Loading...
07-28-09 BZA Agenda Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, July 28, 2009 7pm 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers I. Approval of Minutes - June 23, 2009 II. The Petitions are: 1221 Pennsylvania Avenue North (09-07-09) David and Cindy Berg/Sicora Inc.. Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements . 4.8 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 30.2 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of an addition to the home and a new two-stall garage. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(2) Rear Yard Setback Requirements . 3.3 ft. off the required 28.7 ft. to a distance of 25.4 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard (west) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of an addition to the home and a new two-stall garage. 1518 Valders Avenue North (09-07-10) Vernon Berglund. Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements . 7.5 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 5 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of an addition to the home and a new two-stall garage. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(3)(d) Articulation Requirements . The wall of the addition along the north property line will be 35 ft. in length without articulating Purpose: To allow for the construction of an addition to the home and a new two-stall garage. 7100 Madison Avenue West (09-07-11) Richard Storlien. Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.70, Subd. 3 Minimum Number of Required Parking Spaces . 3 parking spaces off the required 36 parking spaces for a total of 33 parking spaces Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new parking lot. Request: Waiver from Section 11.36, Subd. 6(C)(4) Yard Requirements . 10ft. off the required 10ft. to a distance of 0 ft. of landscaping along the west side yard property line Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new parking lot and driveway. III. Other Business IV. Adjournment This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call 763-593-8006(TTY: 763-593-3968) to. make a request. Examples of alternate formats may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc. Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 23, 2009 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, June 23, 2009 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Segelbaum 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. I. Approval of Minutes - May 26, 2009 MOVED by Sell, seconded by McCarty and motion carried una May 26,2009 minutes as submitted. 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, Surf :e Pal"l<ing.~equirements . 15 ft. to a distance of Oft. to the side yard (west) 'ng parking lot into conformance with Zoning Code om Section 11.47, Subd. 6(C)(2) Side and Rear Yard Buildings Requirements 10ft. off the required 10ft. to a distance of 0 ft. to the side yard (east) roperty line. 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. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 23, 2009 Page 2 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 wit Requirements. Hogeboom noted that this is the first variance request for a prope ted inthe 1-394 Mixed Use zoning district. He explained the applicant's request to add<~< parking spaces on the west side of the building and build an entryway on the north end of th~existing building. He stated that both of the applicant's prop()sEad..reqLJe~t~ c()nform to zoning code requirements however the existing parking lot anq:~fructu re non~!J;:onforming so in order for the applicant to expand the footprint of hi~ existin ilding by adding an entryway the entire property needs to be brq t . confor nee with zoning code requirements. He added that the applica . ith the Public Works Department on grading and drainage is supporting these variance requests. Kisch referred to the survey sub bYithe app:licant and noted that this property requires 25 parking spaces. HOvvEaVeritcurrently has 32 parking spaces so he is concerned about increasing the impervious surface of this lot even more by allowing the 6 additional spaces the appliqant irequestil'1.g. Hogeboom agreed that that the applicant is requesting more par 'ng spa an what the code requires, however he has demonstrated the n i,ltq[,,<the itional parking spaces. stated that it appears the applicant is proposing to e than he currently has. Hogeboom agreed that the applicant the amount of impervious surface on his property. McCarty referr have lessi e is makiqg to the variance request regarding screening of the parking lot and irement is for aesthetic or safety purposes. Hogeboom said he believes it urposes. Sell said he believes the screening requirements are to provide ential areas. Vladimir Sivriver, Applicant, stated that he needs the additional 6 parking spaces he is requesting because he is searching for new retail tenant which will require more spaces. Also his existing engineering firm and school currently located in this building need more parking spaces. He stated that this has been a very challenging site and since he bought it he has put a lot of money into fixing it up. He showed the Board a PowerPoint presentation that provided a background of his business including his education, Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 23, 2009 Page 3 professional experience, accomplishments and projects he has done in Golden Valley. He discussed his future plans for this site including the reduction of impervious surface, drainage improvements and landscaping. Kisch referred to the survey of the property and stated that the reduction of impervious surface that has been mentioned has taken place outside of the applicant's property lines. He asked the applicant how much impervious surface is located within the property lines. Sivriver reiterated that this is a very difficult lot and that MnDot probably s.h~l\;lIQi~~ve taken it when they reconstructed the frontage road. He explained that he did ~~rl1ove sOl+lr impervious surface from the boulevard area along Wayzata Blvd. br~auseifhe didf!'t, no improvements would have beef! made. He stated that he is also pl.~nning onpoing me landscaping along Florida Ave. McCarty referred to the 3% reduction in impervious surface are much of it was located outside of the property lines. Sivriver said a oxim the reduction was located outside of the property lines. Kisch noteg.nt~. t.a on 0 parking spaces would increase the impervious surface total within{tf'lepro~rrtyl Sivriver stated that he proposed using water infiltration but the City wouldn't allo~ it bec use the water table is so high in this area. Kisch asked about the City's Manager gave the applica He reiterated that the ap regarding catch basin and r permeaole pavers for the proposed 6 he{~ity would still consider permeable Kisch asked the applicant if has cOf!side~ed usi additional parking spaces. Hogeboo oted t pavers to be impervious surface a parki lot. Hogeboom explained that the City -stripe his parking lot because it already exists. orking with the Engineering Department pond issues. Kisch said he is hesitant togra9tapproval for the 6 additional parking spaces because they will be addingadditiqnal impervious surface to the site. Sivriver stated that the area is very dens~jn us th~ skate park, the collision center, Majors and JJ's and that sometime ri~lJgh parking spaces plus he still has 2,000 sq. ft. of space to rent. e applicant if there have been any accidents in his parking lot. Sivriver Segelbau ened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. McCarty asked Hogeboom if there are any requirements stating that a person can't install more than the minimum amount of required parking space. Hogeboom stated that there are only minimum parking stall requirements, not maximum. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 23, 2009 Page 4 Kisch said he realizes the limitations on this property but he is concerned about increasing the amount of impervious surface. McCarty said he would more concerned if the applicant was adding more impervious surface but the applicant is just proposing to re-stripe what is already there. Kisch stated that the applicant is proposing to add more impervious surface because he has been calculating the amount of impervious surface using space that is outside of his property lines. Segelbaum suggested that it may be.appropriate to approve the variance existing non-conformities however in regard to the variance request inv surface maybe the Board could allow the applicant to keep the amo~f\)t surface the same, but not let him increase the amount of hard COv~l": Sell said he agrees that this is an unusual piece of property arl~ Code be revisited to consider adding permeable pavers and oth~r si considered pervious surface. He suggested to the applic~nt thafh~ wdr use some of their parking spaces. cause of the heating and tional parking spaces is added that the Board has Kisch said he can see a hardship for allowing the cooling issues in the building but the only har . because the applicant says he needs mor~, to balance the potential impact with the I"dshl Nelson suggested allowing the ap he net existing impervious surface amount the same. If he wants to d nal parking stalls he'll have to make up for the difference in another I lot. S <n agreed and added that the Engineering Department s.l'1d(jl~terrmine how they want the water to drain on this site. Segelbaum said he agreeettlat th~ Engin~ering Department should determine how the water drains on this site butt are also the aesthetics of the property to consider. congested. She said she feels allowing the applicant roposed 6 parking spaces would be better than having Kisch s spaces b from the exi to allow no net t think there is a hardship to allow the 6 additional parking a stipulation that the total impervious surface area does not increase d surface coverage amount currently located within the property lines ain in impervious surface he would feel better about the proposal. MOVED by Sell seconded by Nelson and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variance requests: . 15 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 0 ft. to the side yard (west) property line to bring the existing parking lot into conformance with Zoning Code requirements. . 10ft. off the required 10ft. to a distance of 0 ft. to the side yard (east) property line to bring the existing structure into conformance with Zoning Code requirements. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 23, 2009 Page 5 . 5 ft. off the required 5 ft. landscaped frontage strip to a distance of 0 ft. to the side yard (west) property line to bring the existing parking lot into conformance with Zoning Code Requirements. MOVED by Kisch seconded by Nelson and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variance request: 309 Turnpike Road. (09-06-08) Natasha Solorieff, Applicant Yard Setback . Waive provision to allow greater than 65% total impervious land cove condition that there be no net gain of impervious surface area withi the site. The applicant is not to exceed the amount of imperviou property. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Requirements Purpose: To allow for th garage. ctio of 2.2 ft. to the side yard . 12.8 ft. off the requir~~i15 (north) property line. Hogeboom stated that th home and a new 2-stall g the north, side yard e hardship and is ther at least 5 feet a":/;{ay fr addition being proposed in meet setb~,*kJequire~rnent~. isi~f:2posing to construct an addition to the existing Iivingfi$pace above that would be 2.2 feet away from e explained that staff believes a single car garage is a ending that the proposed garage addition be located roperty line. However staff does not feel that the e new garage has a hardship and it should be able to tOfne neighboring property to the north at 301 Turnpike Road. He meowner there built a similar addition to what is being proposed is located 5.5 feet away from the side yard property line compared ing requested. Nelson stated that precedents were set but that doesn't ce should have been granted and each property needs to be looked at Segelbaum asked if the required side yard setback for this property is 15 feet. Hogeboom stated that the side yard setback for this property would be 12.5 feet however due the height of the proposed addition the north side yard setback requirement is 15 feet rather than 12.5 feet. He added that the existing house does conform to the setback requirements. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 23, 2009 Page 6 Patrick Buckner, contractor representing the applicant, Natasha Solorieff, stated that they are trying to upgrade the home to make it usable to today's standards. He said they need a two stall garage with a minimum interior width of 22 feet. He explained that the existing garage has no footings underneath so they are proposing to tear it down and build a new garage with living space above plus additional living space behind the proposed new garage. He added that garages with living space above them are very common in Golden Valley and will fit in with the character of the area. He said he considered building in the back yard but he would then have to remove trees and he doesn't want t . He stated that the plans he submitted are conceptual and can be changed d to have some compromise from the City. Segelbaum asked if the eaves shown in the elevation plans are taken into consideration when figuring out setback requirements. Hogeboom explainedthat89"Of eaves and overhangs are allowed to go into the setback area however theYcanl'1()t cr()~sover the property line. Segelbaum asked how close the propose ve woyld be~~the property line in this case. Buckner, said he wouldn't have to b . on the north side, he could install a gutter instead. Segelbaum asked if the proposal for the 22-foot be 2.2 feet away from the property line. B 11.5 feet of space in order to get a 22-f what makes the addition added that they would need Nelson explained to the applicant~~;~ttneB ............ oesconsider a single stall garage to be a hardship but they typically likeg~rageC;lddition~to be at least 5 feet away from side yard property lines. Buckner said ttJ ~'t.~uild a two stall garage 5 feet away from the side yard property line without~jlnl Iychanging the plans and the budget. He added that he would not do the projec he mlhimum width of a new garage is not at least 22 feet. Ki refe house. four-level sp presenting the owner of the property, William ans to live in the house. Segelbaum asked if he has a e owner. Buckner said yes. Segelbaum asked if the purchase on the approval of this variance request. Bucker said no and eive approval for the variance they will have to cut down trees. Segelbaum asked Bu Adolfson. Buckner said purchase ~gree of the pro . added survey and noted that the topography is fairly flat on this lot. He ans of the building section and noted that it is showing a walk-out style of said the house will have an egress and will not be a walk-out it will be a style. Kisch asked about the difference between the level of the garage and first floor. Buckner said the difference is about 4 feet. Kisch said he is concerned about having an almost a 60-foot long wall along the north side property line. Segelbaum referred to the proposed addition behind the proposed garage and questioned if that part of the proposal could be built elsewhere on the lot. Solorieff Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 23, 2009 Page 7 reiterated that they are trying to keep the existing trees. Kis.ch explained that the Board considers ecological issues but that isn't the only criteria considered. Buckner stated that he is trying to get the square footage he needs to match today's living standards. The existing house is only about 1,200 square feet which is very small so they need to expand the dimensions of the rooms and bring the house up to date. Solorieff stated that many houses in the neighborhood have been enlarged and modernized. Segelbaum said he is concerned about the impact to surrounding propsked the applicants what would prevent them from adding onto the rear ofth use in a different and conforming location. Buckner said if he builds into th~back yal?dre m~y create drainage issues. He said he is trying to be responsible a ul an~..rlot affect anybody else's property. Segelbaum stated he would really like to see at least a e proposed new garage to the north side yard property line. BUCKQ~ ay to get a 22- foot wide garage 5 feet away from the property lineaGl~e would also like to install a fence along the north property line. Kisch id if a fence was installed there the applicant couldn't fit a ladder in the space in orderto maintain the fence. Segelbaum asked if the existing garagevqere removedh6Wrnuch space there would be between the house and the property lil'le.BL!qkt'ler$ai~.there would be 25.4 feet which is not enough room to build a minim ;.,st~lt ga~~ge. Kisch noted that in the past t minimally sized 2-stall gar proposing 22.3 feet for th feet away from the propert , other alternatives. r s back yard will m.ake f by the next doo i h wouldn't want ca windows. considered a 20;.,foot wide garage to be a to the applicant's plans and noted that he is im n of the garage which would be located 3.6 as sta ed. He asked the applicant if there are any re are other alternatives but putting a garage in the driveway and he doesn't want to have to drive his cars ws in order to get the garage. Solorieff agreed that she and down the driveway next the neighbor's bedroom McCarty $ sn't want to increase the costs for the applicant or require them to teardown tr n this case there are other alternatives. Buckner reiterated that he is conce ed if uts a garage in the back it may cause drainage issues on the neighbg erties. McCarty asked about the drainage issues if he builds the garage where he is proposing. Buckner said he is planning on installing drain tile. Hogeboom stated that he has talked to the City Engineer about this proposal and was told that the drainage issues could be addressed and dealt with in the drainage and erosion control process. Sell referred to the survey and said he re-did some of the math. He said it seems to him that the applicant could build a 21-foot wide garage and still maintain a 4-foot setback area. The Board agreed. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 23, 2009 Page 8 Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. Kisch said his concern is the proposed addition off of the back of the proposed garage. He said he feels the impact of a 60-foot long wall that close to the property line would be worse than losing a tree and building additional living space elsewhere on the property. He said he agrees that a one-stall garage is a hardship and that building the garage in the back yard and having cars drive past the neighbors bedroom windows is an granting the side yard variance request. He said he would be ok with g 'ance to allow a garage 28 feet in depth to be built 4 feet from the side yar r Nelson agreed that there is a hardship regarding the one-stall g~ feels it would devalue the neighborhood and this property to buildg ge in th yard and it would not make sense to build a detached garage irithisar.~a. McCarty said he could see razing the entire house ang~tarting property has plenty of potential without having to g~arit . nce . He added that this Sell said he would be ok with allowing a variance depth, 4 feet away from the property line. arage to be 28 feet in Segelbaum stated that allowing livin m~\garage will make the garage addition more opposing. McCarty.~~' .. wou~. support a variance to allow the garage to be 5 feet away from the side yard/property. He added that the hardship in this case is the single stall garage not the applic.(:nitw~ntihg more living space. Buckner reiterated that t door was granted a varianc the term "today's st s" property was grante 5.5 feet away f is nofup to today's standards and that the house next 3 to build a garage with living space above. Kisch said jective and reminded the applicant that the neighboring a garage, not for living space behind the garage, to be roperty line. Buckner stated th any green measur tree is not as . us nsciousness is a passion of his and he wants to incorporate n including not removing any trees. Kisch stated that saving one nmentally sound as some other building practices the applicant could Segelba: living spac he would be in favor of granting a variance to allow the garage, without ove it to be 4 feet away from the north side yard property line. MOVED by Sell, seconded by Nelson and motion carried unanimously to approve a variance request for 11 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 4 ft. to the side yard (north) property line to allow for the construction of an attached garage. The garage can be 28 feet in depth with no living space above. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 23, 2009 Page 9 III. Other Business Kisch reported on the June 16 City Council meeting where they discussed the appeal of the Board's decision for the property at 1525 Sumter Ave. N. He stated that the City Council reversed the Board's decision because of the ambiguity of the definition of a porch, landing, deck and stoop. The language in the Code regarding front porches, decks, landings and stoops and what constitutes a "covered front porch" will be reviewed by the Planning Commission in the future. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 pm. 09-07 -09 1221 Pennsylvania Ave. N. David & Cindy Berg, Applicants 1401 1401l 1_ 1400 7524 7514 14Ol1 7445 7415 1400 1401 KNOLL ST N US6 1375 7S01 1121 7713 770S 7637 7629 1613 1m 1336 1529 7521 133lI 13SS 1301 1318 1325 n'lB n20 n12 7704 1632 7624 7612 1325 m - 1300 7528 I r 1 221 Pennsylvania Ave. N. I \1 I J I I I '.. PLYMOUTH A VI! N ~ ?W-o/ft#1 ; 1101 ~ 1224 1221 1Ull .,. -" :< , 1213 1210 1211 1210 1209 1209 Z ;l! ~ 1200 1200 ! 1201 i <: 1205 1115 Q m Z lI'l 1124 m i t'"I ~ ~ 1124 114 1125 > 1111 i 1112 :ill: 1ft 1117 :It a: 11111 1109 1108 1115 ~ 1105 1104 1109 1108 1101 1101 1100 1101 ./ 1042 ~ PHOIiiNrx liT 770S I 1 -I 1 7635 lOB 1039 M$la~.'M:'tltwiNs.- c~~)j ~c.i l~~Gts~;)5 1037 C Hey Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: July 20,2009 From: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals Joe Hogeboom, City Planner 1221 Pennsylvania Avenue North David and Cindy Berg/Sicora, Inc., Co-Applicants To: Subject: Background David and Cindy are the owners of the property located at 1221 Pennsylvania Avenue North. Mr. and Ms. Berg, together with their Sicora Inc., are requesting two variances from the Zoning Code for the construction of an addition to the existing home and a two-stall garage. The current one garage and storage space is inadequate in size, and is considered to be a hardship by the applicants. 1221 Pennsylvania Avenue North is located on a corner lot, thereby having two front yard setback areas. The applicants are proposing to construct the addition partially within the north front yard setback. In addition, the proposed project extends into the rear setback area. The home at 1228 Quebec Avenue North, directly to the west of Mr. and Ms. Berg's property, is located 24.10 feet from the north side property line along Plymouth Avenue. A variance was granted on April 25, 2000 allowing the construction of a three stall garage with living space above to be located in the front yard setback area abutting Plymouth Avenue. Information pertaining to this variance is attached. In addition, the home at 1227 Quebec Avenue North is located approximately 25 feet from the north side property line along Plymouth Avenue. No prior variances were obtained for 1221 Pennsylvania Avenue North. Variances The proposal requires variances from the following sections of City Code: . Section 11.21, Subd.11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements. City Code requires a distance of 35 feet between a home/attached garage and the front (north) yard property line. The applicant is requesting 4.8 feet off of the required 35 feet to a distance of 30.2 feet between the proposed addition and the front (north) yard property line. . Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(2) Rear Yard Setback Requirements. City Code requires a distance of 20% of the lot depth to be considered the rear yard property line. For this property, that distance is 28.7 feet. The applicant is requesting 3.3 feet off of the required 28.7 feet to a distance of 25.4 feet between the proposed addition and the rear (west) yard property line. Recommended Action Staff supports this proposal, and recommends approval of the variances as requested. July 7,2009 Charles Segelbaum Chair: Board of Zoning Appeals 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 RE: Zoning Variance Request; 1221 Pennsylvania Ave N Dear Mr. Segelbaum: Enclosed you will find information regarding our variance request application for a large remodeling project at our residence. Our scope of work includes an addition to our home and a new garage (please see attached site plan for details). It has been brought to our attention that the garage addition we intend to construct does not conform with the north and west property setbacks. We request that the Board of Zoning review our condition and approve our request based on the following reasons: 1. Hardship. Our property is a corner lot and because of that it has zoning setbacks which are more restrictive than a standard residential lot. Both the north and east property boundaries are required to maintain a front yard setback that places our proposed garage in violation of this setback. Constructing our garage per the dimensions shown on the plans will allow us the opportunity to park both of our vehicles inside. In addition, we want to keep all of our yard and outdoor-related storage inside the new garage, and not have a detached storage shed erected on the property for additional needed storage space. The present plans allow us the opportunity to enclose all of the storage that is necessary without adding a detached shed. 2. Impact on the Neighborhood. As residents of Golden Valley for over 35 years, maintaining the architectural integrity of the neighborhood, without disrupting our neighbors' sightlines, is of very high importance to us. There are a number of properties that are on Quebec and Plymouth Avenues that are located closer to the north property boundary than what our proposed addition would be. 3. Character of the Neighborhood. The scope of work will be an asset to our neighborhood and the remodeling will be performed to keep the exterior of the home consistent with the period in which the original structure was built. We have spoken with all of our neighbors about our proposed project and they agree that this project will enhance our neighborhood and they support our proposed plans. (See attached application with signatures). We look forward to the opportunity to review our application with you during our July 28th meeting with the Board. Please feel free to contact me at home (763) 544-2179, or on my cell phone (612) 309-0397, with any questions regarding our application. Thank you. J::OL.~ David R. Berg 1221 Pennsylvania Ave N Golden Valley, MN 55427 City of Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Zoning Code Variance Application 1. Street address of property involved in this application: rz'Z J ~ 1_ V JJ,.J l!l I.J. V 1;. ,J . 2. Applicant: 1)~V'D ~ L/rJOvt 8~6 ,/~~A.J INc. Name T -, Itt.l I%~ I- 'lAr:LJ.A1Il/e. ,.J. J boLDliol '/.A1.-I-Q'!! . M.J rr 4.1.:1- Address City/St~ +b'S. - S'44 - '2. rr:; bY'- - 301 - D3/71 Business Phone Home Phone Cell Phone i . '/2- 4-zs- 4ft'S dA.ve.. bers @ I bbe~-S'oy\ ~ ~ /rO"lSonY\~ k . ~ICDr6. . tCon1 Email Address I 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. ~];J:; AT,I:1t'..JJ MbNIS: . 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. ~ c.avsr- U;-r1"6~. 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 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 0-0 tv' Print Name L" ~v; s.....-tin€.- ~ . commen~o.~ 6'=-. ~..;V.\ \ e,<,,,,~ ~ ~ Signature c=::;:~ ~ ~ Address I~ ~~~ Print Name ~-A so-..) t--J YtC Comment \6~?\S ~.. Signature 7s;M /?i)/ .#tnt/jI- , Address '1)2-2 ~L\"~"M A-k:~ Print Name .) IWi 13p..f'R. ..z::.'TON Comment T CA-d"J..!gRlX-V 0,4rr M SLL7r ~c.E:;r€..p Signature # 8 ~ Address 1Zl> "i EQfQ/ t't-o.I4!!lIU"tf"" I\J Print Name -;;;- ~ & 1=;-[> g:..70A. ') ::::::~~~~~~ Address B~'a7jh<" ~ #< Print Name Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature Address/d~~~~a m-4~Y C :S~jU~~E.e..... Address /20S- ~ rr....a 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 ~~ -f /'JtQrtfH :::::: ~ Print Name ~ Ie GWg Comment Signature ~ Address '1 t(+~ 7 (~60t-Ave :J Print Name JJ\Q,k -<- \'(\ q ',j ~ ~ \-\c, rt ;~ h Fd/l1~ Address 1q % PJ,? YV1 o~ ,+e :) Comment Address 1220 0:<ebec. /t(/, V.. Comment Signature Address Print Name -:}o 11 A fJ f{ rfVft> Comment Print Name ~~ /?;'c-Ir~ vd Address 75/2.- fJh/1I7Pt..!rJ Ave-A/' Signature 13e -US 2) {/ Comment Signature Il~J8~~ Address /'.5 Cl q PJ..-YflHt>v-rL.r AJ c.1/. I Print Name commen~~: DLJ,.JeR ~f.{;Gd--r"I-1 l2G:aiA.'-';PJ NO ~E. Signature Address It 10 ~VSBG~ Av'G. ~ ~:, ~..; ~~~ 1723 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Apri125,2000 Page 3 - haffer, and motio nlmously to approve the requir eet to a distance of$ feet for the . ove the existing garageatit.etosest point to the to be looated next to the house in its . ttJe driveway be reloe ed within the property lines by the time the ificate of ocoupaneyisgiven out for e addition. 1228 Quebec Avenue North (M.p 14) (00-3-5) Mark ."dM.wDen Hartlgh.Aoollcants R8Ciuest: e Purpose: Waiver from Section 11.21, Sudb. 7 (A)(2) Front Yard Setback 1.1 feet off the required 35 feet to a distan~ of 33.9 feet for t~ existing house at its olo.sest point to the front prope.rfylinefaclng QuebeoAvenue North; 1.1 feet off the reqUired 35 feet toa distance of 33.9 feet for the proposed living addition at its closest point to therront property line facing Quebec Avenue North; . 5.1 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 29.9 feet for the proposed deck at its closest point to the front property line facing Quebeo Avenue North; 10.9 feet off the reqUired 35 feet to a distance of 24.10 feet for the existing house at its closest point to the front property line facing Plymouth Avenue North; .. . 8.9 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of26..1 f~tfor the propOSed ttyree-stall garage addition at its closest point to the front property line facing Plymouth AvenUe North. Waiver from SectiOn 11.21, Sudb. 7(0)(2) Side Yard Setback .85 feet off the required 13.05 feet to a distance of 12.20 feet for the existing house at its closest point to the side. (south) property line; .85 feet off the required 13.05 feet toa distance of 12.20 feet for the proposed living addition at its closest point to the side (south) property line. To allow for the construction of a 4'x 22' deck (walkway) along the front of the house; construction of living space on the south side of the house; and construction ofa three-stall garage onto the northwest side of the house facing Plymouth Avenue. Chair Lang stated the requests. Staff Liaison Cold stated the applicants' request. The existing garage is a single-stall located on the south side of the house. The applicants would like to increase the garage width. but found it impossible to aohieve this along the south side. The existing house sits .85 feet into the side setback. They are proposing to turn the existing garage into living space and add an addition to the front of this garage for living space. An attached 3-stall garage would be constructed to the tit 1724 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals April 25, 2000 Page 4 east side of the existing house along Plymouth Avenue. The proposed three-stall garage would require an 8.9 foot variance at its closest point to the front (north) property line. The existing e house also needs a 10.9 foot variance. The proposed garage would be stepped back 2 feet from the existing house. There is a detached garage located at the southeast comer of the property that would be demolished. Lang inquired if there have been any prior variances. Dold stated that the house was built in 1946 and the attached garage was added in 1973. In 1973, they did not require the .85 foot variance for the garage. Chair Lang asked the applicants to. present their proposed project. Mark Den Hartigh, 1228 Quebec Avenue North, said the proposed garage would accommodate the space necessary for storage of tools and parking of vehicles. He contacted the abutting neighbors who did not have a problem with his plans. Hartigh said he would like to construct a deck/porch onto the front of the house for aesthetic value. McCracken-Hunt inquired if a railing is necessary for the front stoop. There are 3 existing risers and a step into the house. Shaffer commented that the City has been allowing some unenclosed porches to be built. The City has been receiving many requests for front porches. McCracken-Hunt noted that the biggest change to the site would be the elimination of a portion of the lilacs in order to access the proposed garage. Lang commented that double front yard setbacks always pose a problem. He believed the deck/porch would not cause any negative impacts along Quebec Avenue. e Swedberg said that the front yard setback and deck/porch do not cause a problem. Most houses in the neighborhood were built by the same builder, around the same time. The proposed plan is in conformance to the aesthetics in the neighborhood. The overhang adds some architectural appeal to the front of the house. Shaffer added that the proposed three-stall garage is not typically approved in Golden Valley. In this case, the garage is set back from the front of the house. He does not see a problem with the addition. Swedberg agreed that the request for the three-stall garage is unique in this case. MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by McCracken-Hunt, and motion carried unanimously to approve the requested variances as outline above. One condition was added that the detached garage on the. property be demolished. Request: e Yard Setback e 09-07 -1 0 1518 Valders Ave. N. Vernon Berglund, Applicant l109lI 1701 1536 8llO1 1535 1524 1529 1512 1m 8030 1515 I 1413 1412 1407 1406 M'W;,>(."'~W;.TIAr'~,~iiM$' C<-wpip! tC-~ L~~;;xns L [- l 7950 . 'Wt!SI.!Y DR 1536 1S4S ~ .ol: ~ w :3 ~ 1530 01O'l!1 1525 16IlO 1566 1560 15SO 1518 Valders Ave. N. 1531 1512 151.9 150Ii 1513 1507 1406 lit ~ <I: i ~ l OLYMPIA Sf 7845 1S36 1520 1508 7840 1601 15115 1551 1805 1541 1533 1525 1511 15119 18llO Hey Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: July 20,2009 From: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals Joe Hogeboom, City Planner 1518 Valders Avenue North Vernon Berglund, Applicant To: Subject: Background Vernon Berglund is the owner of the property located at 1518 Valders Avenue North. Mr. Berglund is requesting variances from the Zoning Code for the construction of a second garage stall with living space to the rear. The current one stall garage stall is inadequate in size, and is considered to be a hardship by the applicant. The applicant is proposing to construct the addition within five feet of the north side property line at its closest point. No prior variances have been obtained for this property. Variances The proposal requires variances from the following sections of City Code: . Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements. For this property, City Code requires a distance of 12.5 feet between a home/attached garage and the north side yard property line. The applicant is requesting 7.5 feet off of the required 12.5 feet to a distance of 5 feet between the proposed addition and the north side yard property line. . Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(3)(d) Articulation Requirements. City Code requires that all walls longer than 32 feet be articulated. The applicant has stated a desire to articulate the proposed addition; however, possible articulation configurations would not meet City standards. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a waiver to the articulation requirement, allowing a 35 foot wall to be built along the north side of the home without articulation. Recommended Action Staff supports this proposal, and recommends approval of the variances as requested. City of Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Zoning Code Variance AQ~lication -------------_._"------"~-----~---~-- 1. Street address of prope y involved in this application: 2. Applicant: ~ \5\ 0 ~~\~es2> ~IA~. .~\a.U\\J<^\~~ 'GS1i2:l Address J City/State/Zip 1~-5L15-~Gt-3 lo\Z:-L\D-~L\ Business Phone Home Phone Cell Phone ~'I<O heL Q> Lll? rY"It' ~+ . f\ct 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. ~Q.v"\ 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. ~p 5. To the best of my knowledge the s atements 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. ~~ 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 SUWll1 hivfe~ Comment Signature ~ ~ Print Name ~ \', 2.,^ k +h Kli\.'^f p i \ IV Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature ~~ ~ K~~ _Q;\~~~~'l\ ~/ WHvy (!Drn~ (( tzZ::; {!~ ~df.L~ "', \:) ;;If"' /kltzf'1 AddressJ~2..Lt \k\cld0~. hL ... Address \'SZ. \JD.\ Jt.f~'\~. ~) . Address \~ \f1A\A~k.~. Address \6'~ ~C\\Jt'~ Ave-. 'N. Address \~2.5 W'.^l\~ .k;~ Address Address jf:~' ,'"..~'~:'":'~'i"{''''"''''''' .'~. _. :;::-..... ~'"."".....(,....." "<;::'~"'''''''''"''~''''' ... <.-= .. <..~^' ...:~ "'0'" (. '~''''J-I ~ l. wO ~ D~:: ~i .. . . . LLI ,i J5 i r (J .Y....I r--' ~ .. .' ~ ~ ~ H . I ~ i ?I , Ii', 1 , ! i I ! i I I l,\' ~. It , t , , ~ ~~..~u....~~~.l::~~ i i I ! , [--~-- :0 -t--- I x ! w ! I I I I I I ! i I i / j Hl~ON 3nN3A'V' 9~3CJ1'V'^ I I I ! i ~ I- ~ Q I in ('l\ ...J -c U ii: ..... 0% ~g ~i , LLI 0 -L~~ "'- LLILL1 LL11- - "''' :r::~ I ;;D,.. }=. l~. n:: \~~"",., ,,,.. .%.;o:.~ ::z z <C ....I Q. LLI l- v; -r- ~~~ :....................~ . . r......._...~...._.......A._....A..~~.._...."...A..............A,........l ~ ' :::--:::::::::::::::..-;:::::::::::::="'~ n-:=.-.. .:t.: .....~...=.1lll!'>::rn::1l 111i!,~ / [ --~ Ii I DIk,LfJl[~"' I' J I~ i ~! 119f ""I~l:_ti~==IT==~_,__.~l m ~ I ii' ",-,J! i I I I I ill f! ~ I!-- '11 i I I I I 1'-rJ L...., 11 - i~~:::=il Ii II ~ II l iil-:~ I Ii 1"-'1 n II II I, iji !,;.: l,:. I i.l...~::::...-~.! l., :::: : L~~~~:..l ... ,.n....;............. i' II II IT! n i' '" .', i' F' j , lJ:::::E::::~=-:::::::~~:=::c.::::::L~~:G.:.:~~~.:.~~:~~.l. _::;::;::::~J:;'d"k,.,,:Z0.':.s-5\1..&,s:.::::::::::::::::.::!J d :.:1 '''1 ; , ,..._.....T...............~....m.....Tm.......' : .................................J z :3 0.. ...J L&.I > L&.I ...J Z ~ t- V) X L&.I . tWO) 1: _ jg ~<i -I 0 U W QlL ~ ~.t: ~3_ 3 3I: W WD! :z :z.... -I -I ~ ---,-:~ 'Q 'z :3 ;.... 'd) ~X 1...mH..m....;W ~ ; ~ ; f 1 _CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY_ r<a:Vemon Berglund 1518 ValdersAve Golden Valley, MN ~ HC'~~" ~ I -I ,- - - 30 ------1 I I -, :... 1-- 58,9&39' lO'E I tt' ~ .~ - - (:71.7Q --- - , '\.I I ~ I,). 'II( ~ &to ~ Q -J '< I~ 'IIIL : 1 .. =10 .... - Lot 1~, Block 1 GOLDEN OAKS . ' _ SECOND ADDITION ~ /' . Denotes 'iron marker fo.unc:l o _Denotes W' iron pipe set (marked RLS6274 @ lot comers)-i a- Denotes wood fence -#It-- Denotes- steel fence ..- ..... 6,.,fr~e ~ .' I I , :, '... /IN- tF~td '-.+_ 9 et~ r -" -- oj ~ ~-~I~ ' . " ~ ~ t,J- . - - .... C)I. __ 'U ~v ~ ... /1 "O~__-",I 1.1( - v! \ " :J ---:1' \.i ~'1: -, ~ "tl-l. I'I'~ ~./ - -/~'- ;-- t',. ..- I \ ,}if- N '... Iii. { [ r}"''' ,!...... '-- ' I. ~<' I - -,} I I I t...-f~ " -- I " " ", "-.. ,. ~ fI . ( -<:)~ -",9 ~'1 " - ~.I/" _ I .. ~ - b.'> ltJ_ I {'1" " 0"-'1-- Ic:'r 44 (,,, "r ..,.. n.f I I -'u I · \0 ~--l ~,'t-_ '- \ft ~ I.; A.. ... .... 'IIU ~ I~ I I I 1 ,.......'j . " J :;,...#0 , ...~-' / ,,' / L.1j .... , 'of'''" ", ~/"'-, t.:J "(Jfl" - \1- '" ~ "-,,- ,~.. . . . . I ,~I ~....... .." -------- ---I'Z.'4 ---~ fJ 880 38(2./'!w "'/1.1 -...! r - HtJ~SE 1 ... , I , . I , . . I j . ti"I!'#' " - , ....-r CIR1IFY 'fHAT "ItS SJR'CY WAS ....,...-0 IY ME OR UJrI8t MY CRCT fUUltIISIOM. -/till) 'fHAT ,. A DULY ..__ lAID Mw:'A'lR UNDIIII 'H .... (s H STAlE (s ...IDOTA. t;r.~~~.6274 - II- - /{- 0' Date I i E I I 011ns N~IS30 HJIAOrnA lIO.:l 03l1Vd3l1d NOI.iJnll.iSNOJ ltO.:l .iON 3.i VWI.iS3 N~IS30 JI.l VW3HJS ~ :::i ~ '3 W Z r 'JL ~ ,J 0 a _wL. wa Z i '3 * t- I ~ ~ I ~ i= is ~ ~ a d) ~ '3 ~ ... ~~ aIL z>- - t- '3 , '3!; WOC Zt- 5Q ...J ...J ~ ~ ...J - <[ d ~~ ~ ~i ~ 1: ~ ~~ ...J () 0 ~ 2~ lL3. '3 '3!; W WI)[ Z ZF ~:t ~ i.1 i ! i i : ! I 1'1 o-!.!! II! i ! i j j I! I moll ...J ...J ~ '3 ~~~.w~:Q ~a ,2 1'3 It- Id) 'X .................;W G i= is ~ 600l 3Nnr l ~ LltrSS NW A311YA N3alO~ Hl.~ON 3nN3A y ~3alY A 8 ~ S ~ 3JN30lS3l1 ONnl~lI39 ~ is d) G E a ~ ~ '3 ~ ::x: .... :::) o V) ., j " I :~............", ~ "l. ~ i= is ~ I I I ml mJl ml ! I ill ; mJ. 1 "1 ~ ; l . i i I . , I , , I . i ~ -II ~:<i Q~ aIL 6t: '3 , '3!; ~~ 1: ;g 8 ...J W ~ ~ 2 aoc '3 ...J '3 '3 !;; ~~ ~ W ~ Z LIJ '3Q '3 ~ ~a ~ 09-07 -11 7100 Madison Ave. W. Richard Storlien, Applicant 17100 Madison Ave. w.1 MEDICINE U\KE !to n-..-,...,oooo -v-v 0000 88 00 00 0000,..p j:SXJ co Q(Y cco:x:xxx;oo9~ 2445 o 2401 2S2O 11S1l o o 7155 2420 :z: ~ ~ J ~ 28 >>60 1145 7155 o o 1140 .0, o 2Slll1 M~!>~A~ W <) 7135 7101 2455 o 2300 i 2365 8 ~ J 2325 ~ Z U30 2370 28 7130 o 2328 M. o o o _! 6747 6125 6709 6641 Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: July 20,2009 Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals Joe Hogeboom, City Planner 7100 Madison Avenue West Richard Storlien, Applicant To: From: Subject: Background Richard Storlien represents the owner of the property located at 7100 Madison Avenue West. 7100 Madison Avenue West is located in the Industrial Zoning District. Mr. Storlien is requesting variances from the Zoning Code to allow a parking lot to be constructed with three less parking spaces than required. There is an existing gravel parking area on the site. Space on the site is limited, and the construction of a parking lot that conforms to City Code is not feasible on this site. Variances were obtained in 1983 and again in 2002 which bring the existing structure into ,conformance with City.Code. Records pertaining to those variance rulings have been attached to this report. Variances The proposal requires variances from the following sections of City Code: . Section 11.70, Subd. 3 Minimum Number of Required Parking Spaces. In the Industrial Zoning District, City Code requires 1 parking space per every 3,000 square feet of gross floor area for warehouse and storage space. For this property, 36 parking spaces are required. The applicant is requesting 3 parking spaces off the required 36 parking spaces for a total of 33 parking spaces. . Section 11.36, Subd. 6(C)(4) Side Yard Setback Landscaping Requirements. A variance is needed to waive the landscaping requirement of 10 feet to allow a driveway to access the parking area. The current driveway is located partially on the neighboring lot to the west. (A driveway located entirely on 7100 Madison Avenue would not be feasible, due to the proximity of the building to the east and west side yard property lines.) The applicant is requesting a waiver of 10 feet off of the required 10 feet to a distance of 0 feet of landscaping along the west side property line. Recommended Action Staff recommends approval of the above variances, provided that an easement is obtained from the property owner 7140 Madison Avenue to allow for the driveway to legally exist on the property. Staff recommends the easement be filed with the County and documented with the City prior to the institution of the proposed variances. City of Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Zoning Code Variance Application 1. Street address of property involved in this application: {too ~A.D l s.o r-J. AvE \N:ES-r- 2. Applicant: R \ C H ~#2...1::) .c::f;fV P-Lt e:t-J Name /0[35 4,i! Av~ Address p---ns A R. CJ11 'Tf:ZC r..s pt,y.~OvrH MW S~2 City/State/Zip (0\'2.- ~\O-9tc'1- ~ lb3 -550..2.'(9 Business Phone Home Phone rs-l-o ,.. , ( en @ COM cast. Vl et EmailAddress ~t2"'.e1O -9628" Cell Phone 3. . Detailed description of building{s), addition{s), and alteration{s) involved in this petition. The site plans and drawings submitted with this petition will be the basis of any variance that may be approved and cannot be changed before or after the building permit is issued. ExPAJ-JDr~6 E:X.\GTING :P AR'f-.\ tJG:, # V A~1 A.tJ C E pt2-\ \/aJA'f 5-erS ACK. P ~\(.t \J b Lcrr ..FQ2-... oW --S t rcr P.e;Q\J~ST Fo~..?' C~ f- ON (Alesi S IOF of B LDG 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. ~\ST\tJG. \?>V\l-Dr~b f_D~,J\J ew A-y LOCA110N c(l.B\WS L I Nt I il:::L> MeA raP-. f>A~ .,J b STA LL' f D P-.J \J8.AJ~1 ts ~\f 9VGR.. ~.. Jt:.....\JJA .~ 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 ~ot taken within one year, the variance e~ ~ Signature of Applicant . 6. If the applicant is not the owner of all property involved in this application, please name the owne;;~~;~ope~;~/~; ~ Print Name of owner ~~wner . Variance Application Submittal: The following information must be submitted by the application deaqline to make a complete application. If an application is incomplete, it will nQt be accepted: _ Completed application form, including signatures of surrounding property owners. / A current or usable survey of the property must be attached. See the handout on survey requirements. ~ A brief statement of the hardship which provide grounds for the granting of this variance (see Frequently Asked Questions for an explanation of a "hardship"). Attach letter, photographs, or other eVldence,ifappropriate. ~ 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 cou~d have on your property. You will also be receiving awritten notice informing you ofthe time and place of the variance meeting. o 'f \. ! ~ !it !i !i I~ ~! ~ ~ l it ! ! it ........ ""'" DEMARS-GABRIEL LAND SURVEYORS, INC. 8875 WASHINGTON A\f'. SO. SUlTF:2fl9 Edina. IrIN 55439 ~:f::j::~== o 'f \. l 4- Adja"""t /JuiJdiDI N 81r51 '02" E 100.01 .~ ;!! ~ 1 ~ ... I II I I I I 7.0 --, .... I .. , I'Jt ~ 01 !> 01 ~ '1 l:) lQ~ <>~ =0:' I "~fi . I ! I I' 1'1~ ~ j II:'";) I... i I i I I t i I l 2 ~ u.. Q# Lot 12 o'f \. l l IGcrr,noo,. ElfN.1D.o I =908.21 I I I I I ",I I'" !!I I!! h i ONE STORY I j IOFFlCE/JI'AREHOUSE' ~ I BUIWlNG : I 17100 I I Bldg. Areo-9.'00 Sq. Ft. I I I I I : I II lit l~ h ...... --- -.... ----0-- -- LEGAL oeseR/PTlON (os per Ttfle Insurance Commitment File No.10021179f, doted September f7, 2002, iSsued by Chicago 1it:111 fnsuronca Company) Lot 13, Block f. ADVERTISING - CREATNE CENTER. according to tlk!recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. LEGEND o - Denotes Manhole . - Denotes Catch Basin 't{ - Denotes Hydrant o - Denotes Telephone Box 'C1' - Denotes Gas Meter .0- - Denotes Utility Pole U1tm. Reg. No. 22414 FileNo. ,.72JC - go "'- <Ill-<J - '''-30' AS-BUILT SURVEY ~DF created with pdfFaclory trial version www _ctoN com DavId E.. Crook , hentby C<<tify thal this swvey. pion or i1tpott ..oa prepared by 1M or under my direct ~ end that I om 0 duly R.t.ered Land Stu'YeJIor under the Lows of tM Stole of t.BtInesoto. Dote: .JumJ sth. 2009 60 30 ~..- ~ ! o 30 60 I Scale I" = 30 ft Denotes Iron Monument C'\EP\DRAW\ 13723.dwg PREPARED FOR, MR. DUANE SAWYER \.001 '" BUILOING coc)E REvlEW I!WdllO c:N-.1C8C:l l!IUlLOINOo1'Tll'l!Y!I :I~"::.~~:=I!~~" ~T"I'NTT~e A\.~o::IllIAeL..a.ot.Pb<o.o."A~TIr::WI ,:~;:~:.tSJ 1"Iee"ip.al>c1lllSO Ir,leeflo4el-..BIo<BIW>le!Iol>lCllll!_ ~&Q.l'T.Al.LCllIIAeI.l!l<UO.~&Q.""_ ~1'IJAI. fB 0ClI:.J eulLPItlCIo . .we iQ.Ft. '&XI5Tl1<lCOIll/ll.I:l~I&I.fOIIl'Yt'\.fI6OIolRT'.TEiL QClNtTNIc;:flClN utmtyPalIl ~ll,l ~ 'I' t: ~ . .1. ! ,9XIEl5 &TALL& r " ~ , Iii ~ ... I VAN Ace &TALL icel :"e ~ ' ,10 c"l<' c t':l~;. 2; ~~, 1'11~ ! ;!; ~' \.. ~ . ~ i g ~ i r , , I ~ , EXI&TINc; ONE I I"~ , & TOI'!Y BLDG. , , , 11C1>iZ1 MADI&ON AVE. , I ~ I , I z , , , I , I , , I I I I , I ="" , , I I ~l I I ill I r- --- _J liZliZI.<Z>5' N e9d 55' 55' E ONE STORY OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING /7100 Btdq. Areo=9,IOO Sq. Ft. 15.0 ---.~I ~ ,.~ TOTAL BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE= S,l00 SQ. FT. &lNaLE OCCUIDANCY etJlLOINCi OFFICE (OCCUPANCY e; . 848e> &Q. FT. ~~~.,. OF FLOOR AREA !i!ECORD5 STORAGe: (ACCES. TO 6) . (;112 SQ. FT. 6.'% OF F1.0OR AREA OFPICe: OCCUPANT LOAD. &4Ut!0e>. e.s. STORAGE OCCUPANT LOAD. E112/3-/Di:2l. ~ TOTAL OCCUPANTS FOIli: BUILDING. ee PAFilKtNG REQ'P (OFFICE A~A 112S>0) . 34 fil'AIIlKINO !'tEQ'!:> (6TORAGE AIIil:EA VS0ttl) . 2 TOTAL PA!t'KINC:S RECfO . 3E> TOTAL !='ARt(lNCi1: F'ROVIDED . 33 VARIANCE REQUEST. 3 ~ a;) ;~~;.,:LAN Wat~ln ACCEfIS -100.05 Stonn M.H. N 89'65 '55" IE ~~ MADISON AvENUE WEST MADISON A VENUE 'WEST NOlO'" """'" ~ G) ~~.,~:ING PLAN en E-; U ~ .~ K ~ ~~ ~ .-t >: . 00 a, :I: < ~ ~~ U -S ~ 00 ~!;;: :x::g on NM ('r\ 0-1.0 ~ ~ \Or-- en '" ~ .. . ;11 u ~ ~" ffi ::E ~ ~ o ~ ~ ..> i><:~ ~O ~> ~~ O~ ~~ b::E~ ~::E~ ~ 0 ~ ~ U ~ .... < f-< o i ::E ;..; '" '" ~ ill Cl '" 8 f-< '" '" ::: '" ISSUE JUlYl,2IlOIt REVISIONS JOB #06253 SHEET # A1 OFA1 ... ~ a,~w 4Uh:p..~h;t--~ ~ 7/tJ5 ~ P ,(1,-,..(. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY Board of Zoning Appeals Notice of Final Order Number: 83-5;"9 Date: May 17, 1983 Pet it ioner: Michael B. YierCe Address: 1484~ 19th Avenue North Plymouth, MN 55441 re.Z100 Madison Avenue \4.& 7105 Medicine Lake Road At a regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals held on May 10. 1983 your petition for a waiver 1.03. 7.05(3)c. 7.0S(3)d of Section (s), Z.05(~)d. Z.O~(~)d. of the City Zoning Code was acted upon. Attached you will find an unofficial copy of the minutes of the Board. Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals If waivers granted are not acted upon within ~ year from date of approval in accordance with current statutes, the waivers have expired. '* . Board otZoni ng Appeal s Page 5 May 10, 1983 Lot 15, Block I, Golden Valley Estates Hennepin County Minnesota. WHEREAS, all pe' ons present were giv heard, NOW THE FORE BE ESOLVED, i the Bi fZoning Appeals for the City of Gol fltJalley", hat following waiver of Section 3A.06( 3) is her~~~gra ,to-wit: side setback r 5 feet oft the required 12.75 fee 0 a s of eight feet from the so lot Hn to tti ,ck pas previously pro ed, for the' property ed at 1296 le Court, Gol' n Valley. ,~. The _ o~ for the adoption \f the foregoing. res~ was. seconded by Herb achek and upon vote betitt9 taken thereon the follo~g voted in favor . ereof: carried unanimously~and the following voted agaihst the same: non. Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed b the Chariman and his signature crttested by the Secretary. 83-5-9 (Map 14) Industrial Lot 12 and those parts of 10 and 11 lying Northerly of the Westerly E xtens i on of the North 1 i ne of Lot 9, A 11i n Block 1, Adve rt i sing Creative Center and Lot 13, Block 1, Advertising Creative Center 7100 Madison Avenue West and 7105 Medicine Lake Road (the proposal includes the two properties to be combined as one parcel) Michael B. Pierce and Jerry Baskfield The Petition is for waiver of Sections 1.03 (Lot of record) to provi de for two structures on one parcel of 1 and, and waiver of Section 7.05(3)c rear setback for n05 Medi ci ne tak e Road Bldg. for 9.8 feet off the required 20 feet setback to a distance of 10.4 feet from the lot 11 neto the the proposed addition to the rear of 7105 Medicine Lake Road. For waiver of Section 7.05(3}d landscape for 40 feet off the requ1red50 feet of landscape along the west lot line of 7105 Medicine Lake Road to a landscape area of 10 feet in width (50 feet required because it abuts a residential zoning). r Board of Zoning Appeals Page 6 May 10, 1983 7.05(31d For waiver of Section landscape for 10 feet off t~e required 10 feet green area, at the north lot line of 7100 Madison Avenue to a green area of 0 feet as it nowexi sts as blacktop pari< ing area. For waiver of Section landscape for 10 feet off the required 10 feet of landscape along the west lot li neof 7100 Madi son Avenue to a landscape Area of 0 feet as it now exists as black top driveway and park ing area. Total parking required for both sites is 99 spaces. Total provided is 99 spaces. The petition was in order. Consent had been obtained from adjacent properties except for Lucille M. Gregerson, the adjacent property ownerabuttfng the. west lot line of 7105 Medicine Lake Road. Ms. Gregerson resides at 7125 Medicine Lake Road and her property is zoned residential. Ms. Gregerson was present at themeeti ng. 7.05(31d Mr. Michael B. Pierce, Otmer of 7105 Medicine Lake Road, was present and with him was his architect, Mr. Charles Novak. Mr. Pierce exlained he had an option to purchase 7100 Madison Avenue Building subject to approval of the w ai vers proposed. He described his present business, explained that it has been very successful and that he needed the additional room that he has proposed to add to his building at 7105 Medicine Lake Road. He said if he purchased the Madison Avenue property,it would be used as an investment property. However, he later explained it could be used in part for some tool room storage for his own facility. For manufacturing processes and continuity, it was best to house all production facilities in one building. The architect described the two levels of the proposed addition to .therear of the Medicine Lake Building. He also reviewed the drainage on both sites and surrounding property and said if the waivers were approved, they would correct the storm water drainage problems and clean up the sites. Mahlon Swedberg expressed his concerns about eventually havi ng this lower level garage door area bei ng used as a loadi ng dock with the Madison Avenue property to the rear providing access for trucks to the door of the Medicine Lake Road B ui 1 di ng. Mr. Pierce said his intent would be a door approximately 8 feet by 8 feet and probably use the area to store his boat. Mr. Pierce said he doesn't use or need all the parking that he is required by ordina.nce to have. r Board of Zoning Appeals Page 7 May 10, 1983 Glen Christiansen said the buildings have to stand on their own and that owners and occupants change and the purpose of the Zoni n9 Code is to i nsu re they can meet adequate parking, setbacks, etc. , no matter who is the owner or occupant. Art Flannagan said it appears to him to be a proposed over-utilization of the site and while it is desirable to see a successful business, it cannot be to the detriment of the city and its codes. Herb Polachek said his best description of what coul d. happen is the same situation that occurred on Lilac Drive when Flower City took over a previous church adoi ni stratton buil ding and created park ing problems because they had different requirements. Mahlon Swedberg sai d he feel stheproposal is not in the best interest of Golden Valley and it goes beyond what is prudent development for both existing sites and is contrary to the intent and good usage of the surrounding property when the IlCreative Industrial Park" was platted. Ms. Gregerson spoke and said the rentention of the required 50 feet of green area adjacent to her house was essential to her. She said when the original building was built she approved of it based on the requirement by the Board of Zoning Appeal that the 50 feet of green be there as the code requires. She noted she has had offers to sell her home as it is the only residential parcel The Board noted what considerations constitute hardship. Mike Sell described how he saw the two properties could be used and speculated that the two owners coul dagree to cross over the Madi son Avenue property and use a lower level of the Medicine Lake Road Building. The proposed addition woul d require waivers, however, and no lower level could be constructed wi thout Board of Zoni ng Appeal s approval. Art Flannagan moved to deny the waivers as requested. Second by Glen Christiansen. Mahlon Swedberg called for further discussion. There being no further conments, Swedberg called the vote and it was unanimous to deny the waivers as requested. The Board informed Mr. Pierce of the appeal process to the Ci1;y Council that is available. Mahlon Swedberg revtewed several administrative matters with the Board. . He explained the informational materials he received from Mayor Thorsen and the Board completed their responses so the forms may be forwarded to the Mayor. There being no further business to come before the Board, it was upon motion, second and vote to adjourn at 9:40 P.M. Mahlon Swedberg, Chai rman Lloyd G. Becker, Secretary <fi~, < ,.'e/{;: :!,o{~old>~nValle ,:," www.c<gOIden-va/lry.m.."'Y City Hall " ZllOOGolden Valley Road GoldeilValleyiMN 55427-4588 763-593-8000 '\,;763-593-8109 (fax) ';7~593-3968' (TDD) CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY Board of Zoning Appeals Notice of Final Order ie'" ,f'f.Aayor and Council 763-593-8006 'j" August23,2002 , City Manager , ,763-593-8002 Number: 02.. 7 41 " PUblic Safety Police: 763-593-8079 ',-,-, . Ere: 763-593-8055 ",763-593-8098 (fax) Petitioner( s): AI Peters Address: 7100 Madison Avenue W. . , Public Works . '763-593-8030 763-593-3988 (fax) Golden Valley. MN 55427 .....'.. ,~' '. mspections . 763-593-8090 '763-593-3997 (fax) At a regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals held on July 23, 2002 your petition for the following waivers of the City Zoning Code were acted upon: ','-" , MotOr Vehicle Licensing 763-59,3-8101 · Section 11.36, Subd. 6(A) Front Yard Setbacks · Section 11.36, Subd. 6(C)(3) Side Yard Setbacks "'J;>lanning and Zoning 7~3-593-8095 " ,Finance 763- 593-80 13 Attached you will find an unofficial copy of the minutes of the Board. Staff Liaison Board of Zoning Appeals Assessing ..,763"593-8020 Park and Recreation 2QO Brookview Parl.-way Colden Valley. MN 55426- 1364 763-512-2345 763-512-2344 (fax) 76,3-593-3968 (TDD) If waivers are not acted upon within one year from date of approval in accordance with statutes, the waivers have expired. f" , ~ Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting July 23, 2002 Page 12 MOVED by Sell, seconded by. era and motion carried. . ~ un ~oapprove the following requests: ~. /'" feet istance of 16.8 feet for the proposed parking nt yard property Une along Madison Avenue West. feet to a distance of 10 teet for the proposed building at its closest poi the so erty line. e number of equired parking s spaces to 16 7100 Madison Avenue West (Map 14 AI Peters A Iicant Request: .36, Subd. 6(A) Front Yard Setback uired 35 feet to a distance of 34.9 feet for the. . gat its closest pointto the front yard property tson Avenue West. Purpose: xisting building into conformance with front yard uirements. r from Section 11.36, Subd. 6(C)(3) Side Yard Setbacks · 5 feet off the required 20 feet to a distance of 15 feet for the existing building at its closest point to the east and west side yard property lines. · 15 feet off the required 20 feet to a distance of 5 feet for the proposed dog kennel addition at its closest point to the east side yard property Une. Purpose: To bring the existing building into conformance with side yard setback requirements and to allow for the construction of a proposed dog kennel addition on the property. . Olson stated that the applicant would like to move his business, Hearing and Service Dogs of Minnesota, from Minneapolis to Golden Valley. He stated that most of the variances being requested are for the existing building and that the applicant would like to construct a dog kennel addition on the property. . 12 ( Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting July 23, 2002 Page 13 Shaffer asked which one of the two drawings they received should be used. McCracken-Hunt added that the measurement of the addition is shown different on the two plans. Olson clarified where the addition is actually proposed to be and stated that the roof of the addition is the main part of the proposal.that needs a variance. He stated that the applicant could build a cement slab and a fence without requiring any variances, but because the. applicant would like the roof to five fee e east property line he needs a variance. Olson asked if dogs i settling in period, the dogs are outSI a time. AI. Peters, Applicant gave some background information on his dogs are trained for deaf or physically disabled peopl charge. He stated that the dogs are always supervised the structure outside for when they clean the inside of t plans to the. Board and discussed what he is inten nd stated that n to them free of d that they need He showed his Shaffer noted that the sketch the Board recei high fence and a 14-foot roof. Peters stated t changed the plans to have a 6:..foot hig askediftherewouldstill be a five-foo the structure to have a 10-foot understood and has since O-foot roof. McCracken-Hunt g the east side of the building. Shaffer stated he was concerne property line with no screenin going on they bark less. H be an improvement to wh g the dog fun SO close to the east side explained that when the dogs can see what is the neighbor to the east has said that it would in to the training act up. Peters stated that there is a t a humane society or a kennel. Olson asked how long rs stated they are outside approximately 10 to 15 minutes at . ny. dogs would be at the facility at one time. Peters stated that Id have 12 dogs and that this new space would provide room to grow. Olson state at the parking is not adequate on the paved area and that he would like to add as a condition of approval that if it is ever determined that they would need more parking they would have to add curb and gutter and pave the unpaved area. Peters stated that only five of his employees would be driving to the facility. . Gary Gandrud, Fagre & Benson, 90 5th Street, Minneapolis. representing the underlying owner of the building stated that he is not against Mr. Peters or Hearing and Service Dogs of MN and that in the right place it would be a wonderful program. He stated that there could be as many as 40 dogs there and that the variance being requested is for a kennel. He asked what the ownership interest of the applicant is. Olson stated that he did receive a letter from Gregory Wold, the owner of the property 13 (. j Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting July 23, 2002 Page 14 which the applicant is purchasing the property from, stating that he is aware of the variance request and supportsit. Gandrud stated that a letter from the owner isn't good enough and that the owner needs to sign the variance request application. He asked what the proposed roof would look like and what materials would be used. McCracken-Hunt explained that those types of issues are not part of this board's jurisdiction, and that the Id be looked at in the permit process. Olson explained that the City's variance plication is in the process of being redone to allow for owner's signatures t Gandrud stated that the Board has not discussed any un basis for granting a variance. He stated that variances intent of the zoning 'code. Shaffer stated that the Board state what the hardships are for a particular prope supporting their decisions and that is the the spirit arid ways specifically t they do make comments Sell asked which owner <3andrud represents. property is the estate of Fredda Bisma made of undue hardships, the appli tenants in the neighboring building parking property line and that it . stated that it is not the use oft dr stated that the owner of the at there hasn't been any case pall of the green space and the ve to look at 20 to 40 dogs right at the 'ng with the character of the nice area. He g that is the hardship, it is the property. Olson explained that it is and fence with no roof w disagreed with that i about the findings t the applicant is in u ing official's interpretation is that S'cement slab equire a building permit. Gandrud stated thathe ,and stated that the Board should ask the city attorney ake and th~t these are valuable properties and that osing to build a commercial kennel. adjacent parking lot itnot adjacent to the lot line. Gandrud at their building is setback the way it is suppose to be. He added owns the property objects to this' proposal. Peters ask Mr. Gandrud was representing one of the twelve different condominium owners or the owner ofthe building. Gandrud stated that his client owns one of the condominiums in the building. McCracken-Hunt asked the applicant to clarify the maximum number of dogs that would be on the ,site. He stated that they have neverhad more than ten and would never have more than twenty. McCracken-Hunt asked ifthere is astandardofthe numberof dogs allowed per square foot. Peters stated that there could be hundreds of dogs and that the laws require thatthe dogs be able to stand up. Smith stated that one thing the Board considers are the aesthetic issues of a vacant building. He added that the Board has tried to preserve property in the City and that 14 . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting July 23, 2002 Page 15 there may not necessarily be an "undue hardship", but that part of the Board's charge is to preserve buildings. Shaffer stated he is concerned about undue hardships as well. He stated that there is . probablyanothe( use for this property, but the intent is to protect neighborhoods. . He' said that the Board is not bending any rules and that they are doing what they've been doing for thirty years. approve the MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Smith and motion carried u following variance requests with the conditions listed below . .1 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 34.9 its closest point to the front yard property line along 5 feet off the required 20 feetto adistan closest point to the east and west side y isting building at venue West. . he existing building. at its lines; · 15 feet off the required 20 feet to a addition at its closest point to the et for the proposed dog. kennel d property line. 1) pment Director determines.that additional plicant shall pave and stripe the existing gravel area on show this additional parking. Concrete curb and or this parking area, as per City Code Section 11. 70, omes a problem, the Director of Planning and Development hat the area be screened. 3) nnel structure must remain an open structure. Request: Purpose: 'J ,1' ~,! .' Ij"/ .",;"~l ft..':'\" > !,._ J, if' I~~ t '~. .. . t l ',\- (l ;1:~ 'I. ~. . .~'! " -, .:~ r '. ;;(~'i '/~' · ~.,.~~ 't. ~ ~~r...~1 .~' '. ., . } ~ "F,1t) , .:"j,. . "'1~' u' ," ~ '.' ) . ,~. ,1 f ",,' ...~: j - . ... ~h r'. "i..," ~. . Y",~' ,1", ,;1 '~ ' . . " ; \. '; / .;,rA' ri", ""1 " .' " ~. , ~~~ i '.. ! '1 .. ~.: " '~ . ,,j~ ...'" ...: hI , . " ' .~ ,'J' ., { II ,,~ ~j;: .' " ." ';'-v~ " l <-4:~ ,>It ", ,.: <~\~ . ~::...,; '~ ~ < " ~ ~Il; (:. - ,.., _ ~- 7: ,'. ,..tI:".f'i'1~.. ;;,1;." ~,~ . 7:J' .' tr.' . " I i .j.'(.%....~'j....~J.i ''l' r ~. ". , ."".1' . ~_,(-:' " 't,.: f';l,'//,;'/ ~'~'" r ' ..., ~.../ ,~:.~ _,' -i,rl h..," i~ ..l' ! t./i~ ' ," .1 ' ~i .\ .. ~... n.... .J, k \,I~ ',~ .J.. "",7 t" .. }~ ... M I t , '. , .;.b } , ", :.I t . j, . ", '.' ~. . f "", - ; , III "'".11' . "f ,. .... , .f' I I "f .. ..{ . ~{ . f " J a u III II u .. '" ~ ','1" -, , . , " V .\ ~ t> 11; , " '" .. \. II II \. ./., ~ ~. -- ..... F-~- " I I I I I ; , . I f ~....... -~