnel" exp~...ns:i.on of the residential stru;:ture presently under eonst.rIJction. on said pl'emises .,e.nd cOTered by Building Permit 09036, provided, l:uY'liev-er, that said reaidentiaJ. atructw:~ m~ be repaired, l"ab~iJ.t or remodeled so J.or~ as there is no e..'\.'J'Iatlsion of the exte:dor dimensions thereof. \I The Village Menager pres€!rnted an Agreement regarding r.aaurel ,A'\I'.:mue RigJ;.rt~of'- Way vith eo partial p~ent for street improvement. !!!.i!:.er of Ple.ttiD~ Ordi_f}!!l!~~L- Lot DivisJon, 400 D~ot~v~!~iie _l!C:1!!:.l1.3._1)~~!~5~ rlo~~'?l1 ~ft loIDVh'ID by Bias seconded by Jensen carried that the Council recollsidej',' 'l;he ac'tioil:, of August 5!1 1969 I> on the loequest of Bermie ROl.1!1.ml for lo't division of: Ciut'1.o~~ l. ~ T:i...ael1' s 2nd. l'~dd1tion, an.d. tht?t the follO\dng ag,ree:ment be approved: The Village MMager presented the request ':o:\.'" "ro,i v€:r of the P1a:t.t.i~ OrdirHl.l.1CEi at !~OO Dakota Avenue South f.or Bsm:de Ro~;m{l.l'! for lot di<t"ision of: th~ fc,11o''inng property: ~.. ( Village of Golden Valley January 27, 1970 Bennie Rozman 9240 Golden Valley Road Apt. 6 Golden Valley, Minn. 5~?27' Dear Mr. Rozman: As you have been previously advised, the structure you are building at 400 Dakota Avenue South is in violation of Section 3.07 of the Golden Valley Zoning Code. In as much as the building has been constructed with the t yard :;;etback of 18', whereas the required setback is 35', you " 8.+$ .e cted to take the follo . g action: 1. cease any further ru n on this residential lding effective immediately. 2. correct the illegal action you have taken by causing the building to ' be removed and set back to the proper 35' front ~etback line. So as to bring this structure in compliance with Section 3.07 of the Village Zoning Code, it is our understanding that you have filed a petition for a waiver of the required 35' front yard setback with the Golden Valley Board of Zoning .Appeals, and the Board has acted upon this petition by denying your request. Therefore, unless and until an appeal from this Board ruling results in a decision favorable to your petition, you are required to immediately take the action outlined above, or you are hereby ordered to stop all construction on this illegal structure. Very truly yours, Dan J. Lynch Chief Building Ins];>ector cc: Julius M. Rivkin Robert M. Skare Bennie Rozman DJL/ko Civic Center. 7800 Golden Vallev Rd.. Golden Vallev Minnesota. 55427. (612) 545-3781 13l:~ 1- 2. , -,'.'-,,,,-'.',,,'. -' . Address', 9140 Ckl1deI'l Valloe)" Road, Business Phone . 599-1412 ) 3. 5. Legal description of the land involved in this petition: OIltlot)... Tracba- .SecODd Addit:l.ora , . 6. Type of 8trtJ.9tureinvolved in this petition: Double Dwelling, ,Garage , Other (Describe) Addition to Existing Buildings. 5-69 7. Detailed description. of buildings, additions, alterations, etc., involved with this petition: (Building plans where applicable must be presented at the hear1ng) Single t'aJdly. dwelling in accordance with plans .filed with Buildtng 9. Reasons advl:inced, as gr'ol..Ulds for the granting of the petition. (Attach additional sheet~ or photographs if appropriate and present all evidence. including.hardsl'dpS). . ,See attached ..heet 10. 11. " - '-.:-<,. '-:>. ",:" . ,':-:>':-::"',,':-: .,'::-<" ','::<-.",' - - ':"'-'/ ;'''.,,;'.,,' _ ' " _ '_', --,": _>' -':"",_ ',' ;-'r''0>~::y<,,'~, _ ~ Obtain the written consent of all affected land .owners. This usually means consentot a . . . rs on all sides. of the property. NCYrICE 'ro .31 . ind1cating approval below, you are g1 v1ng your consent to waiver of' certain V1llage Ordinances. Be. sure you uriderstand the sig- nificance of' the petition and its possible effect on your property. If you do not consent, you will receive notice of hearing, at which you may present your v'1ews.(See A. Procedure 2nd paragraph). 'lock 1. Trach'. 2nd Addition To the ~st of my knoWledge the BOARD OF zamBO APPEALS Janua.ry 13, 1970 page 2 69-12-42 7S0$ Country Club Drive (17) freVilla O'f Golden Valley France A.ve.. Nurs The BOard. noted that the and one-halt stories in hei not request1nga waiver off 5th Ave. North, whi with street frontage two streets. etition ls tor the waiv of Section .03 That no building s 1 be erected to exceed tone-halt stories in height. This request is on the th side of the cel ott 5th Ave. e is 4 stories in t) Me8~rs. Paul Pink Skyline BUilders !nc.. pres tz, property owners in the vicinity, building s.h.all exceed two ted out the petitioner is but on the South side side. The requ is on a lot through substantial grade e between the by Morton Sil venaan, approve the request to .. which faces 5th Ave. NO' Dr Morton Silverman, 11nAn; mous or .. be placed between the build1 b' sen the structure and Sth Ave 0 4 ~ 400 Dakota Ave. South (13) Bennie Ro~ seonded bT Donald Franzen (4) four stories on the South . f the It was then IllOved by Robert Hoov\' ... Carried, that a landscaping screen and 5"tn Ave.. No. to provide a transition The petition is tor the waiver of Secti.on 3~07 (1) for 17' on a home under constructiO'n to a. front yard setback of 18' otfthe Southwest Right of W~ of Dakota Ave.. (Required 3$') Messrs. Julius K. Rivkin ot Jrk~ ConstructiO'n Comp8.l:lY, and Bennie Rozman, owner O't the property $ were present to explain the request to A 10111 discussion followed, from which the Board noted the home is under construction on a corner lot where Dakota Avenue So to makes a. right angle and extends last into Brunswick Avenue Soo It was IIIOved by Donald Fransen, seconded by Paul Senstad. not to grant a waiver ot 17'" but to permit the existanea of a llOncontormng use, speCifically and o~ described on the Certificate of Survey by Egan, Field & Nowak Building Location Survey dated December 1,1969 File No.. 4173 Book No. 1840-21.. This Certificate of Survey is marked Exhibit If A n :in the Building Department file.. The motion carried with 4 yeas and 1 nay.. ~ JAMES I. BEST (1902-1966) ROBERT J. FLANAGAN WARD B. LEWIS LEONARD W. SIMONET CHARLES S. BELLOWS HAROJ:D C. EVARTS ARCHIBALD SPENCER ROBERT M. SKARE ROBERT L.CROSBY LEONARD M. ADDINGTON ROBERT R. BARTH N. WALTER GRAFF ALLEN D. BARNARD BEST, FLANAGAN, LEWIS, SIMONET .AND BELLOWS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1200 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 AREA CODE 612 339-7121 January 22, 1970 Board of Zoning Appeals Village of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 ATTENTION: Jon westlake Administrative Secretary Gentlemen: Re: Premises at 400 Dakota Avenue S. I.n res120pse to your recent request I have reviewed the action taken by the Board at its meeting on January 15, 1970, respecting a petition fQ~ waiver of front yard setback at the above referenced address. In my opinion, the action attempted to be taken by the Board as aforesaid amounted to a legal nullity inasmuch as the Board was purporting to sanction the continued existence of a nonconform;i.lf)..g;nse, whereas the facts given to me indicate that there is not now and never has been a legal non-conforming use existing upon said premises. Rather the situation appears to be a clear case of a structure being built in violation of the front yard setback requirements as imposed by Section 3.07 of our ordinances. It is the essence of a legal nonconforming use that at one time there was a legal conforming situation which by virtue of a change in the requirements of the ordinance was subsequently placed in the position of a nonconforming (but still legal) use. In the instant situation the structure never was conforming but constituted a violation of the ordinance from the very inception of the building and construct;i'ol1 action which was taken so as to place it only 18 feet back from the front prop- erty line as opposed to the 35 feet required by the ordinance. It is therefore not within the power of the Board to say that you are approving the existence of a nonconforming use since there has never been a legal nonconforming use but only a situation of a violation of the ordinance which has run Board of Zoning Appeals ..,.2- January 22, 1970 continuously from the date of construction to the present time. The action of the Board,being meaningless, is therefore a nullity in the eyes of the law. The only action the Board could have taken or can at the present time take with respect to the Petition at hand, is to either grant or deny the requested waiver. I trust this answers the RMS/m ;/ M ~ 00 o ('V') .Q Z Ktlitl~ I tUKl,;t.K IItltUMAIL-JU~ lPIUS postage} SENT TO POSTMARK Ju1.iu~M. RiVl,{it).. ~l:t~ OQp,s-t.' Co. OR DATE ST7~~~D~~Y$at~i~Q~~~~4 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED. . (See other side) NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL JaJl\W'7 21, 1970 JuU.us II. 1t1Yld.n .Art. CeDetruetton Co. 7J25 Wq...,. JouleYard IItnafNaPOlu ,Hi..Dn. SJla26 SDJIOfI 70-1...1 kOO Dakota Ave. South Dev _. 11Wd.n* \'be _1;lon ~eD. by the Ioal'cI of ~ Appeals "..-d1.OI .,our tf8t 'fer request at, the J~ 1), 1970 1I1eft1ng t.s no' -.4dU _cor~ to OUl" legal ~l. In 'fiw of \bis, I h'fe contaeted. the ~8 of the Board. regard1nl a special mee1tinato be .beU .1d.t,b resp_t to 7OU1l l"equ..t to cae1cler. the waiver tor approval or den1al and. not &8 a nonccmtonrd..nl UN, aa etat. in the Jawuof 1).. lP10 Ic>arcl of ~1 ng Appeals 1I1nutes. !his . special ..atine of the Board. otAppeals v1ll be held in the ~i1 ca.'bers of the O$.Vic Center, 7800 Golden vaU., load. at 7100 P.M. on Mond.q, JI%lU11.J!7 26, 1970. OonsW'uctiOD of the l'u1dence ahou1cl not be cODt1mlec1 until the Board hu .e a l"I.UJ.ng wi. th ....,., to the front .,ard 8.tback. V..., trul-, ,.ours, Jon Westlake . 'Ordinuce ~ ,,1.straw CO I Barkl., Oaana Robert .... Boant SIl8lbera N/Jdo MImES OF A SPECIAL :r~Il~G OF 'lHE OOLDII VAJ.,LJ;I BOARD OF ZOIIm APPBALS JABUARY 26, 1910 J. special meetins of the Golden Vall~ Board of Zon1ng Appeals wu held Kondq, JanUJJrY 26. 1970; at 7:00 Poli.. at the Golden VsUq Civic Center, 1800 Golden Valley Road, Golden VaJ.ley: Hilmeaota.. The f'ollow1ng Board members, const1tuting a quo.rum, ..... presents" LeRoy w. .And.er80n Donald E. Fransen Dr. Robert R. Beover Paul D. Senst.ad. Horton D. SU"erman Mr. Dan J. L~" Obie.f Building Inspector" was prescmt a.t the inn tation of the Board. LeB07 W. Anderson" Ohd.nlan of the Board, presided and Jon L. Wesu.ke, Secretal7 otthe Board of Zoning Appeals, acted u Secretary of the meeting.. ' As the first order of busmesa, the Chairman read a letter from Robert Me Skare" the Village attorll87. This letter was in response to the Janua.t"1 13, 1910 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting concerning 400 Dakota Ave. South. The Cb.airman then brought before the meeting the foll.owing request for 8. va1ver t 10..1-1 400 Dakota A:ve., South (13) ~e RoZltU!! The petition is for the waiver of Section 3.01 (1) tor 11' on a home ~.. construction to a front yard. setback of 18' oft the Southwest "Right of W8y of Dakota Ave.. (Required 35') Messrs.P-tui.e ioZIIIaD.t otmer ~ the propel"t1~ and Julius 14.. Rivkin of Arkq ConIItruct1on Comp&n7 presented the request' to the Board.. The Board renewed the request and 'the action taken at the January 1.3, 1910 Board of ZoniDg Appeals meeting.. The Board pointed out that at the1.l" previous ....t:lni no vai 'fer was Vanted.. 'the Board also discussed. the letter trOll the Village attorl1G11D which it WM stated the action taken by the Board to 'AUCtion or permit the existence of a noncontorm1.n& use is not wlthin the power or the Board.. It was elso pointed. out by the Board that the required survey tor the foundation location vas dated Deeember J., J.969.. ' It was _"ed. b;y Donald Franzen, m6Conded. by Paul SGDStad, and carried unanimouslytCt dfm1 the request tor the waiver of Section 3~07 (1)0 TbeJ:'G being no turtber busine8s to C01'll.8 OOfore the meeting, it 'WeB Or! motion, du.l.1' seconded, adjourned at 7:30 p..m.. LeRo1 Anderson,lt Obairman Jon Westlake, Secretary lIey Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: June 16, 2008 Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals Joe Hogeboom, City Planner 1845 Hampshire Lane David and Marjorie Gardeen, Applicants To: From: Subject: David and Marjorie Gardeen are the owners of the property located at 1845 Hampshire Lane. Mr. and Ms. Gardeen are requesting a variance from City Code to construct a deck. The proposed deck would encroach into the side yard setback of the property. The applicants are currently remodeling their home. According to the applicants, the home was constructed with the intent to construct a deck in the proposed location. Adjacent homes to the west and the east both have decks in similar positions relative to their respective properties. Adding to the hardship, the existing home was constructed within the side setback area. The proposed deck would not protrude further into the setback area than the existing east wall of the home. The proposed project requires variances from the following sections of City Code: . Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(3)(c) Side Yard Setback Requirements. The City's Zoning Code states that side yard setbacks in the Single Family (R1) Zoning District must be at least 15 feet from the side property line (assuming lots are greater than 100 feet in width.) Mr. and Ms. Gardeen are requesting 7.66 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 7.34 feet at its closest point to the side (east) yard property line to allow for the construction of deck and to bring the existing home into conformance with City Code. No prior variances from City Code were found for this property. t '. City of Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Zoning Code Variance Application 1. Street address of property involved in this application: 1845 Hampshire Lane 2. Applicant: David J. & Marjorie E. Gardeen 1845 Hampshire Lane Address 763-565-3000, ext. 206 Business Phone 651-353-2950 Home Phone Golden Valley, MN 55427 City/State/Zip 651-353-2948 Cell Phone dmbgardeen@yahoo.com Email Address 3. Detailed description of building(s), addition(s), and alteration(s) involved in this petition. The site plans and drawings submitted with this petition will be the basis of any variance that may be approved and cannot be changed before or after the building permit is issued. As part of a Minnesota GreenStar certified green home remodel, this is a request for the location of a new, environmentally-friendly, deck addition (off of the screen porch located on the south east side of thfi' rambler walkout) that has an east edge that is allowed to be even with & parallel to the east edge of the existing house on the property. 4. A brief statement of the hardship which provides legal grounds for the granting of this variance (see Frequently Asked Questions for an explanation of a "hardship"). Attach letter, photographs, or other evidence, if appropriate. The home was designed and built with the intent of adding a deck off of the porch. The homes on either side (1855 Hampshire & 1825 Hampshire Ln.) both have a similar design and both have decks in this location (see the attached photos.). There is ample room between the east side of the home and the adjacent home (approximately 30~ in keeping with the intent of the 15' setbacks. The proposed deck would not encroach into this space between homes and would not be located any closer to the property line (with the neighbor to the east, 1825 Hampshire Ln.,) than the existing house is. Access to the proposed deck from the existing porch would otherwise be limited. 5. To the best of my knowledge the statements found in this application are true and correct. I also understand that unless construction of the action applicable to this variance request, if granted, is not taken within one year, the variance expires. --IVC Signat r f Applicant(s) 6. If the applicant is not the owner of all property involved in this application, please name the owner of this property: David J. & Marjorie E. Gardeen Print Name of owner(s) Variance Application Submittal: The following information must be submitted by the application deadline to make a complete application. If an application is incomplete, it will not be accepted: / Completed application form, including signatures of surrounding property owners. V A current or usable survey of the property must be attached. See the handout on survey requirements. / A brief statement of the hardship which provide grounds for the granting of this variance (see Frequently Asked Questions for an explanation of a "hardship"). Attach letter, photographs, or other evidence, if appropriate. ~ You may submit detailed description of building(s), addition(s), and alteration(s) involved in this project. The site plans and drawings submitted with this application will be the basis of any variance that may be approved and cannot be changed before or after the building permit is issued. v' Variance application fee, as follows: $125 - single family residential; $225 - other Signatures of Surrounding Property Owners Note to the variance applicant: As part of the variance application process, you will need to attempt to obtain the signatures of all surrounding property owners. This includes all properties abutting the applicant's property and directly across the street. If on a corner, this means across both streets. To obtain these signatures, you will need to personally visit each of these property owners, tell them about your project (we encourage you to bring along a copy of your building plans) and have them sign the area, below. The signature is meant only to verify that you have told them about your project and gives them opportunity to comment. If you have attempted to contact a property owner on two separate occasions and not found them at home, you may simply write something to the effect "made two attempts, owner not home" and then write their address. City staff will also send a written notice informing these property owners of the time and place of the BZA meeting. Note to surrounding property owners: This is an application by your neighbor for a variance from the City Zoning Code. Please be aware of any possible effect the granting of this variance could have on your property. You w~1 also be receiving a written notice informing you of the time and place of the variance meeting. By signing this form, you are only verifying that you have been told about the project, not that you necessarily agree or object to the project. If you wish, you may comment on the project. Comments can contain language of agreeing with the project, objecting to the project or other statements regarding the project. CHIC- /-ItJP.~ Comment LrI( Signature ~~ ~/YU(/ Print Name ~reIl L. It :!erson ... AA4./ Print Name Address 185> /j~P$l/l((t w Print Name Address Comment Signature oMit R 6-/L- Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature Address Print Name Comment Signature Address Print Name Comment Signature Address Print Name 'It Print Name Eugene & Sally Fritze Comment We tried contacting the Fritze's (who live across the street from us) on June 1h & flh, but no one was home. Signature Address 1850 Hampshire Lane 1801 1789 1784 1788 1720 7150 7130 7110 7080 GREEN VALLEY !to 1710 7145 7125 7105 1102 1616 7130 7120 1100 1601 1666 J ARCHER AVE _f:J~ Iw" , ..,<<:tFAft{C-~t~GlS1O")S 1656 1601 '\ . r-----------------------~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I r-------------------------~ I I I I I FRONT PORCH :!< ~ U) Iu 9 II 1((< -. oJIll~ (,!) z (f) (f) .~ o M. BATH 62 Iu z is '" II :!< ~ U) Iu U) 9 II t; z ii5 <( u ~ Lj'OI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _ I NEW WINDOW L_____________________ ~ D Z ~ lli u.J 0... 0... :::> $ u.J z lli u.J <J) <J) It! D ASTER DROOM DEN o~% NEW WINDOW IN EXISTING OPENING @ MAIN LEVEL PLAN IIAFTERII NOT TO SCALE STEP FOYER BOOKS :r: u z u.J [[) ,- -- FRONT WALK I ! ~ h FLANTlNGS I : I L J", J ,EXTEND OVERHANG F~RltOVERED WALK I IU :g , :c I I I I 1 ---~.----- 1 DRIVE i DW L___~~ I I I I NEW OVERHEAD DOQR I I I I I L__________~_____~------~ I I GARAGE I NEW GARAGE SLAEj I I 1 I I I I KITCHEN Z IU > o -' ~ z u.J 0... o 0- u.J f- <J) r - ~r - ~r - ~r - ~ I I I I I S~'fLIGHT6 ABqVE I I I I I ~OP:~RC~ DDLtJI go I LIVING I OJ I ~ 15 3-SEASpN ~ 8 'ORC~ ~ o 0 ~~jf; I WINDOW SEAT __ ~'A ~ -----------~-----~~~- - DECK ~ I -- ~ PORCIi1 DECK ~ ~i I D~ 2 \1J 0 O{ 7'-8" ~ ~ ~: \S' " "0/ ~I (f) 0' 01::::1 ~i 01 (f)j ~I I.I) STAIR? tJo_ \,,,t) \\~,ttL ~. ~vtdJ,l!( 1\' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 7'-4" I I I I .:-1- _-.J q ii:l I I I 1 , I I 1 ~I 21 ::J- I ~j ~I [L- 01 ~- [LI I I :& . i . ".... .'l I 11!1 r ........<-:">. ., , ~;~ ( -: 'Jt.!., . .!,' ',~ ~ > i1' '. ~ 4 l~ . l I I I I ,- , [ .... .11 .-::' -. ., ;.' ... ~ '1 I., .., Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: June 16, 2008 To: From: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals Joe Hogeboom, City Planner 2310 Byrd Avenue North Beau Farrell, Applicant Subject: Beau Farrell is the owner of the property located at 2310 Byrd Avenue North. Mr. Farrell is requesting a variance from City Code to construct a deck. The proposed deck would encroach into the front yard setback of the property. 2310 Byrd Avenue North is a corner lot. The front of the home faces Byrd Avenue, while the side of the home with the proposed deck faces McNair Avenue. The home was constructed within seven feet of the rear yard property line, making it impossible to expand in that direction. Expansion to the side of the home (technically into the front yard setback area) is the most compatible to the lot layout. The proposed project requires variances from the following sections of City Code: . Section 11.21 , Subd. 11 (A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements. The City's Zoning Code states that front yard setbacks in the Single Family (R1) Zoning District must be at least 35 feet from the front property line at the street right-of-way. Mr. Farrell is requesting 16 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 19 feet at its closest point to the front (west) yard property line to allow for the construction of deck. A prior variance to City Code was granted to this property on August 13, 1974. The variance was a waiver to (then) Section 3.12 of City Code, allowing a detached garage to be built 13 feet away from the home. (Currently, accessory structures are allowed to be built within ten feet of principal structures.) 16TH AVE N' .i':' ~1. ',' ~ ---:: : SCALE: 1 INCH_....:~_ " ., _. feET JOliN J. R\' AN CO. 1595 SEI BY AVFNUE. 51 PAUL ~104 -. "/...'[ Tf.LEPliONE 646 M!l8 PLA T OF SURVEY hI" / :' T c-/ ,", . rJ,? /.) C" - / I" OF PROPERTY OF I:/2L?i~I'-:rt~~-'C ;~."' ~. //;1' / ~.::c // /. 7r~/ (.. "...-':''-:? _~7 / V //1' / LOCATION_~~/}tl- ~1..~~~~,<~.... ~to~~/J/~~~"'-- (;~CL~~/7l::> ,:<~,"t."J' ~~~~";'~". ..DESCRIBED AS FOuows.L.aLL~~_.c:?./.2r:.:7".;....-:;{C,-"". '.;'~".~;-!:::':'.? 5"*'~-';:'<1 :hf~~/7r . /. _ L / ~ ..1' ..... A/..' / ...,. ,. /?, / /' ,/ / / ...,,/- 7Z . / c7..BC~ .;..("" d~ a..z:....&.c/ Z....:,-:.:.;~4.//C(-,."'~ ~~; __ ~("~4',>/,'LdLL~/;~~'> ~ ::.,.~ //7//"'<7. (//J/ .;: AI r'/;7/? C~ . . 'I I ,;"," . r 1:'" , \" vJ ' Ai ~ p.. \. .. j.J ( ~ t:: , . V 6- "e . ~ \ P ..,. "'" '; e. (l. I jl( ')..-, ~:V d. ~ '" Q" \ r' 0 ~~ c.\\ ,,\.vl' ..."'{ ~~ J" c.:.~ 01' v \ n ~1, \ l<-" ", .N i."'!' :. 'f . " ~, ./ /' i~_- - .\ \,,,, '., ~:.~ ./ ,/ " ~;( ..r.... ",." \0 /- .'"." '1 ..\~ ..' '\ \~ ," .-:s.. , , ~. \', ~ . .""" :.~ ~ ~' - . "" '" " ' ':~ . ~, ~}i ,~. r.:~' ." ~ . ;; ~-,... \- ,,- "i:~.~ ,:".- '~ . ,to /IV'&: . , ~. .. i ~..~.: 4"!~~;' .;.;;: ,~ .:.' .,' . ~ ..~l:... to -~.~- .~~ ~~\o ~y: - . ~~ S~,V -V(Ll>r~~ pC\ft" ~k.'. Cb/'/7~r tJ .~. :?QJra:?e e/,"C;I';~.:~~: ,::'/.,~_r. ,,"".;? /e:'~r ,/h-/-S' """ cP'~/t!$ ". . .' /...?~:? t/~9'''''&9/C'c/ ,;?/k,/~ '. ." 'd' CERTIFICATE OFLOCATiONOFByIi~G J ~itby~that~ ,'. 7-;Z / '19 I 75' ! ,,' th!a ....J"YoY.plnn. or repmt WAI prepued by me or ui\der my . ,d:Ted m1pot'rvlsion and tl}at 1 l1JJ] 8 dulY", ~t.efed La d Su , .... 'Vtr,/t# m.darfhela,wa af,~tat. of )'!inne.:o~) .,;' ',,; () ". " )(' j./-'~ . -; -"',.:I . .. '., ," ..~.... - ._-...~~.. . . _~ ' .~'..". <( r . ~ ,_' . .,.,....~ :_ .. - .- " 'i~ ~ / ...... - .t:'Gary Ryan, Rq.is\ctco I and Sun'tyor. No. 1I~;!q . . ,;:'. ,/:/ ': ' ~ . _'~_ /" John J. Ryan. 1lc1;"ltrcd Land Surveyor. No. 44lI9 L' . . . Paul J. Cr.nr. Rt1llucrrd laM Sur"C"Yof. No. 01&449 .:~.;. . !'.;'" ." J:r ~{~:,. J,:_~~ it:~' .;. :,.l~' ~\~~; -:-.~ - ~~!,~ ,,~ tj~ CERTIFiCATE OF SURVEY ':f :-~" .;\ 't I hereby certify that on 19 this survey. plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am . duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of MinnellOta. ,lJ~ ~' . -- 7t::: _ .c-q -....( ~.~..~ ;:- ~ . <:) ~'$;$'-'- OJ ,..:>>, - (-. - L,..>>-- . ---- ~,V' ~n '.,. ~ u .~ ~ 3 " z. ~ -....-- -;0 f -z.. ".__/ ...... ~n._.~..__...' .\::3 - ~ , 1---- 1.-1.,.;" a' . . u I', '---,' . I'~- .g \;/2---- CtI~- '~ - J;- . ~ .~ & - Ys ~ ~"' ~d ~- ..<"' _~ nn City of Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Zoning Code Variance Application 1. Street address of property involved in this application: OJ3/0 BYt<-D Ave, AI 2. Applicant: BEJ4-iA J;;yz rz-ELL Name :/3/0 t3 'J fZ'D Av. N. Address G. V mAl 55 c.j~;;; . City/State/Zip ~/J'333. ;)L/3cj ex 91/tJ %3rf)c2l-- f./5:J/ Business Phone Home Phone Dea./).~YYe-/1 e CfYnOvI/' C Orvl Email Address v Cell Phone 3. Detailed description of building(s), addition(s), and alteration(s) involved in this petition. The site plans and drawings submitted with this petition will be the basis of any variance that may be approved and cannot be changed before or after the building permit is issued. - ~e: ~4cheJ-- 4. A brief statement of the hardship which provides legal grounds for the granting of this variance . (see Frequently Asked Questions for an explanation of a "hardship"). Attach letter, photographs, or other evidence, if appropriate. - 5'~e. ~CJ1~J- 5. To the best of my knowledge the statements found in this application are true and correct. I also understand that unless construction of the action applicable to this variance request, if granted, is not taken within one year, the variance expires. sCa~ ~0j / 6. If the applicant is not the owner of all property involved in this application, please name the owner of this property: Print Name of owner Signature of owner Variance Application Submittal: The following information must be submitted by the application deadline to make a complete application. If an application is incomplete, it will not be accepted: Completed application form, including signatures of surrounding property owners. I A current or usable survey of the property must be attached. See the handout on survey requirements. ./' A brief statement of the hardship which provide grounds for the granting of this variance (see Frequently Asked Questions for an explanation of a "hardship"). Attach letter, photographs, or other evidence, if appropriate. / You may submit detailed description of building(s), addition(s), and alteration(s) involved in this project. The site plans and drawings submitted with this application will be the basis of any variance that may be approved and cannot be changed before or after the building permit is issued. ~ Variance application fee, as folio s: $125 single family residential; $225 - other Signatures 0 urrounding Property Owners Note to the variance applicant: As part of the variance application process, you will need to attempt to obtain the signatures of all surrounding property owners. This includes all properties abutting the applicant's property and directly across the street. If on a corner, this means across both streets. To obtain these signatures, you will need to personally visit each of these property owners, tell them about your project (we encourage you tcf bring along a copy of your building plans) and have them sign the area, below. The signature is meant only to verify that you have told them about your project and gives them opportunity to comment. If you have attempted to contact a property owner on two separate occasions and not found them at home, you may simply write something to the effect "made two attempts, owner not home" and then write their address. City staff will also send a written notice informing these property owners of the time and place of the BZA meeting. Note to surrounding property owners: This is an application by your neighbor for a variance from the City Zoning Code. Please be aware of any possible effect the granting of this variance could have on your property. You will also be receiving a written notice informing you of the time and place of the variance meeting. By signing this form, you are only verifying that you have been told about the project, not that you necessarily agree or object to the project. If you wish, you may comment on the project. Comments can contain language of agreeing with the project, objecting to the project or other statements regarding the project. ,j r Print Name ----l-f\7fVl e':7 1- ~~ '-I lJ h \ vh, 1\ yJ r Comment' Signature~~) Address J'lo, P".kvi'-'" ~Iv.(. Print Name L / Y\ da /vi oJ-a.. r / Comment ~ Signature .. 4 (y~- Address ;?t.\O I P "-" lev 'I tu.> ~'vJ. Print Name Ro~ i D~~ Y'A\i1l2_ Comment Signature (1jL~ Tf7ub ()'!v d Av~ N. Address J301 Print Name 5(.,e.-tf 4 De..b Comment Signature KAJd~kl ~ Address d3 II 13 YIaD Av. N \ Print Name 6ovJ~ f ~t:NV Dour ~ Comment -i NoT 1-10"" , Signature Print Name Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature , I i-I"RnSoV\ Address a 31 =J- B 'Ill D Pry. 1-J. G\ee>,,", 1K "';0.,. 4 Gh.e-V-.J\ )/. yv( C 1.O6--0 ; Y\ Address J. L..\ () 4 M{ NMY D.,-. Cl-/0 f 1-//Z4TII ~(~ Address 2- '3 ]' () C. ~>T v /f1, V 3. Detailed description of building(s), addition(s), and alteration(s) involved in this petition. The site plans and drawings submitted with this petition will be the basis of any variance that may be approved and cannot be changed before or after the building permit is issued. We are planning to add an approximately 16'x 14' deck on to our side yard. The plan is to build a simple deck with appropriate railing surrounding the perimeter and appropriate footings. The deck will only be accessible from the inside of the house. No stairs will connect the deck to the yard. Please see attached designs for a more detailed view. 4. A brief statement of the hardship which provides legal grounds for the granting of this variance. Attach letter, photographs, or other evidence, if appropriate. The original layout of the dwelling at 2310 Byrd Ave N. is quite odd and is the main reason for the hardship. The home faces south and is the only home on the block with a Byrd Ave address. And, as records will show, the original address for the home was a McNair Drive address, I believe 2400 McNair to be exact. The original builder built the home quite close to the property line to the north, allowing for little or no "backyard space". All available space is to the west and south. Currently, we have a sliding glass door that is 12" above the ground and opens into the space in question. This sliding glass door basically opens to nowhere. The current look of this area in question is quite an eyesore. Our intention is to build a deck that would connect to this door. Thus, the addition of this deck would create a much more pleasant curbside appeal. The house sits "'54' from the curb to the west and "'76' from the curb to the south. ~ 19l4, Afp-t< G~~ Reasons advanced as grounds for the granting of the petition. There is a distance of approximately forty three feet from the side of the house on which the garage is to be built to the property line. Given a twenty two foot wide garage, with a distance of five feet from the garage to the property line, that would leave a distance of approximately sixteen feet from the garage to the house. We would, however, also request that we be given an additional three feet from the garage to the property line so as to give a total of eight. This would mean that that the total request would be a waiver from twenty feet from the house to approximately thirteen feet from the house. This second request for an additional three feet is du to the fact that construction of the garage five feet from the property line could result in the sacrifice of trees and bush s that are located along the line and would have to be removed during construction. Board ot Zoning Appeals August 13, 1974 Page 3 and tor Section 3~07 (1) tor 3.5' ott the required 35' front yard to a front- yard setback of 31.51 trom the property line along Lee Ave. No. to the existing single family dwelling only. Mr. & Mrs. Hilger, the prOPerty owners, were presen.t to request the variances~ The Chairman reviewed the petition, and. found it to be complete. The board then examined the plans tor the proposed addition and noted that the addition would still allow nearly' 40' between this house and its closes neighbor to the West, 81_ an existing closet ins.ide the present garage caused need tor the double garage to be wider then the usual mini~m size. Walter Kost moved to grant the waivers as requested, and it was seconded by Don Hughes and so carried. 74-8..24 2400 McNair DriV\t (Map 1) Residential Robert She11um The petition is tor the waiver of Section 3.12 (1) tor 11 otf the required building separation dis- tanca ot 20' to a sepa:r;-ation ot 1)1 trom the ex- isting house to the proposed garage only. Mr. Shellum was present to request the' variance. He described the proposed dettached garage const.rl1ction. and. answered the boards questions concerning its location o~ the lot. Don Hughes moved to approve the variance as requested, and it was seconded by Glen Christiansen and 80 carried. There being motion, duly 8