Loading...
06-23-09 BZA Agenda Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, June 23, 2009 7pm 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers I. Approval of Minutes - May 26, 2009 II. The Petitions are: 6480 Wayzata Blvd. (09-06-07) Vladimir Sivriver. Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.47, Subd. 6(B) Front, Side and Rear Yard Setbacks, Surface Parking Requirements . 15 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 0 ft. to the side yard (west) property line. Purpose: To bring the existing parking lot into conformance with Zoning Code requirements. Request: Waiver from Section 11.47, Subd. 6(C){2) Side and Rear Yard Setbacks, Buildings Requirements . 10ft. off the required 10ft. to a distance of 0 ft. to the side yard (east) property line. Purpose: To bring the existing structure into conformance with Zoning Code requirements. Request: Waiver from Section 11.47, Subd. 8(H) Parking Screening Requirements . 5 ft. off the required 5 ft. landscaped frontage strip to a distance of 0 ft. to the side yard (west) property line. Purpose: To bring the existing parking lot into conformance with Zoning Code Requirements. Request: Waiver from Section 11.47, Subd. 6(G) Maximum Impervious Surface Requirements . Waive provision to allow greater than 65% total impervious land coverage. Purpose: To bring the existing property into conformance with Zoning Code Requirements. 309 Turnpike Road. (09-06-08) Natasha Solorieff. Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd.11(A)(3)(b) Side Yard Setback Requirements . 12.8 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 2.2 ft. to the side yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of an addition to the home and attached garage. III. Other Business IV. Adjournment This document is available in alternate formats upon a n-hounequest. Please call 763-593-8006 (TrY: 763-593-39(8) to make a requesLExamples of alternate formats may include large print, electronic, Braille,audioca$sette,etc. Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 26, 2009 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, May 26,2009 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 Plann' Representatives McCarty. Also present were City Planner Joe Hogebo Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. II. The Petitions are: 4015 Wayzata Blvd. (09-05-02) Jesse Toutaes, Applicant I. Approval of Minutes - March 24, 2009 MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carri the March 24, 2009 minutes as submitted. Request: Waiver from S Requiremen 11(A)(3)(b) Side Yard Setback Purpose: construction of a second garage stall. Hogeboom re~ requesting a si this prope e the gar e property and explained that the applicant is order to construct a second garage stall. He stated that ces in 2001 for the construction of a similar proposal however constructed. M loc 35.5 feet to t 'ng to the survey it appears that the proposed garage addition will be t of the existing garage. Hogeboom noted that the existing garage is om the front property line. If the applicant wants to build closer than 35 property line he would also need to request a front yard variance. Segelbaum asked Hogeboom to clarify the proposed additions shown on the survey. Hogeboom explained that the survey illustrates the proposal requested in 2001 and the current proposal. Jesse Toutges, Applicant, said he is proposing to build the second garage stall 2 feet closer to the front property line than the existing garage. He added that the current garage is 20 feet wide and he would like to have a 22-foot wide garage. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 26, 2009 Page 2 Kisch noted that a front yard variance request for 1.5 ft. off the required 35 ft. would need to be added to the agenda. The Board agreed. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Kisch and motion carried unanimously to add a variance request to the agenda for 1.5 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 33.5 ft. at its closest point to the front yard property line to allow for the construction of a second garage stall. Kisch asked if there would be one garage door or two a said there would be two separate garage doors. ck on he lot as possible but n on the survey comes as g the front of the proposed Toutges explained that it would be easier for him to move the propose forward because there is a well area he is trying to avoid toward the c garage. McCarty asked if the proposed garage could be built ove we said yes, but it would be more difficult because he would havet move the water meter. Segelbaum asked if the proposed addition is pus still avoiding the well area. Toutges said yes close as he can to the well area. He adde new garage out by 2 feet will look more Sell opened the public hearing. S closed the public hearing. g no one wishing to comment, Sell Nelson said she doesn't h Segelbaum agreed that t egarding the side yard variance request. ce request seems reasonable. T outges noted that to their front yar pro curvature of th property Ii th 1-394 sho require property has a garage that is located 2 or 3 feet closer what he is requesting. McCarty questioned if the he neighboring garage appear closer to the front . Nelson stated that she feels the front yard setbacks along slightly differently than normal front yard setback t applicant's proposal in 2001 had a different garage configuration uire a front yard variance so there are other options in this case that pplicant to have a two-stall garage without requiring a front yard variance. The Boar mbers agreed that there isn't a strong enough hardship in this case to allow a front yard variance especially since there are other options. Kisch suggested tabling this request in order to allow the Board time to review how a front yard variance would impact the surrounding properties. Toutges said he would like to start his project next week. Sell asked the applicant if he would go ahead with the project if the Board denies the front yard variance request. Toutges said yes. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 26, 2009 Page 3 MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Kisch and motion carried unanimously to approve the request for 5.9 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 6.6 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (west) property line to allow for the construction of a second garage stall. MOVED by Kisch, seconded by McCarty and motion carried 4 to 1 to deny the request for 1.5 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 33.5 ft. at its closest point to the front (north) property line to allow for the construction of a second garage stall. Sell voted no. Hogeboom explained that that the a existing front steps. He stated tha realizing he needed a variance f City is considering this struc applicant were to build a r front porch and he would variance. 1525 Sumter Ave. N. (09-05-03) Michael Johnson, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A Requirements . 9 ft. off the required 35 ft. to to the front yard (east) pr Purpose: To allow for the constru front steps. to be built over existing to construct a deck over his 1 began construction on the deck not r s~~!:>ack requirements. He added that the ck, nofa stoop or porch. He noted that if the posed deck it would be considered an open d it 30 feet from the front property line without a ed if the 26-foot measurement is from the bottom of . He asked if there is an allowance made to allow steps Hogeboom stated that when a structure is considered a deck om the edge of the platform. If this structure was considered a wo included. McCarty questioned if steps would be considered Hogeboom said yes. , Applicant, referred to his plans for the deck and explained his proposal. Nelson the partially constructed deck is only missing the steps or if more deck area is going to be added. Johnson stated that the landing area is already constructed and that the steps are the only thing yet to be added. Segelbaum asked the applicant why he isn't just replacing the existing front steps with larger concrete steps. Johnson stated that a huge new piece of concrete didn't seem viable and that he was unable to remove the existing concrete. He noted that all of the houses on his block were built right at the 35-foot front yard setback line. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 26, 2009 Page 4 Sell stated that the applicant really only had 3 feet of landing area when the swing of the door is considered. He said he agreed that front landing areas should be made larger because they are safer and more functional. Segelbaum asked if the existing size of the concrete steps is dictating the size of the proposed deck. Johnson said yes. Kisch asked what dictated the proposed triangular shaped side portion of Johnson said having the space on the side of the deck allows more ro swing open. Segelbaum asked if there will be railings installed. Johnson sai installed on the driveway side of the deck. Segelbaum asked steps around the entire deck. Johnson said he would still need steps. McCarty asked the applicant if the City saw him b Johnson said yes. made him stop. Segelbaum asked if the depth of the deck portion was removed if there would still side portion of the deck, the new dec located. but the side triangular nson said if he removed the e concrete steps are currently Sell opened the public hearin closed the public hearing. g no one wishing to comment, Sell because construction of the deck has already began, nd it would be hard for the applicant to create a new 25 a variance. He said he thinks the landing area could , concerned about the depth of the deck as he is the shape of more comfortable if the size of it were reduced and if it had a deck/landing area. McCarty agreed and said that if this proposal would e Board before construction started he wouldn't have supported this e is having difficulty allowing the steps in the front. Kisch sai doesn't think the Board has the right to place design restrictions on the proposed deck and that the decision should be based on hardship and setback requirements not style. He said he is inclined to grant the variance request. Segelbaum said he is focusing more on the size of the landing area. McCarty said he is concerned that construction of the deck was started without a permit and in his opinion this proposal is not appropriate. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 26, 2009 Page 5 Sell said he thinks the language in the zoning code needs to be clarified regarding stoops, landings, decks and front porches. The Board agreed. McCarty said he would address the issue with the Planning Commission. Segelbaum suggested adding a condition to limit the width of the deck to 8.6 feet from the edge of the house and removing the small triangular shaped area on the side. McCarty asked where the steps would be placed. Segelbaum said he thinks the location of the steps is a separate issue. Kisch said he thinks the location of the deck a are dependent on each other. McCarty said he is fine with allowing a large but he doesn't want to see the steps go any closer to the front yard pro y current steps. Sell noted that the steps can't go out into the drive an the side of the deck they would have to walk around the entire Segelbaum said he is comfortable allowing the steps in front more like a landing, not a deck. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Net required 35 ft. to a distance of 26 ft. at i to allow for the construction of new d that the landing/platform area of t McCarty voted no. 02 to add a condition .6 ft. in size. Kisch MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Nelson and m that the landing/platform area of the deck be no I and McCarty voted no. d 4 to 1 to allow 9 ft. off the front yard (east) property line front steps with the condition an 8.6 ft by 5.6 ft. in size. ction 11.21, Subd.11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback . off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 29.5 ft. at its closest int to the front yard (east) property line. o allow for the construction of a second garage stall. Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements . 5 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 10ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a second garage stall. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 26, 2009 Page 6 Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(3)(d) Articulation Requirements . The wall of the addition along the south property line will be 37 ft. in length without articulating Purpose: To allow for the construction of a second garage stall. Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and explained the appli construct a second garage stall which requires three variances. He t hardship noted by the applicant is that they currently have a one- gara Segelbaum asked if the articulation requirements apply to all Hogeboom said that only side walls are required to be articulat effect between houses. Ian Bigham, Applicant, referred to the survey of h. asking for the new garage addition to be located not 29.5 as indicated in the staff report. Nels addition needs to be built closer to the fro current garage is only 20 feet deep and,t of the garage that would be difficult d that they are e front yard property line, .cant why the garage am explained that the rete porch located to the rear Segelbaum asked if the new gar porch is being extended into floor is higher than the gar in a portion of the porch area since the igham, Applicant, stated that the porch Nelson said she doe n't h concerned about th ssues regarding the side yard variance request but is ance request. space shown on the plan drawings and asked be considered accessory structure space. Hogeboom said posed garage space approaches 1,000 square feet. Kisch work space and porch be made smaller so they would not need ceo Mr. Bigham said he was concerned about the roof trusses if he f the garage and porch. public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Sell lic hearing. Segelbaum said he is alright with the side yard variance and the lack of articulation however he is concerned by the front yard variance request. Nelson stated that the way the porch was originally constructed causes somewhat of a hardship in this case. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 26, 2009 Page 7 Kisch asked the applicants if there would be one or two garage doors on the proposed new addition. Mr. Bigham said there would be one garage door. Kisch said he is fine with the lack of articulation in this case. He added that a 20-foot wide garage might work because there would be sufficient work/storage space in the back of the garage. Hogeboom referred to the survey and stated that he believes the front yard variance request for 5.5 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 29.5 ft. is correct as stated in the staff report. Sell asked if 22 feet x 22 feet is standard for a two-stall garage. Hog not written standards or minimum requirements but it has been c Board to consider a 22 foot x 22 foot garage a minimal two-stall ne wishing to comment, Sell Nelson asked if the existing house is considered non-conformi feet from the front property line. Hogeboom said it is no sid because it was built prior to 1982. Segelbaum asked' would require a variance if it was built along the s Hogeboom stated that any new construction woul the proposed addition would require a one fo t va same plane as the front of the existing gar Sell opened the public hearing. Seei closed the public hearing. MOVED by Segelbaum, sec variance for 1 ft. off the re yard (east) property line t hand otion carried unanimously to approve a distance of 34 ft. at its closest point to the front structlon of a second garage stall. MOVED by Nelson, variance for 5 ft.!. off t yard (south) prop cCarty and motion carried unanimously to approve a ft. to a distance of 10ft. at its closest point to the side or the construction of a second garage stall. onded by Kisch and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve a of the addition along the south property line to be 37 ft. in length allow for the construction of a second garage stall. McCarty voted elo Dr. (09-05-05) mad & Mariam Vedadi, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(3)(b) Side Yard Setback Requirements . 9.5 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 3 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 26,2009 Page 8 Purpose: To allow for the construction of a second garage stall with living space above. Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and explained the applicant's proposal to build a second garage stall with living space above. He stated that staff has some concern about this proposal regarding drainage and the proposed 3-foot distance to the north property line. He said staff is recommending approval of the proposal however they felt it would be better if the second garage stall were built 6.5 feet away from t rty line rather than 3 feet as requested which would allow the applicants to ha O-fo ide garage. Kisch asked if staff's main concern is the grade of the 10 McCarty said he would feel comfortable allowing the proposed from the side yard property line. Segelbaum asked if there are reasons the applic the rear of the house. Hogeboom said it would b this lot however it would cause a greater dist require a 3-foot setback from the property etached garage to uild a detached garage on and a new driveway would uire a variance. Mohammad Vedadi, Applicant, state currently he has a very small singl a 12.5-foot wide garage stall on t property surveyed he realized were and the existing gar line. He referred to the st as recommended the insi suggestion of buildi have to be rem ved, driveway and it I . g a second garage stall because He s ed that he originally wanted to add d<I~is property, however when he had the lines weren't located where he thought they only 12.5 feet away from the side yard property . n and noted that if he built a 20-wide garage sion would only be 18 feet. He referred to the arage in the back yard and explained that trees would slope, he would still need a variance for a new thetically to have a garage in the back yard. ensions of the proposed garage. Vedadi stated that if he built e dimensions of the garage would be 21.5 ft. x 22 ft. S ide wall of the existing garage would remain. Vedadi said the existing Id be removed. Sell asked if there would be one garage door or two. ould like to have 2 separate garage doors. Vedadi referred to the survey and noted that the house was placed oddly on lot. There is 22 feet of side yard area on the south side of the lot and only 12.5 feet on the north side of lot. He noted that there is an additional 17 feet between the property line and the neighboring property to the north. Sell said he is concerned about there being enough room along the north property line for maintenance. Segelbaum added that if the Board allows a variance for the garage addition Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 26, 2009 Page 9 to be built that he would like staff to review the plans again because it would be changing the staff recommendation of 6.5 feet. Hogeboom stated staff will review the plans again as part of the building permit process and the drainage and erosion control permit process. Kisch asked the applicant what he would like the inside garage dimensions to be. Vedadi said if he stays 5 feet away from the property line the inside dimension would only be 19.5 feet in width. He said the variance he is requesting would allow a 21.5-foot inside dimension which is a minimal 2-stall garage and it will not ruin the aesthe . e neighborhood. to the north. Vedadi noted ot than his and that they have Segelbaum asked the applicant if he has spoken to the neighbor said he has spoken with his neighbors and they are content wit Segelbaum asked the applicant if had considered building a ta explained that there is an existing bathroom located dir be were to build a tandem garage he would have to buil would look bad. He said he has considered every work the best. Segelbaum said he is concerned about th that the neighbor's house is set back 1 said they feel it will be ok visually. McCarty said he is not comfortab feet away from the side yard garage to be 5 feet from t could be added to the re building a garage in the ba He added that there a the back and there is they want the liv, ce request allowing the garage to be 3 that he ould be more comfortable allowing the . He added that he feels a detached garage us :'~~dadi reiterated that he would be opposed to ecause logistically and aesthetically it wouldn't work. a lot of additional concrete needed to build a garage in rage space and living space in the existing house so he proposed new garage space. pplicant buy some property from the neighbor to the south. Issues buying property from the south because this property is Kisc grading the rear yard in order to build a garage may cause more drainag s. He said it would be environmentally better to build the garage addition to the side, her than to the rear, because there would be less impervious surface and run-off. Sell agreed that there are some grading issues with this lot. Hogeboom stated that staff agreed that there would be more impact to the surrounding properties if a garage was built in the back yard. Sell suggested allowing a 4.5 foot variance in order to allow the applicant to build a 20-foot wide garage. McCarty stated that 5 feet is the setback requirement for sheds and detached garages so he would feel more comfortable allowing a 5-foot variance. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 26, 2009 Page 10 Sell opened the public hearing. Ned Van Hamm, 1300 Angelo Drive, said this is ridiculous because there is almost 20 feet between the Vedadi's property and the neighboring house to the north. He said it is not Mr. Vedadi's fault that the original survey of his property was done incorrectly. He said the City has given variances to other parts of the City such as Hidden Lake and what the Vedadi's are requesting is reasonable. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Sell closed the p build this Nelson said she would advise the applicant to move before she a garage in the back yard. She said putting a garage in the bac property and possibly the surrounding properties as well. Kisch said he is in favor of granting an 8-foot variance t built 4.5 feet away from the property line. Segelbau at the reasonableness of proposals and to improv destroying surrounding properties. He said he fe small and he agrees with Kisch's recommen 4.5 feet of the property line. MOVED by Kisch, seconded by McC variance for 8 ft. off the required 1 side yard (north) property line to living space above. ied unanimously to approve a nce 4.5 ft. at its closest point to the truction of a second garage stall with ection 11.21, Subd.11(A)(3)(b) Side Yard Setback ments ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of9 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. To allow for the construction of a second garage stall with living space above. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(3)(d) Articulation Requirements . The wall of the addition along the south property line will be 40 ft. in length without articulating Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 26, 2009 Page 11 Purpose: To allow for the construction of a second garage stall with living space above. Hogeboom explained that the applicants are proposing to construct a second garage stall with living space above. He stated that they received variances in 2000 for a similar proposal however they did not build the addition at that time. He added that staff is recommending approval of the requested variances. Joseph Buslovich, Architect for t the house after the addition a the rear yard. He asked w no one will be able to se Rebecca Krantz, Applicant, showed photos of their existing hou proposed addition. She stated that the neighbors to south wo addition and there will be no negative impacts to any of the sur stated that she is trying to have a colonial style house t tch neighborhood. t ies. She les in the McCarty questioned if the articulation requirements apply to all walls. the articulation requirements apply only to side walls. Kisch asked the applicant why she can't meet th rooms would be affected by the articulation. articulation would be the dining room and to see the proposed addition. McCarty s the proposed addition. equir ments and which the rooms affected by the d that no one will be able e enough room to articulate h d the Board some proposed pictures of the gr de of the lot including a steep slope in to articulate because it is a waste of money and Kisch suggested th of the interior sgace Krantz expresser house. Mc art m area be articulated. He noted that the look and feel me if the dining room wall was articulated in by 2 feet. he wall was articulated it wouldn't look like a colonial the style of the house is not considered a hardship. Ing the applicants a larger side yard variance in order to allow rticulate the wall. Buslovich stated that the easiest way to build the with straight lines and a straight roof. Krantz expressed concern n of a proposed sidewalk if she has to articulate the addition. d that he would like to see the dining room portion of the addition be Sell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Sell closed the public hearing. MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Kisch and motion carried unanimously to approve a variance for 3.5 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 9 ft. at its closest point to the Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 26, 2009 Page 12 side yard (south) property line to allow for the construction of a second garage stall with living space above. MOVED by Kisch, seconded by McCarty and motion carried 4 to 1 to deny the variance request to allow the wall of the addition along the south property line to be 40 feet in length without articulating. Segelbaum voted no. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Kisch and motion carried Segelbaum as Chair. III. Other Business Election of Officers MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Sell and motion Vice Chair. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10: 15 Joe Hogeboom, Staff Liaison Hey Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) Date: From: June 15, 2009 Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals Joe Hogeboom, City Planner 6480 Wayzata Boulevard Vladimir Sivriver, Applicant To: Subject: Background Vladimir Sivriver is the owner of the property located at 6480 Wayzata Boulevard. The property is located within the 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District. The building currently contains several professional offices and a Russian language school. Mr. Sivriver is proposing to construct an 8 ft. by 7 ft. enclosed entryway on the north end of his building, as well as add six additional parking stalls adjacent to his building. Mr. Sivriver has explained that a new covered entrance is needed to prevent heat loss when entering and exiting the building in the winter months. Mr. Sivriver is also seeking retail tenants for his building, and requires additional parking spaces to accommodate a predicted increased use at the site. The proposed entryway addition conforms to regulations in the 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District. However, variances are needed to bring the existing structure into conformance with the code (no additions may be made to a "non-conforming" structure.) Additionally, variances are needed to bring the existing parking lot into conformance with City Code, and to allow the lot to exceed 65% total impervious land coverage. No prior variances have been obtained for this property. Variances The proposal requires variances from the following sections of City Code: . Section 11.47, Subd. 6(B) Front, Side, and Rear Yard Setback/Surface Parking Requirements City Code requires a distance of fifteen feet between a parking lot and the adjoining property line in the 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District. The applicant is requesting 15 feet off of the required 15 feet to a distance of 0 feet between the existing parking lot and the west side property line. . Section 11.47, Subd. 6(C)(2) Side and Rear Yard Setback/Building Requirements City Code requires a distance of five feet between a building and a side yard property line in the 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District. The applicant is requesting 5 feet off of the required 5 feet to a distance of 0 feet between the existing building and the east side property line. . Section 11.47, Subd. 8(H) Parking Screening Requirements City Code requires a five foot screened area between a parking area and a public street in the 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District. The applicant is requesting 5 feet off of the required 5 feet to a distance 0 feet of screening between the existing parking lot and the west property line. . Section 11.47, Subd. 6(G) Maximum Impervious Surface Requirements City Code requires that no more than 65% of the total land cover of lots within the 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District be comprised of impervious materials. The applicant is requesting that this provision be waived to allow the current building and parking lot to conform to City Code, as well as to allow the addition of three six new parking spaces next to the building. Recommended Action Staff has been in contact with Mr. Sivriver concerning proposed improvements to his property. Staff feels that the addition of an entryway to the building, as well as the addition of six parking stalls to the property, is a reasonable request, and will add the functionality of the site. Therefore, staff requests the Board of Zoning Appeals to approve the proposed variances, as requested by the applicant. W81394 TO LoUISIANA AVE $ . ... S':OlSUt4 . .. LGlJ.l~!"tiA ~Vt 35 )0 5S $0 " 30 55 50 ill 115 11.0 !:, <C! 1.33 dO i lSIi 150 I. I t' 215 no -I: , us Z30 , :zss 2SO 115 110 135 132 , 1SlI :no >>4 250 (j) i ,. :Ii III 145 515 iSfIOO \ 40 luoo I .... ~..,--,",,,,.JL_.-J "..'_ ~A~ 614S 1101 105 120 :125 120 1.tO us 140 145160 . ~al 1[1 il Ul . . !: . II( . ~' I. 1tIlI g . 702 0( = 1100 . . . ~ li! )1". . . B . . ~ ~, !:: 41:. iii' ;,! fj 98$ :tt' !! 900 aso 6480 Wayzata Blvd. u..s DR . .. . . ... 900 .. . 6105 lIil . . .. $a Hw.v~OO~;6"" ' 6010 WI' 1.394 lNteRsrAl"'e394 , " "'. Ea t394 'TO s8 "wY100 $ to: ~ ENGINEERING DESIGN & SURVEYING 6480 Wayzata Blvd. Minneapolis, MN 55426 OFFICE: (763) 545-2800 FAX: (763) 545-2801 EMAIL: info@edsmn.comWEBSITE:htt:edsmn.com May 22, 2009 Mark Rhymes City Planner City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 . Re.: 6480 Wayzata Blvd., Golden Valley, MN 55426 Dear Mr. Rhymes: I would like to petition for the variance to allow the following: 1. To build entry way 7 foot length by 8 foot wide at the north entrance of above reference address. Weare experiences a tremendous heat loss in the children rooms situated at the north side at lower level and we believe that building an entry way is the only way to solve the problem. 2. To add/shift 6 parking stalls (918 sq. ft.) at the west entrance. In return we are planning to remove 1,345 sq. ft. of existing bituminous which will reduce overall hardcover from 80 % to 77 % per attached drawings. We believe that adding additional stalls at the west side of the building and removing bituminous, while reducing the hardcover of the lot and landscaping the area along Florida Ave., will benefit the City of Golden Valley. In addition, by recreating configuration of the parking lot, we will eliminate potential number of accidents. If you have any questions, please call me at (763) 545-2800 or at my personal phone number (612) 384-1616. Sincerely, i JI1c... I r t , V ~a DLv'Uv.~. Vladimir Sivriver, LS, PE, MS (Licensed Land Surveyor and Professional Engineer State of Minnesota) ENGINEERING WITH HIGH INTEGRITY, OUTSTANDING QUALITY AND RELIABILITY City of Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Zoning Code Variance Application 1. Street address of property involved in this application: 6 4160 Wc.c:t7-~ /3 U. Vfu&~'C S~V~VtV-L 2. Applicant: Name f3ev~'iGo~ ~ ' City/State/Zip bIZ --3~l{-/b /6 Cell Phone bltSO W~ 7d'--et Address ::f6 3-S-V~ - z.g DO Business Phone Home Phone f-t40 (QJ .eeL ~ m /2.. . CD f'V/ 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. ~ C> ~~ed etd- l1A. flJ A rid / ~'ft b f OJ( 't;j e~{ u'fi.e/. 0/- lG 8- , ..cJ2Ls t-'-e ~~ 4. A brief statement of the rdship 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. ~.€Q abt-~c/ Mt:~ ~ 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. (/ .(J a of St-" V ~L.,/\r€Ac Signature of Applicant 6. If the applicant is not the owner of all property involved in this application, please name the owner of this property: ;VtO-diLM1'l: SZvt-rlvfV( Print Name of owner Signature of owner t/&J g t,~ v' ~ ~I/ ~ 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: v 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 reSidentia@other Signatures of Surrounding Property Owners v l cj 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 aZA 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. ~ ~ --" ....... . c:,.,o, C> ILl') '""- &..&.6 c.n. ...::r ....... --" 101::: c::J LL.. IiC ~ :) ,. "" ,., , , i~ " "lI I I I I l [-- BENCHMARK BM: EL. 888.42 TONH AT FLORIDA AVENUE AND WAYZATA BLVD. BM: EL. 881.63 TONH AT FLORIDA AVENUE AND EAST FRONTAGE ROAD LEGAL DESCRIPTION Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 648, except that part which lies Southerly of the Northerly right of way line of Interstate Highway No. 394 as described in Lis Pendens Document No. 1942394, Hennepin County, Minnesota HARDCOVER IMPERVIOUS LOT AREA TOTAL LOT AREA HARDCOVER: 14456 SQ. FT. 18134 SQ. FT. BOll: PROPOSED HARDCOVER REMOVED BITUMINOUS SURFACE PROPOSED BITUMINOUS TOTAL REDUCED HARDCOVER PROPOSED HARDCOVER PROPOSED GRASS OR MULCH AREA (REMOVE 749 SQ. FT EXISTING BITUMINOUS) 1345 SQ. FT. 918 SQ. FT. 427 SQ. FT 77ll: R1i!VOVAL NOTES &REMOVE EXISTING BITUMINOUS ~REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE &SAIJCUT EXISTING BITUMINOUS '&'OVERLAY EXISTING BIUMINOUS /, / / / / / / / " J1\. 6480Wayzata Boulevard, Minneapolis, MN 55426-1710 Phone: (763) 545-2800 E-mail: .infll@edSWJl.com Fax: (763) 545-2801 Web Site: htt10 liedsmn. com DESIGN &. StJRVEYING ENGINEERING SITE PLAN FOR PARKING LOT REPAIR / ~.. ,---- ,," _..f \ ~ 1/ .:::., ":'.ELE~. \ 0: ." /' E1 .. \ ~.. \ \ .\ \ I \ \ ! ELEC.~_s; PROPOSED GRASS OR MULCH AREA (REMOVE 596 SQ. FT EXISTING BITUMINOUS) .-1 ., 11 v 40 LF. SWALf: 0 0.6 lI: REMO\IE..3' SPILLWAY .".' ....... POU~/2 LF. OF 612 c..G lIi\iCI;f ..." OPENING FOR /.tiINECllNG DRAIN llLE ( r"'" PERFORAlED PIPE . 612 c..G LWGDD . IlEIlO1ES fIllN) PRIlI'ER1Y IIlIl o DEN01ES SET lilt' X 16" REBAR II1H PLASTIC eN' "PLS 251011" . IlEIlO1ES PIC NAIL SET @ IlEIlO1ES S1llRII IIANHCU ~ IlEIlO1ES SANITARY IIANHCU . IlEIlO1ES S1llRII _ CAlllH _ . IlEIlO1ES ClAS VAL'" . IlEIlO1ES S1llRII _ CAlllH _ DEN01ES BOUNDARY UNE -D--DENOlES WllCIl FDlCE -~lES SANITARY _ - G--DEN01ES ClAS LINE - --1lEIlO1ES WAD LINE <tb IlEIlO1ES E1EC1IlIC POlIEIt PIlLE E- IlEIlO1ES IN'( ANCHOR FIlEIlO1ES E1EC1IlIC _AL * IlEIlO1ES LIGHT PIlLE <tb IlEIlO1ES E1EC1IlIC POlIEIt PIlLE 111I IlEIlO1ES CClNCIIElE SURFACE rn IlEIlO1ES BI1UIINCUS SURFACE e DENOlES DECIlUClUS lREE -IF IlEIlO1ES SHIU8 rllEl101ES - ~ IlEIlO1ES E1EC1IlIC IIANHCU .,... IlEIlO1ES SIGN/POSl' F'.F'.E. _ FUlCR ELEVA1lDIl 8.F'.E. IIASEIIEIIT FUlCR ELEVA1lDIl o 20 40 L.r~ I SCALE IN FEET No. TENANT LEVEL PARKING REQUIREMENTS TYPE OF USE LEASABLE SPACE SQ, FT. REQMNTS TOTALREQ. SPACE/SQ. FT SPACES " 1 2 3 4 5 MAIN MAIN MAIN LOWER MAIN HEAL THSOURCE MAGNA LAW DAYMAN HEATING EDS/BOOKVAR TOBACCO (PROPOSED) " " " "'&&11_ " " " " ", " ................. " ...........""6: &S." " " " " " " '. --.- i ----- OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE RETAIL 2700 900 100 900 600 . TOTAL REQUIERED SPACES: TOTAL EXISTING SPACES: 250 250 250 250 100 11 4 1 4 6 25 31 NOTES 1. The orientation of this bearing system is based on the east line of Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 648, which is assumed to have a bearing of South 2 degrees 10 minutes 45 seconds West. 2. Area ofthe property described hereon is 18134 square feet or .42 acres. 3. Existing utilities and services shown hereon, where located either physically, from existing records made available to us or by resident testimony. Other utilities and services may be present. Verification and location of all utilities and services should be obtained from the owners of the respective utilities prior to any design, planning or excavation. 4. According to the City of Golden Valley the property is zoned industrial. 5. The legal description and easement information were obtained from Land America Commonwealth, Application No. 213946, dated November 9, 2006. I HEREIlY CERllFY lHAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPER\'SION, AND lHAT I AM A DULY UCENSED ENGINEER UNDER lHE LAWS OF lHE STAlE OF MINNESOTA. DAlEO: 06/03(09 DIMENSION PLAN JOB NAME: E.D.s. BUILDING PROJ. NO. 9-001 DRAWN BY: BRN LOCATION: 6480 WAYlATA BLVD. MINNEAPOUS, UN 55430 CHECKED BY: VS SHEET NO. C2 Hey Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: June 15, 2009 Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals Joe Hogeboom, City Planner 309 Turnpike Road Natasha Solorieff, Applicant To: From: Subject: Background William Adolfson is the owner of the property located at 309 Turnpike Road. Ms. Solorieff is in the process of purchasing this property and is requesting a variance from the Zoning Code for the construction of an addition to the home and attached garage. Ms. Solorieff has indicated that the current one stall garage isa hardship. In addition to a second garage stall, additional living space is proposed behind the proposed garage addition, as well as directly above the proposed garage addition. The proposed addition protrudes into the north side yard setback area. No prior variances have been obtained for this property. Variance The proposal requires a variance from the following section of City Code: . Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(3)(b) Side Yard Setback Requirements. Due to the height of the proposed addition, City Code requires a distance of 15 feet between the home and the side yard property line. The applicant is requesting 12.8 feet off of the required 15 feet to a distance of 2.2 feet between the closest point of the proposed addition and the north side yard property line. Recommended Action Staff recognizes the applicant's need for a two stall garage. However, for purposes related to the Building Code, staff is not comfortable allowing a structure to be located closer than 5 feet to the side property line. Additionally, staff does not feel that living space behind the proposed garage addition is justified by the existence of a hardship. Therefore, staff recommends the Board approve a variance to City Code of 10 feet off of the required 15 feet to a distance of 5 feet from the closest point to the north side yard property line for the construction of a garage that shall be no longer than 20 feet in length. $SOl 5431 ~ G~~f\'wt'J_ ""'UA\.t 5501 4 100 109 108 111 116 2SO 201 200 2 200 208 i 31S 2Ui Ii< ~ 319 308 \I!l 321 400 )() 25 40 101 104 109 112 111 200 115 201 200 ~, .,~ ~"" ..~ ~"b O<t' +..., ..~~ "1;. ';. "00 "'CC ....., '1). ..~ <t' 2:1 $311 5 II 15 17 LAUREL AVE 500 S08 632 624 701 611 621 631 633 629 625 GOLDEN HILLS OR M~~~wd"'Nd\H't ... ~<Jtt(f:~J* ~Ci lOOlSQtS.~ 5420 53ZO 5310 5300 5z30 1l City of Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Zoning Code Variance Application 1. Street address of property involved in this application: r?vCZ -r ~1Le f?)} ~ ~ 2. Applicant: N~ 4 .SDlov/epf- Name ,~SY /6 :uxt Address -- \. ) I.A-r J\( (f I IL-e ~, ~(/~~ . /fIjI( r;T'{{b ) CitylStatelZip 1&;"3 rt I 7{D L( 7(,3 d&7 ~ 'fJ- l' Home Phone Cell Phone Business Phone S of () Yle ff/'l (!i) COvnca:-s 7. A' -e 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. 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. 61'1 ~ i~ ~~ 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. /}IL~ Signature of Applicant , '9,.( ,,+ )JJtI1~ \.., \ \ \, ~ "'" ~ ~'" \ ~~ - 't'r cv<<-l>t OWf\.er -\ C&II1J11~t bod ~ ~~~~~'h~-o~ ,. , ()(f~YI:- . A-d~?'J ~aC{ )~~~ 'Y-J 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 Signature Print Name Address '30 l . ~Ntif k ~cL .'Ju r I ,1>~r.eJ z; 11 V.e4'a ~' ])~-e.t 2.) W Comment Signature ~1 Print Name -f) <1Jr(!) T'h.,,-/ I 0_ .._ Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature 'iJh. 1=-( -a;l-vd G. H yz __ 3o<f) b/,)1Rk i(J Address Address Lft:JO "b'J1_r, 'feJ- 2.d, )AidMd ()JeS~ ~zlMJQ Wti ~/ / LLrrsen Address 4&/ 1iJVJ1IP1Joe ~ , . - Address 1//'1 ~~;Zcl. \~ . , Address LflJU ~.~ Print Name tv ~~ t\ 'e.10 \?:" 1((<::.\<. S6,) Comment Signature Address '310 ~~ ~ '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 , ~"""II , . AI~ ~. Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature Address 30 l t;,"'t1 f.t.. eeL Address 3c>~ 7D1')fi1b.!Cd. Print Name 1J nr €) -rJ,-,,-1' 1=-/'ahd G ~ Y2 ..; n~ . I 0- ., Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature J Address L(aD bt}{~ kf:7 Pd, .A1idMd WeS~ ~~W~ ~I / Lrlr:sen Address 41)1 /f/Y}1J/n /(Je. 0 ,. . "'- Address 1/-/11 ~~.12d # \~ . , Address tfUU ~.~ L- D :i>'C- ~~kl~ /(/<:.I<S,p,J Address '3/() ~ l~ l' . :.l' .. ,~ '" :'\:'~ ;/ ~. -~ ;"'~' ~,:.:-,~, ..~ " "'';-';-:T ,. ~ ;.f~i ~,- ;,1t. '. '>" ~, '"(0. } ~ " " ,,:'" .:t:" ~~.( ~ ". ~ "T h' '::t' " '\~ ""'-l!: ; ~ rJ , I ~ :.J J. , ",1 . ~1 :!i' \{~, , r '~~. .~. . .. "tt'l- ot1: ' < ',~ :.o.~ . u. /1' t 4..- ~ ';' .", ~ . .'~.~'" .11" . I;..~ "'~~ . I. "" , ~ :41 '.i ~.':i, ", '~, .... '>;, " . },o: ',' ~ r:;' :Ii " , "' ~O/' I I I _I ~ (l5 ~ I I I I I , If If /1 ,'1 ~ ~I~ i I~-- I I I I I / / / / / / / / / ~ ~ ~ 1l ~ t ~ :i G) ~ )( "- --- --- ------------------ ~ ~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 26.5 / / / / / I , I I I / I I I I I I ~ '\) i <2'3' I '\...... 36.5 G No. 301 1-5- Tuckunder ~ 'It --- 8:34.8 <2'<2' ......" ...... 5 880 I 9'32" E j 98.00 ~ II) --- 8:35.2 8:34.7 )( ------ --- ---- IJ) _.---- -- 1 -5-Frame No. 401 SBI INe. Property located in Section 4, Township 117, Range 21, Hennepin County, Minnesota Benchmark: Top Rim of Manhole at Turnpike Road Opposite No. 309 Elevation:::: 889.2 NGVD >3.9' 8:35.2 136.6 I I I ~ I I ) I I I I I I I / EStI /6 . \.84. \ 0 '- ------ '............... ,.~ '" ~'" ~~ ~ 0 ~ ,.~ &>sswd 2 ~~ C):'" 54.:3 ,.-~ / / '" / Wlres o / Overhead I 8:34. / )( ~, P_Pre . ,.. w-w- -U-88022'08" W '\) /'41 'It ~/ - ~..--:::::---"", ------- ~~ " ---:./"' , / , /~ <5'<5> /~ ~, /~ " /~ .~ )( 8:35. / -3} ught 8:34.:3 )( 8:35.2 )( "- "- "- <5'~ "- "- "- "- \ 8:35. I \ 894.6 )( .-.----1 \ t CI:;) \ \ \ \ \ W_w-w\w Overhead Wlres --- ...... "- "- "- "- "- "- "- "- "- "- "- "- "- "- "- "- "- "- Lot 14, Block 4, SPRING GREEN, Hennepin County, Minnesota . Denotes Found Iron Monument o Denotes Iron Monument o Denotes Wood Hub Set for excavation only xOOO.O benotes Existing Elevation S Denotes Proposed Elevation ____ Denotes Surface Drainage NOTE: Proposed grades are SUbject to results of soil tests. Proposed building information must be checked with approved building plan and development or grading plan beforeeXcaYalion and construction. Proposed grades shoWn on this survey are interpolations of proposed contours from the drainage, grading and/or development plans. NOTE: The relationship between proposed IIoor elevations to be verified by builder. Proposed Top of Block Proposed Garage Floor Proposed Lowest Floor \ r Type of Building 30 I 30 l Established in 1962 to LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC. 30 q LAND SURVEYORS REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA 7601 73rd Avenue North (763) 56().3093 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428 Fax No. 560-3522 I 30 I 30 I ~ I 30 I 30 I 30 I 30 I 30 I 30 I 30 I 30 I " )( 30 \ I \ 30 \ I <S::> 30 ~ I \ 30 \ I -......' 8:38.3 --- 30 I 30 I 30 I 30 I 30 I ~ I ~ Rev INVOICE NO. F.B.NO. SCALE: 1" = 78010 1028- 70 20' Corner Falls on Boulder Iron 5(:t /.0 foot West of Com(:r. g,urupy.crrs Q!prtifiratp Power Pol(: The only easements shown are from plats of record or information provided by client. We hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the above described land and the location of all buildings and visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. Surveyed by us this 16th day of May 2009. Signed i 1/1 .~ j I' j W/i Grego~. Prasch, Minn. Reg. No. 24992 Drawn By 5. Jl~ File Name sg-14-4fb1 02870inv7801 O.dwg 1 .8-.81: r '10 I 'io ... .0- ,1: 0 . ~ ~ I ); 0.. 0:: 0 ~ 9 . LL.. J .. c.:> S .- z ~ . X ~ I..J o is I b ... ~ .r-,sr I- I b I I in ---------------- ---._---- .., ......... 'llllIIIINIf 1 I I , ~I I .. I CIO (If 1 , I , 1 t 1 I I I I . I I y PJ . I ~ f '~ II 'I -L t'/,/'.~ ei I I 12" CONe. 8t.OC/( UOOUl.AR RET~ WALLS , ;f -.1 ;'5'-0" \.. ~ =--=-/ 20'-1~" rvr . .. ;... - FANllY ROOM . 4" CONe. SlAB ON cjRAoE lAUNDRY IW. ~ l&J\ t\ II Iln I~ I I '" DEMO EXIST CONe. BU<. FOUNOATION WAlL r - - - -1- -- I I I 4" CONe. SUB ON r I I I I L___ _~ ,I::L.- _ _ _ _ .... EXIST. FAMILY ROOM -..; - 1 l I I 39'-5lS" o - .. fIIIIIlJIlC .... - 39'-Sli" S'IllRAGE ROOM . IlIl I fJ "ECH. ROON I r PROPOSED &: EXIST. LOWER FLOOR PlAN 1/8" - 1'-0" 22'-3" -- c-snrc _10 _ ~...... --...a) ~ NOTE: AlL OIf.lENSlONS ARE APPROXIMATE ac MUST BE VERIF1ED. I. II lr \ ~ il 5 Q.. a:: II 0 . 9 i l.&.. ~ I! ') z < ~ :l '" . 09 w. (f) - /' o . Q.. " O' a::~ Q.. - 000 el 14 oCJJo U 0010 r--- I I . o I in -I r ...... II o o ---.-------- ----------- ..-.at JII'I ~ ~ . o I ;., .o-.8t fW.CONY ELEV.100'-o" =-~-mv.) :.a. . NEW MASTER 8EDROOM LEVEl 3/4" Pl\'WOOO OVER 14" ". WOOD JOlS'/'S. 2 LAVERS 5/8" GYP. BO CEllNG 5/8" GYP. BO. EA. SIDE OF 2x4 WOOD STUD WALL NEW GARAGE LEVEL 4" CONe. SlJB ON 4" SAND BASE OVER COMPACTED SOIL - - - - -......... SECTION 1/8" - 1'-0" NEW WOOD TRUSSES 2." O.C. w/3/4" PL'tWOOO SHEATHING . FI8ERGt.ASS ASPHALT SHINGlES. NEW KlTCHEN/f'N.tII.Y ROOM LEVEL (MATCHES EXISTING FlOOR LEVEL) ~{4" PlYWOOD OVER 1." "I WOOD JOISTS. NEW WAU<-OUT LOWER LEVEL (MATCHES EXISTING FlOOR LEVEL) APPROX. GRADE SHOWN. CUT TO WAU<-ouT LE.VEL. ELEV. 104'-8" N'PROX. - - ~ ---- --- --12" MASONRY NODUlAR RETANNG WALLS ... . BRICK PA'JERS, SLOPE MIN. ." AWAY FROM RESIDENCE PRCMOE I.ANDSCAPE DRAIN DAYlIGHT TO STREET ....., '.\l" w I I 1 ~ z B I I I J I ~I ~f I 01 I ~I ~I --n II II II II _Ll II II II I II I II ---11 II II II II II II -LJ z o !;( Gj . ..J 0 W .I I- . (/) . W ~ ;: - I~ d I d I I; ; I ~L I Q I ~ 1D I z 0 e --~ ; ~ I " D I, I, " w I, (.) D ~ Iii w II n: C> ~ ~ 'I D I, II z 0 Q -~I !;;( ~ ~ .-J . ~ w 0 ~ I ';.... i= ::r: is . ~ II ..... :::> . ~ 0 ~ z en ~ --L ...,. 15 T T !:!I i l U S 5 li !! i ~ ii III ~ ~ ~ I~ z 0 I~ ~ ~ i5 ~ ~ z \oJ ~ ~ in ~ II! CI z I, ~ z ~ 0 l- I ~ UJ . Si ..J 0 UJ I II ~ B l- I (/) UCI l1i ~ ~~ II (.)Z ... . ~ ~a: II II II II 0 II II --U . ~ 'b Ii I '1 g ~ ~ ij , -.-r , " , , " I I ,/ / B ' " ~, ~I II ~I il II ~I I I " / /1 I z -I L-l1 0 ~ > , III w -l · w 9 ~ I III ::r: N I- ~ . III o ~ z ~, III ~I ~ ~~ # 2/ ~ ~I \ # ~I i, \ , I \ __I I x I~ ~ I I~ ~~ . Ii ~~ 10 I .. 0 r~ ~ - ~ x~ ~ Ii .