Loading...
10-28-08 BZA Agenda Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, October 28, 2008 7pm 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers I. Approval of Minutes - September 25, 2008 II. The Petitions are: Continued Item... 1800 Mendelssohn Avenue North (08-09-16) Marlin Henrikson, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 19 Driveway Setback Requirements . 3 ft. off the required 3 ft. to a distance of 0 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new driveway. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(3)(c) Side Yard Setback Requirements . 3 ft. off the required 12 ft. to a distance of 9 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new deck. 1520 Toledo Avenue North (08-10-15) Donna Nelson, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements . 1.6 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 33.4 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (west) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage. 6736 Glenwood Avenue (08-10-16) Jake & Kelly Schetnan, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements . 10ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 5 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (west) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage addition. III. Other Business Discussion on variance standards - City Attorney Allen Barnard IV. Adjournment This document is a in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call 763-593-8006 (TTY: -593-3968) to make a request. Examples of alte formats may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc. Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 25,2008 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Thursday, September 25,2008 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Sell called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Members Kisch, Nelson, Segelbaum, Sell, and Planning Commission Representative McCarty. Also present were City Planner Joe Hogeboom Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. MOVED by Kisch, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carrie the August 26 minutes as! submitted. I. Approval of Minutes - August 26, 2008 II. The Petitions are: 6400 Hampshire Place North (08- Ka Ie Vick Thomas Renovation Req uest: . 11 (A)(1) Front Yard Setback d 35 ft. to a distance of 27 ft. at its closest point uth) property line. Purpose: construction of a garage. nt is requesting a variance to construct a garage. on the property. He referred to a survey of the property and garage is placed on an angle or askew to the property lines. r placement according to the applicant is that this is a corner lot ge as proposed will help mitigate the traffic noise from Douglas Drive. at this variance request is supported by staff and discussed the rridor study currently underway. He added that placing the garage as o help shield the view from the house to any potential future sidewalk Drive. McCarty asked if there is already an existing sidewalk along Douglas Drive. Hogeboom said yes but explained that it will probably need to be widened in the future in order to meet ADA requirements. Segelbaum asked if the fact thatthis property is a corner lot is considered to be a hardship. Hogeboom stated that there is also some vegetation that the applicant is trying to preserve but the main hardship noted is the noise from traffic along Douglas Drive. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 25,2008 Page 2 Segelbaum asked if there is any information published yet regarding the Douglas Drive corridor study. Hogeboom stated that the Douglas Drive corridor study began in July of 2008 and there is nothing published yet, but staff is expecting there to be recommendations made by January of 2009. McCarty commended the home owner for improving this property. He said he understands the reasons for proposing to construct the garage at an angle but he is concerned because there is enough room on this property to do this project without the need for a variance. He suggested building a garage that would be in line with the fro house or even pushed back slightly toward the rear property line. Don Weld, owner of the property, explained that there is not enou proposed garage back on the lot because there is a slope in th e McCarty noted that the proposed garage is also wider than a t stated that there are also large trees that would have to rem garage at an angle. He added that he also doesn't wan house because the house and garage would then would look like a hotel. age. Weld 't build the gara in line with the o feet in length and it Segelbaum questioned if building the prop sound barrier. Weld said that angling th the noise issues. ngle would really create a privacy and will help with Segelbaum questioned where th survey of the property and poi >would be located. Weld referred to the re the driveway would be located. McCarty reiterated that t slightly forward right to the mitigation. Weld dis ed proposed new garag garage but the will work best. u e built in line with the house or even pulled back Hn'e and the applicant would get the same sound tion of a doorway that would connect the house to the at they have considered alternate locations for the Ing it is what they really prefer and is what they think to the applicant's noted hardships. She said she thinks the etically better and more valuable with an attached garage angled rive. if the angle of the proposed garage could be minimized slightly which would req lesser variance. He questioned if the proposed angle is really optimal for mitigating sound or if the angle is more for visual impact. Weld noted that there is only one tree on the entire corner and does not want to remove it. McCarty said he likes the proposed design but he is having difficulty finding a true hardship. He stated that planting trees and bushes would absorb sound better than any garage. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 25, 2008 Page 3 Sell questioned why the proposed garage is 30 feet in width and suggested it be made 28 feet in width instead. Weld said he would like to have a little bit of room on the sides of the garage for storage. Sell asked the applicant if the rear yard is wet. Weld said he has not any problems with water. Segelbaum asked the applicant what he thinks the disadvantages would be to building the garage in line with the house rather than at an angle. Weld said that a tr have to be removed and building the garage in line with the house would look t se the house and garage would be almost 80 feet in length. Sell suggested allowing the proposed garage to b as a compromise allowing a variance of 5 feet off the required 35 feet ir}~t ted 8 feet off the 35 feet. He stated that allowing 5 feet off the fror}tyar ould be similar to the setback requirements for a front porch addition. PI .aiiR<H~I~gr~.~d with the applicant that adding a garage in line with the house woul e~in lengfhiand it would look too long. He added that constructing a detac tot he side of the house would look like a separate building so he thinks maller,<angled, attached garage would be a good compromise. Nelson asked Hogeboom to discuss why staff is supporting this Hogeboom stated that one reason staff is supporting this req family units and rental homes along Douglas Drive are increas explained that this property was previously considered on-co creating a separation from Douglas Drive with this propo improvement on a long term basis. Segelbaum sta garage co that b ause it is a corner lot on Douglas Drive and it d it, she is in support of a variance to allow the garage Nelson agreed with Sell a would not impact an u to be built. other houses in the area are in alignment and this proposed rd then it does impact the neighboring houses. at in preliminary conversations with Hennepin County they have ould like to close off access to Douglas Drive from several residential in mind, Hampshire Place could potentially one day become a cul-de- McCarty stated that it is hard to see around this corner now and that if this proposed garage is built it might make visibility worse. Sell stated that if trees were planted on this corner as suggested, it would add to the visibility issues too. Sell opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to comment, Sell closed the public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 25,2008 Page 4 McCarty said he would like to support this proposal but he is not seeing the hardship with the property because the applicant can still build a really nice garage without needing vanances. Kisch stated that he is having a hard time approving this request based on the Douglas Drive corridor study, when that study isn't done yet. He said given the uniqueness of the site and the slope he can see a benefit to angling the garage slightly, but he thinks that angle can be minimized. He said he would support a variance of 5 feet or less and added that he realizes trees aren't a hardship but anytime they can be saved it is and he would like to see a compromise in this case. MOVED by Nelson, seconded by 5 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a di property line to allow for the c voted no. e to angle the other at the overall Segelbaum said he is in favor of people improving their properties difficulties finding a hardship in this case. He asked if reducing allow 5 feet off of the required 35 feet would mean that the ap the garage less or make it narrower. Sell stated that he would or maybe both if the variance request is reduced. Kisch reed impact would be lessened if a smaller variance is approv Segelbaum asked for help in defining the hardshi of the property and the amount of shoring that wo to be moved further back on the property. property makes building a garage probl usse e slope off the back e done if the garage were he slope off the back of this c d 3 to 2 to approve a variance for its closest point to the front yard (south) e. Members McCarty and Segelbaum from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback ments . 3 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 12 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (east) property line. To allow for the construction (replacement) of a new deck. Hogeboom explained the applicant's request to replace his existing deck. The hardship noted by the applicant is the topography and odd shape of the lot. Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and noted that the east property line jogs in approximately 15 feet in the area of the proposed deck which is creating the need for a variance. He added that because of the jog in the property line staff is supporting this variance request. Sell asked about the dimensions of the proposed new deck. Brent Behn, Applicant, explained that the deck will have two tiers. The first level is 8 feet deep and 12 feet wide Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 25, 2008 Page 5 which is as large as he can build it because of the existing location of egress windows. He added that this proposed new deck will be much safer and much more appealing than the existing deck. He discussed the shape of the lot and reiterated that the jog in the east property line is why he needs to request a variance. Kisch asked about the size of the deck's second level. Behn referred to a drawing of the proposed deck and stated that the second level will be 12 feet deep and 16 feet wide. He noted that there would also be a step leading down to the second level. Sell asked the applicant how long he has lived in this house. Behn said house for 10 years. is Nelson asked about the dimensions of the existing deck. Behn approximately 12 feet by 17 feet in size and has been there a Segelbaum asked how much further the new deck will e to the existing deck. Behn said it would extend approxi east than the existing deck. Kisch asked how far above grade the east end of would be approximately 18 to 24 inches a would be. Behn said it Segelbaum asked the applicant if he ha feet instead of the proposed 12 fee would be 12 feet by 16 feet in sizS; nding the larger deck level out 9 dered that but then the deck be very usable. Kisch asked the applicant i one plane. Behn said his the grade of the lot. He ad impact to the neigh . p Cl~'~idered replacing the existing deck as it was, all on newlli(jeck will be much more pleasing and will follow it will also improve the property without causing an s. McCarty asked setback line. Be appealing the cur ould consider building a one level deck right up to the ould prefer not to because what he is proposing is much more sable. He said he wants the deck to look nice and improve e. Mc~arty sta he applicant could get the same square footage by building the deck 8 feetl~,,~t alon.; e length of the house rather than going so far out from the house with a two levell;g,.ec~iBehn said if he built the deck that way it would be too long and narrow. Kisch asked the applicant if he had considered building the first level of the deck then having a couple of steps leading down to an on-grade patio rather than to another deck. Behn explained that this proposal is phase one of his plans. He would like to level the grade a bit and add on to the house in the future so he doesn't want to build a deck further to the north. McCarty noted that the Board can't grant variances based on future plans. Behn said he thinks his plans fit in with the intent and spirit of the zoning code and have no impact on any neighbors. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 25,2008 Page 6 Sell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Sell closed the public hearing. McCarty said he can see other ways for the applicant to build a deck without needing a variance. Segelbaum said he is somewhat persuaded by adding a level of safety by lowering the deck down. He said he understands that the applicant would like more usable space but that is not a tremendous hardship. He said he would prefer to grant a less . nce because he can see the advantage to lowering this deck. Nelson agreed that the grade in this case is a hardship and th a huge variance. She said she is inclined to support this ropo and not a front yard. fety Kisch stated that the grade is more of constraint in this case. He issue to lower this deck and he can see the benefit of the propo Sell agreed and noted that if the east property lin be an issue. eck would not even MOVED by Kisch, seconded by Nelson ~mCl moti(i)n 0 1 to approve a variance request for 3 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a ~t~n~~tl2 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (east) property line to allow fo shWction(rS'placement) of a new deck. Member McCarty voted no. (08-09-16) ~ction 11.21, Subd. 19 Driveway Setback off the required 3 ft. to a distance of 0 ft. at its closest point to side yard (south) property line. :fo allow for the construction of a new driveway. Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(3)(c) Side Yard Setback Requirements . 3 ft. off the required 12 ft. to a distance of 9 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Purpose: :fo allow for the construction of a new deck. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 25, 2008 Page 7 Hogeboom stated that the variance request listed above regarding the construction of a new deck should be removed from this agenda. He explained that the proposed new "deck" is really considered to be a landing and that 25 square feet of stairs and landings can be located within a setback area. He stated that the applicant has agreed to work within the parameters of the zoning code regarding the construction of the new stairs and landing without requiring a variance. Hogeboom referred to the variance request regarding the construction of a new driveway and explained that the applicant is asking for a variance from the drivewa ck requirements in order to construct a new driveway right up to the south . He noted that a portion of the applicant's proposal involves constructing e has been concern by staff and neighbors that this proposed patio area driveway and not as a patio. Hogeboom stated that the applican that cars will not be allowed to be parked on the patio. the survey and noted that there is 14 feet between the applicant's garage line and questioned how a flat spot would be created and how usable the driveway be if the tree remains. Segelbaum said he assumed if the tree were removed then there would be a flat parking area on the driveway. Henrikson referred to photos of his property and discussed the location of the driveway and fence. McCarty said it appears that the tree would be in the way of the proposed new stairs. i~!e005 regarding dded\;'to the code in t they aren't paved McCarty asked about the reasoning behind the zoning driveways. Hogeboom said the language regarding driv 2005 in order to require that driveways be paved ( right up to the property line. Segelbaum asked if it would be appropriat proposed patio could not be used as a restrict a homeowner from driving over of parking on patios. of approval saying that the tated that the City can not code already addresses the issue Marlin Henrikson, Applicant, e approximately 1 foot of the driveway that goes right t on. He added that he has spot so she can get' d stated that cars will n retaining wall a ed that his e ting driveway comes to within y line. He said that he is proposing to build a new rt because he doesn't have a flat spot to park d relat e that visits so it would also help to have a flat er car. He referred to the proposed attached patio and n it. He added that he is also proposing to build a will be safer for the neighbor to the south. is intending on keeping the existing tree that is located driveway. Henrikson said he would like to keep the tree and cools the house. Segelbaum asked how close the existing driveway is to the property line. Henrikson said the existing driveway is approximately 1 foot away from the property line. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 25,2008 Page 8 Nelson referred to the survey and asked if the area in question was paved at any time in the past. Henrikson said yes the area was paved but it was in really bad shape so he removed the pavement. McCarty said he thinks it would look cleaner to have the entire driveway follow the same line instead of having part of the driveway a foot or two away and then having another part of the driveway right on the property line. The other board members agreed. Henrikson said he intends to install a curb along the edge of the proposed!1l~~Tqriveway to help direct water away from the neighboring property to the south. Sell opened the public hearing. Hogeboom explained that in order for the applicant to replace his exact same location the applicant would need to prove where t located before it was removed. He noted that the as-built su driveway is 2 located feet away from the property line. Ginger Dunlap, 1720 Mendelssohn Avenue North oar deny the variance request. She said she has a right to have a 3-foot the property line for the proposed driveway. She noted that the ap flat driveway if he removed the tree that has been discussed. She ardship in this case and that the existing driveway has never bee he referred to several pictures and stated that the proposed drivewayiillb~ and that her family has the right to breathe clean air and they wo aole. 0 rs are parked that close to her door. She referred to the staff report reg hi ...arianc equest and said the proposed patio area will be used topark c the applicant is just calling it a patio so he can build it right to the prope ows the entire thing will really be a driveway. She stated that the applica d the rk on his property without talking to the City or to her and that he r ed th xisting staircase and buried the debris in his front yard. She said he is doing 0 regard to her even after she told him that his new driveway had t rom the property line. She said she has tried to talk to the applicant s bout his plans but it is futile because he is going to do whatever e said she caught him in his yard with a metal detector and shovel try.; etal stakes. She referred to the survey and noted that the applicant taimng wall and fence are located completely on her property and he ha~qug ho inches into her yard. She said the applicant has "skirted" around the code uirem s and she wants this variance denied. McCarty d to the existing retaining wall and fence and asked if the applicant is the person who installed them. Dunlap said the applicant installed the wall and fence before she moved into her house. Paul Grandbois, 1720 Mendelssohn Avenue North, asked the Board to deny the variance request because there is no hardship. He reiterated that there would be a flat spot to park on the driveway if the existing tree were removed. He showed the Board pictures indicating how much room there would be to park if the tree was removed. He stated that the applicant started this project with no permits, variances or plans. He stated that the Minute$ of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 25, 2008 Page 9 applicant told him that he was going to build a driveway leading to his backyard and that should be able to be done with enough room to follow the setback requirements. He said the only thing that has changed regarding the applicant's plan from the beginning is that he is now calling part of the driveway a patio. He said he knows that this "patio" is really going to be a driveway and asked that it be required to be set back 3 feet from the property line. Sell asked if there is a previous survey on file that would show where the driveway was originally located. Hogeboom stated that there are no other surveys in the . , files. Nelson clarified that because there is no proof of the location of the be on the property the applicant can't replace it with a new drivew Hogeboom said that is correct. said the e noted that eway, not part Segelbaum asked about the definition of a patio versus a drive zoning code doesn't define a driveway so staff uses the iction when he first spoke with the applicant he was referrin driveway and part patio. Kisch asked if the proposed deck would be locate side yard property line. Hogeboom statedt!!!!he. and that is why he is removing it from th endi!; be able to build a landing within the 25 refeetualJQwed. d 15 feet away from the g the landing area a deck d that the applicant should ti uncertain about where the previous driveway was located. He said if f where the driveway used to be located he would feel more comfortable allowing t w driveway to be built in the same location. Otherwise, he would like to see the driveway built 3 feet away from the property line. Nelson agreed that without proof of the previous driveway location the applicant should keep the driveway 3 feet away from the property line. tnel.ocation of the applicant's shed. conform to the zoning code requirements. Sell operty to the south is only 6 inches away from ou e willing move her shed. retaini wall and fence are located Ms. Dunlap's em back onto his property next summer. Segelbaum said he is also cone Hogeboom said the applicant'$ s noted that the shed on the ighi the property line. Dunlap sh Henrikson said he realizes property and he inte to nd reiterated that there is 14 feet between the operty line. He stated that the applicant's plans show that he property line or he wants everything to be right on the nts to make sure that everything is located on the applicant's Kisch referred to the concerns about the patio really being used as a driveway and said that it is hard for the Board to say what the applicant's intent is regarding the use of the patio. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 25, 2008 Page 10 Segelbaum asked if the Board has the authority to require that the driveway and patio be separated. Hogeboom said the City cannot limit access to a backyard. McCarty asked what the Code says about driving over a patio. Hogeboom said a patio can be driven over but cars can't be parked on it. MOVED by Segelbaum to deny the variance request for 3 ft. off the required 3 ft. to a distance of 0 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line to allow for the construction of new driveway. The motion died due to the lack of a secon Kisch suggested tabling the applicant's request to allow him time to original driveway's location. Hogeboom noted that the City does n of the original driveway location. Henrikson said he has proof of driveway was located and he would be willing to have his req Dunlap asked if the applicant comes to the City with a p' ure 0 s if that would be considered proof of the driveway location. Ho ed t the Director of Planning and Development will look at what the ap~lliC' d make a decision. He added that he thinks it will be hard for the appli~ant to e wh e the previous driveway was without having an old survey. Kisch~~id he waPl~s to give the applicant a chance to prove the location of the previouay,He st d that he thinks no more work should be done by the applicant u ha'sith oof that has been requested. Dunlap said the work the applicant the Board has to go by what the stated that if it turns out there' the Board will agree to den r horrible. Nelson explained that 'res and not by how things look. Kisch f t e vious driveway's location then he thinks equested. Carty d motion carried unanimously to table the t's request) for 3 ft. off the required 3 ft. to a distance of iy~rd (south) property line to allow for the construction of htil the October 2008 Board of Zoning Appeals to prove previously existing driveway. Avenue North - Continued (tabled) Item Hogeboo inded the Board that the property owner at 2310 Byrd Avenue North came before them at their June 24, 2008 meeting requesting a variance to build a deck. At that meeting that Board tabled the applicant's request to the September meeting in order for him to come back to the Board after he had time to consider alternative designs for his proposed deck. He stated that the applicant has not proposed any alternative designs so staff is therefore asking that the Board officially deny this variance request. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 25, 2008 Page 11 MOVED by Nelson, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to deny the applicant's request for 16 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 19 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (west) property line to allow for the construction ofa deck on the side of the home. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 pm. Mike Sell, Chair 08-09-16 1800 Mendelssohn Ave. N. Marlin Henrikson, Applicant Hey Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: October 20, 2008 To: From: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Continued Item - 1800 Mendelssohn Avenue North - Marlin Henrikson, Applicant Subject: Marlin Henrikson, owner of 1800 Mendelssohn Avenue appeared before the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) on September 23, 2008 to request a variance from City Code to construct a driveway extension within three feet of his south side property line. Mr. Henrikson was advised by the BZA to provide documentation that demonstrates the layout and location of his existing driveway. The request was tabled to the October meeting of the BZA, to allow time forMr. Henrikson to obtain requested documentation. As requested, Mr. Henrikson has provided images of his preexisting driveway to the Planning Department. However, staff determines material used for the section of driveway abutting the property line to be landscaping material, and not eligible to be classified as a legal non- conforming use. Therefore, to be allowed to build a driveway closer than three feet to the property line, the applicant must obtain a variance from the BZA. Per City Code, Mr. Henrikson may replace any bituminous area of his existing driveway with impervious materials. The crushed rock material displayed in the images provided by Mr. Henrikson may be replaced by similar landscaping materials, but may not be paved per City Code regulations. Mr. Henrikson has obtained a Grading and Erosion Control Permit to reconstruct the complying portion of his driveway, as well as a proposed patio to the south of his garage. It has come to the attention of the Inspections Department that the grading work that was done in preparation for the proposed patio has exposed foundational footings. Exposed footings can endanger the structural integrity of the home. The Inspections Department will work with Mr. Henrikson to correct this error and bring the patio excavation work into compliance with the City Code and the Building Code. In addition to the request to extend his driveway, Mr. Henrikson is also requesting a variance to allow for the construction of a deck on the south side of his property. Per City Code, Mr. Henrikson's south side yard setback requirement is 12 feet. Mr. Henrikson is requesting to encroach 3 feet into the setback. Under City Code, Mr. Henrikson would be allowed to construct a 25 square foot landing area into the setback area. However, Mr. Henrikson states that he needs to exceed this area due to the need to allow room to carry objects up the stairs. A landing exceeding 25 square feet in area would be reclassified as a deck, thereby subject to building setback requirements. A review of City files indicates that no prior variances were obtained for this property. The proposed projects require variances from the following sections of City Code: . Section 11.21, Subd. 19 Driveway Setback Requirements A three foot setback is required between a driveway and a property line. The applicant is requesting that this provision be waived, so that he may construct a driveway to be within 0 feet of the south side property line. . Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(3)(c) Side Yard Setback Requirements In the case of lots having a width of 65 feet or less, the side setbacks for structures 15 feet or less in height along the north or west side shall be 10% of the lot width and along the south or east side shall be 20% of the width. In this case, the south side yard setback requirement is 12 feet. The applicant is requesting 3 feet off of the required 12 feet to a distance of 9 feet at its closest point to side (south) yard property line for the construction of a deck. C: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Allen Barnard, City Attorney Roger McCabe, Building Inspector Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist 1008 191M 1900 1820 1816 1812 11800 Mendelssohn Ave. N.I 1808 1120 ~ ! -< 5 :Il = I ~ '"'" $ :2 1116 1712 1704 1700 NAPER ST (l) 1624 1628 M~12'~;Ni:fullt'C~tM$ < C<<J'f'-q't~C::}l~GS~ 1909 1905 940Il 1821 1817 I ;g 1813 I 180il ~ m :2 1805 1801 1121 1717 1713 1709 1705 1701 1629 o 191M 1i1l12 twO EARL Sf 9385 1816 1812 UIOll 1804 1800 163Il 1632 1628 l&Stl 1913 1905 93t1l1 9345 1817 1815 NAPER Sf 9345 11133 1G29 ::x: 1% :t: o III I/l ...J \.&J o Z I.LJ Z }If.j 2(" In (fJ CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR: Marlin Henrickson 1800 Mendelssohn Ave. N Golden Valley, MN 55427 33 c.. W '..,) X 1....J I l--1 U/7: a-g , , NO,/lJ04 1-5-1' WLI<-DUf IIfI~1t 98 ~) ~ I.() {ltg91 111~r... 17 I . ~ I ~ . ~ 1 ~. 1 z ~ I Q I 1-- LOT 20 :-... (,~. '(J fp O' ;r. i. fJ.r~;. q3~ ~I . qz.'I. ,?D "f(q~5/J , J~ 1;(.94. . \ ( _to q'1-(1 >- 1~;t;~>1~A ~ .~ 1;) ... (:) t:::l "1 l~ i- .~ 1..;) 'f ~:~ ~b Nt). /O'()/} <tQSU, DAlE. J'rdR'.J FRIlMJ; '\) :7 '~ ~ r~NTulALk-Oul l-IbtL~E. : ',/irfi,;" j'h a~.s : . :.., -,,-- - ~ - -= I meA" tANOr r<' ~i GAIV1'V>I!f.( ~ 3/1 Q'- ,. (.~:' ..:r " " OI(I!lIW~Y',' </Z1.8t ..... .. I" I?-- - -- - - f/J__ - - _q~'r.J.;l: . ........ - ,q,/l4WQ?i ...(11JA/5. mz.rnl/V/1(6 I>~ )(9.15.'S IIrIAL'- /'oJ(). Tt20 -12fh9'7,- 5a903.b'SlJ"w- 1-5-P rF(I)NT 1.I.JLK41ut J1t>lisi! :._t~ T tH " I Legal Description: (Torrens) Lot 19, Block 5, LAKEVIEW HEIGHTS, including one balf of vacated alley, except tbe easterly 17.00 feet taken for road purpos~s. Benchmark: S.W.. Cor. TBS@ D/W No.. 1720 Mendelssobn Ave. N N.G.V.D.1929 adjusted elevation == 934.68 feet. lh~reby.eertify tbattbis Slll"Veywas prepared by !meotunder my direct. supervision. and that I am.a duly .Regis~red L3ad Surveyor under the 13wsof the Stat~ ofMin.ll~sot~. Surveyed by me this 15th day 'of Septefuber, 2008. " 11~.'~ ~; Herb F. Lemire RLS Minnesota Reg. No. 13349 4416 Abbott Ave. N Robbinsdale, MN 55422 Pbone: 763.537.0497 Scale: 1" = 20' o Denotes iron monument xooO.o = Existing elevation Bearing~>are a~su~~d 5 .. , :~ 'j "':..t~ i i ~' ~ 08-10-15 1520 Toledo Ave. N. Donna Nelson, Applicant Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: October 17, 2008 To: From: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals Joe Hogeboom, City Planner 1520 Toledo Avenue North Donna Nelson, Applicant Subject: Donna Nelson is the owner of the property located at 1520 Toledo Avenue North. Ms. Nelson is requesting a variance to City Code to construct a two-stall garage, which would be attached to her home. The proposed addition would encroach into the front yard setback of the property. No prior variances have been obtained for this property. As described by Ms. Nelson, the lack of a two-stall garage creates a hardship. Currently, there is a one-stall garage located on the property. Ms. Nelson plans to tear the existing garage down and replace it with a new garage. The proposed garage would extend no further into the front yard setback area than the existing garage does. The configuration of the home, and the location of side windows prevent the ability to move the proposed garage back to comply with front yard setback regulations. The proposed project requires variance from the following sections of City Code: . Section 11.21, Subd.10(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 along the street right of way line. Ms. Nelson is requesting 1.6 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 33.4 feet at its closest point to the front (west) yard property line to allow for the construction of an attached two-stall garage. The Planning Department supports this proposal, having determined that it meets the defined criteria of hardship. ~:':: ,"?- St. (Croix Pond ~' 49IlO 1700 5328 S30lI 41121 4901 5318 4930 4920 .912 1644 53235317 5311 5307 52Z5 5217 1630 5248 5310 lfiOO 5320 1524 534115330 5350 5100 Sll40 5020 SOOO 4940 4930 4920 1515 5311 5249 1500 5321 1501 5331 WINSOALE ST N 1445 1449 S02S 4901 1449 1428 1448 stSs 1441 1440 494S 4937 4931 1455 1437 1444 1433 1430 1449 1435 1425 1415 15350 5330 5300 1400 ~..../. .. TOPELRt> .... ...... 535~ I I 5305 I M;.wawm;l 'ff:Ml N~S, ~-Vt~CiLOOiSOO ~ 1345 1380 Ins tt>.7fr.61 iJduPlI n/)(I.$ X ~ D/illve4f.q ':i ____"..-.....l3,:;.1f-_ _ f~ ' i;c r ~~'(OPV.l(~l ;>,,'>110/ Am:;/'II. I ' X C ..1111~ ,. . $';; gr(t.r I~ ~J 76" I 20~.... . i""" - - -~ P/(OrorEf) L:AI?/JGE AJ;j}It. :."'-: .l"... .' _ _ _ _ ,..... I I _ __ _ ~.o__ J..31 (1{1J.~'I51 ~ 'I. <;J4'f,7 t i t I ~I "'f ~q? /if tf- :I: .... eE o z 1-- - l.&J' :J'~ ~~ ~~ I tl ~ O( . O~ ~l f2 ., ~~:1..q ~ ~r I JD 11'1SL93 1-' - . I', LegalDescription: Lot 26, AUDITORS SUBDIVISION NO. 330. I II ~7fI.5Q CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR: Donna Nelson 1520 Toledo Ave. N . Golden Valley, MN 55422 \ LOT 27 - 2-J(),~()- $, - z.oo..at:7- f.~5". z. It. :I.LOT 26.. I area:: Zt; (Jt)tJ 5/;Pt eX~UIQ / 41 ~ 71),-,6/:)17 1)114. , ~ ~(/f, ~ \, I ~ ~ ~ " 'l-JfZ.tJ &>1$/10 8-$.7 'It ~- -~ , - 2<<,.0<:;- -- Z~().I()O - .)f'f"S',$~ Ji.90W-~ ,7'1.t..1 -- 3l NO.1 j./JO I'h. 5 ,pllll FRAMe. fI~II{'E 2'5, Benchmark: TNH, NE, Toledo Ave. n @ Winsdale St. N.G.V.D. 1929 adjusted elevation = 902.78 feet. IiJ-i L Herb F. Lemire RLS Minnesota Reg. No. 13349 4416 Abbott Ave. N Robbinsdale, MN 55422 Phone: 763.537.0497 LOT I :- ('j -r I'" .... -,' . ( I I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under. my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Surveyed by me this 6th day of October 6th, 2008. Scale: 1" = 30' o Denotes iron monument xooO.o = Existing elevation Bearings are assumed City of Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Zoning Code Variance Application 1. Street address of property involved in this application: /520 -r!Jli-J)d -r/-v( AI bOLO t~ VAt...il-l/ I / Applicant: '--:lOAlNA H- NU(;{)Ai Name hl<l' 55~>;V' 2. /5d-C> 7tJC-~;:;6 +v€- AI Address 7C,3 55"/-{)O~9 Business Phone Home Phone Cell Phone don'YltLYYt'x.RJ~I!JYt @o ~lJf ~ R. >t ~ t::- 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. 4. Yiu--~ ~.~ ~_~ I.,;} '><~',,-t.~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ 0-- /:>IKd-o/~f-o I:ft-~~/~ th-- ~~P;fOLr/Kd<JJ 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. ( ~ ( d~ ~ ~ .d...b6 ~ ~ /G"/M 7JUh'l- 7L4..c' ~ tul~~';lx~'~~.a-~~~-r~ ... ' tkXwJ~~~ ~~I~~"-<L-~~ T:k- ~~ ~ t::Iu- tU-L ~ ..6.t :33. ~v..v . . 3 -p ~~Uh ~ . ~4~ nt .~.~ To ~best oi my k~~ ~atements fo~ this app atlo are r~e 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. ~~ ')eflAl~_ Signature of Applicant 5. 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: II" Completed application form, including signatures of surrounding propertyowners. if 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. v 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. Print Name Comment Print Name Address 11~?;'~/)dtt, /11. r;; II 7 (p g-dt>g-fJ1f3 &-S-'1~;; -4 ~/U'5"1J ~t!/~ Signature Comment Signature /S-/~..... - /'?::/L /.SoLI (() Address /Jt.//~ AI. 6-_1./ IJ-u ~ Print Name ;Z; .:PUII~o M $ t-lfV,q Comment&;;() /' /7e/tj'h /;t:? y- o Signature c/~ ~ . 6../.1-1 w~~71 \> Address ~/de~ I )a,{(:Z,;~}NA/. j-;S-~2--2- J Print Name ERJL E/~~~ /'lNp ,AlltI~ lAvrO( Comment '11 ~,/ I )e ., n ;c.<.. c; )J/7/tJ/1 lc> ~~r J, i>v')(. --~ Signature ~. . - Address /501.7 -;;;L-~/Jo Av'; /fJ Print Name ~v1tn(. 11: La,l';~l , -F~~v~ J~A LA;4 /O-;L-af Comment Signature Address S/"~~~V....~ G V .sr1~ Print Name Comment Signature Address Print Name Comment Signature Address l' 1 , \ I \ I \ ~ \ \ I \ \ \ , \ \ \ .. ,*,~.~\ \ i \ \ . \ < . \ . \ \ I . ~ , \ \ \ , . , , l \\\\ \ \ \ 1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 08-10-16 6736 Glenwood Ave. Jake & Kelly Schetnan, Applicants Hey Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: October 17, 2008 To: From: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals Joe Hogeboom, City Planner 6736 Glenwood Avenue Jake and Kelly Schetnan, Applicants Subject: Jake and Kelly Schetnan are the owners of the property located at 6736 Glenwood Avenue. The applicants are requesting a variance to City Code to construct an addition to their existing attached one-stall garage. The proposed addition would encroach into the side yard setback of the property. No prior variances have been obtained for this property. The applicants state that the lack of a two-stall garage creates a hardship for their family. Currently, there is a one-stall garage with an attached carport located on the property. The applicants would like to remove the carport and replace it with a second garage stall. The proposed project requires a variance from the following section of City Code: . Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(3)(a) 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 along, if the width of the property exceeds 100 feet. The applicants are requesting 10 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 5 feet at the closest point to the side (west) yard property line to allow for the construction of a garage addition. The Planning Department supports this proposal, having determined that it meets the defined criteria of hardship. The location of the proposed garage addition is a logical location for a necessary additional garage stall. Mill 42.5 420 6473 &46/l 415 6810 i is l>o i:l ;I! 6461 410 6855 350 16736 Glenwood Ave.] 6llOO 325 315 68311 6820 C6Bi:iil) 245 m 22.5 6630 240 6620 li;otI m ;;0 ~ -< l> ~ lI! 6BOlI 205 6141 66HI 215 22lI z !!: "" i a 6101 201 6633 ~ I l'I't > i:l lI! 131 2lIlI 205 200 145 135 <:<'~f":9'li: ,;<:) t<Xi.itCQlS ~ 130 o e9fl. 51-l/NarLE5 EITI-lEli1 WEA TI-lEli1ED arREY OR 6LACK BEE EBB BEE BEE DD DDD DDD DDD ~\~ VQI' tg:=t-~ ~~ ~ , 10'-0" , l' ~\ \\ r\~e.J +0 be... 2 s\t"'I~~ ~oo(' ";) CULTURED &TONE / POUR FRONT PORCI-l 6UEDE DR"'5TACK LEDarE5TONE, JU5T UNDEIi1 FRONT DOOR &TEP& AT FRONT OF PORCI-l FRONT DOOR "MA60NITE" LINCOLN PARK 6E1i1IE& 6L T -22lil-3caS-3 WINDOW& WI-lITE OR CLA.,. DARK arREY VIN.,. &IDINar arEORarlA PACIFIC CEDAR LANE IRONWOOD COLOR &GlUARE CRAFT&MAN COLUMN& WI.IITE OR CLA.,. Ii./l';' .-- '3 " n' ~ .1~J?;:; 1f4tJSE , \ ~~ "S '-1tR - ; ("""" 1 ~;JO ~ ~ t , . ,~~ " ~ "'~ ~ > ..-'V " .3 .' f; +ke: (PO w:t{ tvrn . , at'< J fOf,ued r.li ::2 f +'0 pf'"Ovtde f,Y" fYI/$S t$ ~., e j~er IPft1, j tJttJe r -+f) f /e tl", rl)pf. \ e. IN", ':if, ! ,'y lH fer II *te lVL. ~eA Je'5 !'9~ I 31.' PrfJfq sei (t> ~ -~ f ..,... -t- ... ,,," ~ \f""> -+- ...... c:. ~.:+ <;.. irregularly shaped lot or having steep slopes on the property, for example. Variances can only be granted if they are "in keeping with the spirit and intent" of the City's zoning laws and do not substantially change the character of Golden Valley or the neighborhood. Economic concerns do not constitute a hardship. What happens at BZA Meetings? The BZA meetings are held on the fourth Tuesday of each month at 7 pm in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Your surrounding neighbors will have been informed about the meeting and invited to attend. At the BZA meeting, a City staff person will first explain your request to the Board. Then you and your neighbors will have an opportunity to speak about your project. After hearing all of the information, the Board members will discuss your project and will most likely make a decision that night. If approved, you can apply for a building permit as early as the next day in the Golden Valley Inspections Department. What if I'm turned down by the BZA? If the BZA turns down your variance application, you can appeal the decision to the City Council. An appeal application must be filed within 30 da s. The decision of the Council is final. City of Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Zoning Code Variance Application For Office Application Nt Date Receivec BZA Meeting I Amount Recei 1. Street address of property involved in this application: J..n3-3lo G\U\wood AV-e Go\deV\ Vo..ll~~~N 551-12.==j- 2. Applicant: 3<A.~e....+~.e.\\,-, Sc..h-e.....~Vl \ Name Address City/State/Zip ~\\\.J r...d\ Tla~-LD::F,- ~qO=r 'i-lR.~ - d..~- '-\ \ 3ln . Business Phone Home Phone Cell Phone V\-t\\.... SCh.e~c.r\ ~ ~~~ \. c r'J.--.-.. ~ \ o ~ h-e...-~O-'r'"'\ (0) ~..1 \ . C-.oYy-.. 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. tlA.Y(e..n\-\\.~\ 'f\CA.\f'L \ ~^'\\ <jWrrA~~ lA.JI-\-h a:-\-\-o..u-....<-cl co:; ~/-\-. LU-J...Vl4- -\0 -\-iA'K.e dOJ..-Y'\ ~{X;>,,+ Wr\d <Add S\nq\.e..- 2'" d Cj D. {o.qe..- S\r^-\ \ 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. ~~ V\J. hCAVc\ ~ ..{'(k.,^",~ \-....\ ('}f-- L\ -\a hCAv<:.... S\Y'() \-L- , \ , o lA.~CA.C\e.. . , . C-w . ~/;" '0.~ (\()~ ~~;,. ~r -\"'-"''t'" ~ be . ~'l'\ \+W-L 'S-be- ", "\1\ \-\-. ~\::::o nW64-0 qe:;\- *~ \Y\\-o \-\-, ~ S~\\. '::>eP c..., ...~, R Y\;" 0; c-h...to(.::-' ok- \-toty'\<2- 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. /L.~.... /" /' Signature of 6. Applicant 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. 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. ,/ 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 ptace 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 }fJU necessarily agree or object to the project. If you wish, you Illay comment on the project. Comments can contain language of agr.eeing with the project, objecting to the project or other statements regatding the project. Print Name ,(+.fV{IA ~(((f~ Comment --1-1.}~ ~1u\ I lJ.ll l o'>k ~.t kc ; -4~------~ Address .~~~ Signature Print Name ~'f ~A-\- r\(il.VY\ L Comment Signature W",I.- ~g II...... ~ ,. '/ ~l",'" Address tLM& (74--",....L1lJ.o.> Cti] Print Name _17 MAL- t S L,le Torn L1 Ai~ h.. ( Comment ~ nl\!,e:: It,;)\11i~ Siltn~ ~ ~ 'Q dress 10"141 ~~~ fJVlj fJC).J~V 'JSS\I1..-7 Print Name I(E-~T~) cd OIC~ O~ Comment 0 [L 0 t tCYD f:) 'Ti c ~ Signature ~~ f))~ Address ::z / S i 7)/J tr40 /9u- N. s s-cr:!Z"'1 Print Name \I\J ~r\-\ ~ ~'('t"''fe_)(?' ~o f\n;.~) Comment Lv q. ,~. G l.Arx.,vcx:xJ AV'e- G V Signature Address Print Name