The URL can be used to link to this page

08-25-09 BZA Agenda Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, August 25, 2009 7pm 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers I. Approval of Minutes - July 28, 2009 II. The Petitions are: 525 Radisson Road (09-08-12) Greaory and Lee Anne Schaefer. ADDlicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(2) Rear Yard Setback Requirements . 11 ft. off the required 36 ft. to a distance of 25 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard (east) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a deck. 316 Meadow Lane North (09-08-13) Maaaie Bostrom/Leo Furcht. ADDlicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(3)(c) Side Yard Setback Requirements . 0 ft. off the required 8 ft. to a distance of 0 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Purpose: To bring the recently constructed deck into conformance with zoning code requirements. 2500 Mendelssohn Avenue North (09-08-14) Marvin Frieman. ADDlicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.30, Subd. 11(6)(a) Front Yard Setback Requirements . 11.29 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 23.71 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (west) property line along TH 169. Purpose: To allow for the construction of an addition to the existing building Request: Waiver from Section 11.30, Subd. 11 (6)(a) Front Yard Setback Requirements . 2.67 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 32.33 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (south) property line along Mendelssohn Ave. N. Purpose: To allow for the construction of an addition to the existing building III. Other Business IV. Adjournment This document is availabl~ 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 July 28, 2009 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, July 28, 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 Pia g Commission Representative McCarty. Also present were City Planner Joe Hogeb()om'and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. II. The Petitions are: I. Approval of Minutes - June 23, 2009 MOVED by Sell, seconded by Kisch and motion carried 23, 2009 minutes as submitted. 1221 Pennsylvania Avenue North (U9=07'-09) David and Cindy Berg/Sicora Inc.. Applicants Purpose: ubd. 11 (A)(1) Front Yard Setback Request: Waiver from S Requiremen 35 ft. to a distance of 30.2 ft. at its closest north) property line. onstruction of an addition to the home and a new ff!om Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(2) Rear Yard Setback ments .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. Hogeboom stated that the applicants are proposing to construct an addition to their home and new two-stall garage. He stated that it is difficult for the applicants to meet the setback requirements because this property is a corner lot and the west property line is considered the rear property line rather than a side yard property line. He noted that the neighboring property to the west (1228 Quebec Ave. N.) is located closer to Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 28, 2009 Page 2 Plymouth Avenue than the applicants' home would be if they build the proposed new addition and garage. He said he believes the applicant's meet the hardship requirements and that staff is recommending approval of these variance requests. Cindy Berg, Applicant, stated that they moved into this home in 1975 and have always had dreams of expanding it. She stated that the house is too small and they have never been able to keep both cars in the garage along with lawn and snow equipment and other storage and they would rather not build an accessory structure. Sh y want to "age in place" and stay in Golden Valley and all of the neighbor about their proposal. David Berg, Applicant, referred to an aerial photo of the area an nearby homes are to the property line along Plymouth Ave. Heffi . thatthe r home will be further away from Plymouth Ave. than these neigh~oringibom~s even after their proposed addition is constructed. McCarty asked about the size of t 20 ft. x 20 ft. of theipf9perty and ey could in order to stay ized lot and the rear yard lem because this lot is Tom Sicora, Contractor for the Project, referred to.asurv explained that they have condensed everything a uch a within the setback requirements. He stated t 's an 0 setback requirement of 20% of the lot dep h 143 feet in depth. cora said the existing garage is Segelbaum asked how my~hcloser the proposed new garage would be to the west property line compared tOitbe e' ng gar~ge. Kisch noted that the new garage would be 7.7 ft. closer to th west p y line compared to the existing garage. roposed new garage would be to the north Sicora stated that the existing garage is parallel with e new garage will be 14.67 ft. closer to Plymouth Ave. He proposed addition, the home will be set back further from eighboring properties. McCarty askeclSic(])ra if he considered designs that would meet the setback requir~ients. ora stated that they thought the west side of the property would be conside e yard so now the proposed design isn't working. He said he knows the neighboring. roperty owners received a variance so they thought this design would be ok. Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 28, 2009 Page 3 McCarty said he is having a difficult time seeing a hardship with this property. He noted that the applicants already have a two-stall garage and that the proposed new garage is noticeably bigger. Nelson said she sees a hardship in the fact that this is a corner lot and the property line along Plymouth Ave. is very long which is making the rear yard setback greater. She added that if this wasn't a corner lot the applicant wouldn't need a variance. Kisch agreed and added that the west side of this property acts and looks more 'de yard than a rear yard. He said he thinks the construction of a shed in t d be more imposing on the neighboring properties. Nelson asked if this lot were smaller if they'd be Hogeboom said yes and explained that the r~qr y of the lot depth. ifferent numbers. figured by taking 20% Sell said he thinks that when this home was originally built the have been considered a side yard, not a rear yard for setbac the west side of this property looks and acts more like a side y added that he supports this request because the neigh . h Plymouth Ave. than this one would be after the cons McCarty said he thinks the applicantsqould meet the rear yard setback requirement and would only need a variance from the front.yard setback requirement. Segelbaum stated that the B regard to front yard setba visually. He stated that h by granting the front ard va closer to the front al I m strict about following code requirements in sure that houses line up with each other .. Board would be compromising its principles in this case because the neighboring properties are ve. than this one would be. Kisch said he teel~this!~r~posalmeets the intent of the zoning code and reiterated that the west side of the p~rty feels more like a side yard than a rear yard. €I'ed by Segelbaum and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve the r 3.3 ft. off the required 28.7 ft. to a distance of 25.4 ft. at its closest (west) property line to allow for the construction of an addition to ew two-stall garage. McCarty voted no. MOVED by Sel variance reque point to the re the h and MOVED seconded by Nelson and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request for 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 to allow for the construction of an addition to the home and a new two-stall garage. McCarty asked that the hardship be noted for the record. Sell stated that a similar variance for the neighboring property was granted. Nelson stated that she thinks a corner lot with two front yard setbacks is a hardship. Segelbaum stated that he sees Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 28, 2009 Page 4 this request as a balance between having a hardship, having no negative impact to surrounding properties and being a reasonable request. 1518 Valders Avenue North (09-07-10) Vernon Beralund, Applicant . 7.5 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance point to the side yard (north) property line; new Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(3)(a) Side Y Requirements Purpose: To allow for the construction of an addition to>~/;;\e two-stall garage. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Requirements . The wall of the addit' length without Purpose: To allow for th two-stall an addition to the home and a new Hogeboom explained the s reqUest to construct a two-stall garage with living space behind it. He ted that en the applicant's paperwork was submitted it showed that the proposed g~ditio",;would be located a distance of 5 feet at its closest point to the north property lim~, h~ the applicant has since stated that the garage/addition will actually be IOQ~ dfeet ay from the north property line. He noted that the applicant I . g a variance from the articulation requirements for the north side of /addition. He stated that the neighboring property to the north receive in past to do an addition along the property line in question. He a d that orts these variance requests. Segelbaym as~~d if there is a rule requiring a certain distance between homes. Hogebodml?r;lid there is not a rule regarding distance between homes but City staff Jikes there to be at least 10 feet of space between homes. Kisch asked if eaves and overhangs are considered when looking at articulation requirements. Hogeboom stated that staff considers the foundation when looking at articulation. Kisch suggested that the intent of the articulation requirements be clarified. McCarty said he thinks the intent is for the entire structure to articulate. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 28, 2009 Page 5 Beth Malmberg, Vujovich Design Build, explained that the two-stall garage and addition behind it logically fits on the north side of the home. She referred to a plan of the proposed addition and stated that the outside dimension of the proposed new garage is 21.5 feet. She said they are willing to make changes to their proposal but articulating the foundation of the north wall will bring the addition further into the setback area. She added that the concept is to cantilever the space, not the foundation which she feels meets the intent of the articulation requirements. Kisch referred to an exterior door shown on the side of the garage and be stairs leading from it. Malmberg said there will be a 3 ft. x 3 ft. st Hogeboom stated that up to 25 square feet of stairs and landings setback area. Kisch asked to see the interior plans for proposed addition. M the interior plans and discussed the proposed addition.rv19~~rty~~ke t the depth of the proposed new garage. Malmberg said the depthgftbe ga~~gevvill be 4 feet. McCarty asked about the size ofthe proposed addition. Malmberg~xplaiMedthat part of the new addition is a mudroom and is approximately 9 ft. x12 ft. in si~e. Sell discussed possible alternatives for theloca ice door in the garage. Kisch showed the applicants a sketch,~ndQg . be proposed addition was "stepped in" slightly they would m the\art 'on re uirements. Malmberg stated that they have worked hard to make the~ppli s will get the space they need to make proposed addition function pr oted t . t the back line of the house is not changing. sed garage addition would be 6'2" away from the ay from the property line in the back because the erty line. Sell suggested changing the variance .5 ft. to a distance of 5.5 ft. at its closest point to the side Malmberg explained that th property line in the f d house isn't exactly pa request to 7 ft. yard (north) prop hcants what they consider the hardship to be. Vernon (Chip) B~~~lund, (pi ~~, stated that the hardships are that there is currently a single-stall garage and that it is>important to him not to infringe further on the neighbor to the north. He added th doesn't want there to be a "tunnel" between the two houses. He added that the ally tried to expand the use of the house without expanding the footprint. Segelbaum asked the applicant if he intends to do any landscaping on the north side of the home after the addition is built. Berglund said yes. Segelbaum asked the applicant if he has any safety concerns about having only 5.7 feet of space on the north side of the house. Sell noted that there is 20 feet of space on the south side of the house which is more than enough room for emergency vehicles. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 28, 2009 Page 6 Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to speak, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. McCarty said he is in support of this proposal. He thinks the plans are nicely done and a one-stall garage is a hardship. Kisch said he is in favor of granting the variance request for the side yard, but he can see other ways of building the proposed addition that would not require a vari the articulation requirements. Nelson agreed. Segelbaum said he agrees t ingle stall garage is a hardship and that the proposed addition behind the r reasonable. He added that the articulation being proposed, even gh n isn't articulating seems to be meeting the intent of the code. MOVED by Sell, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimous'~i.to~pprove the variance request for 7 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a dist~~.g~ of5.5 ft. a.~!ts closest point to the side yard (north) property line to allow cOfls.tr n of an addition to the home and a new two-stall garage. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Sell and request to allow the wall of the addition al without articulating to allow for the const stall garage. Kisch voted no. 1 to approve the variance y line will be 35 ft. in length to the home and a new two- 7100 Madison Aven~~'v:\fest(J)$J...07-11) Richard Storlien, Amplicaut Request: tion 11.70, Subd. 3 Minimum Number of 9 Spaces ces off the required 36 parking spaces for a total of ing spaces for the construction of a new parking lot. Waiver from Section 11.36, Subd. 6(C)(4) Yard Requirements . 10ft. off the required 10ft. to a distance of 0 ft. of landscaping along the west side yard property line Purpose: To bring the existing driveway on the property into conformance with City Code requirements. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 28, 2009 Page 7 Hogeboom stated that this is an industrial property and the applicant is proposing to construct a parking lot to the rear of the existing building with 3 fewer spaces than required. He explained that the applicant is also requesting a variance from the landscaping requirements in order to bring the existing driveway into conformance with zoning code requirements. Hogeboom explained that 3 feet of the existing driveway is located on the n;i~~boring property to the west. He stated that the City Attorney has recommended tpatthe?re? be a condition placed on the approval of the variance regarding the yard reqUirementstpat requires the applicant to prove to the City that an easement exists forthep?rt of the existing driveway that is located on the neighboring property. He ?dded thatthe BOaIrd cannot grant a variance allowing anything to be constructed on Ise erty and if the variance is approved, the Board would only be appr rive 0 be located 0 feet to the property line without any landscaping. He IS in support of the requested variances because the fire co uir ay to be 20 feet in width which would be difficult on this lot. Kisch asked if there are setback requirements for district. Hogeboom said no. Kisch asked if there? a impervidl..ls surface requirements in the Industrial zoning district and noted thatcurre~tIY$RP~~~i~ately 70% of the property is impervious surface. Hogeboom stated there are no impervIous surface requirements in the Industrial zoning district but there are Jot coveragere~'yirements. He added that those issues will be dealt with when the?,pplic~rlt 'es for a grading, drainage and erosion control permit. Segelbaum asked why th the neighboring property owner wants to do an impr. issue with him at th . 't have to address the same driveway issue with explained that if the neighboring property nts to his property the City would address the driveway .'1 is being utilized. Rick Storlien, RDS Architects, stated that t d in the early 1970s and is currently being used as office tl;le~fea behind the building has a parking area that has never been they now want to pave. He stated that the hardship for this he location of the building on the lot. It was placed directly in the 'yo He referred to the survey of the property and noted that it states ent for the driveway and he has his surveyor researching to find out if as ever filed with Hennepin Count'tj. Sell asked if the driveway in question is a shared driveway. Storlien said no. Nelson asked what will happen if there is not an easement agreement filed at the County for the driveway. Storlien said the easement issue will be taken care of properly. Segelbaum asked Storlien why he needs to have three fewer parking spaces than required. Storlien stated that if the lot were 20 feet wider he wouldn't need a variance. He Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 28, 2009 Page 8 stated that he designed the parking so as to maintain all of the other setbacks which leaves him three spaces short. Sell asked how many people use the parking lot. Storlien said there are about 30 people who park on the property. Segelbaum asked if there will be cars parked along the side of the building. Storlien said no. Segelbaum opened the public heating. he Rod Ogrezovich, 7140 Madison Avenue West, stated that when he knew part of the neighboring driveway was on his lot, but he is no easements on the property. He said he is supportive of the appl like the driveway issue to be resolved and would like the drive,? on the applicant's property. Hogeboom explained that granting the variance requestedforrthe drivewcJY would only be allowing the driveway to go right to the property line, hot over the property line onto the neighboring property. He added that if an easement does e t it is between the two property owners and not the City. licant removed the three feet e willing to remove the three feet oul eave them with a 15-foot wide .20-foot wide driveway. Nelson asked if the driveway would be from the neighboring property. Storli of driveway on the neighboring pr driveway and the Fire Departme McCarty asked Ogrezovichifhei~ppet'l.to obtaining an easement if one doesn't already exist. Ogrezovich said hef:l~.sn't sued/it yet and he does not know the ramifications of an easement on his ropertY(.ll.t point. Seeing and hearing n hearing. wi~hing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public Sell questi building wa building pe uirements or setback requirements have changed since this because when this building was constructed it received a City allowed the building to be built the way it was. Segel.. um tioned if the Board has the authority to add a condition regarding the easem a ork since it is an issue between the property owners and not the City. Hogeboom a ded that if the applicant ever wants to re-pave or maintain the driveway the City would need both property owners approval. Kisch said he would support granting the variance with the condition that the applicant must show the City proof of the easement. McCarty said he is also in favor of granting the variance requests but he doesn't think the City needs proof of the easement agreement because it is an issue between the two property owners, not the City. Sell questioned if the City would require proof of the easement agreement at the time when the grading permit is issued. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 28, 2009 Page 9 McCarty referred to the request for three fewer parking spaces and said he thinks cities require too much parking so he is in favor of granting the variance especially since there is on street parking available. Kisch said he is also in favor of less parking and less pavement. Ogrezovich said the on street parking in this area is bad because they often have 53-foot long trailers that need to turn. MOVED by Kisch, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to the following variance requests: . 10ft. off the required 10ft. to a distance of 0 ft. of lands yard property line to bring the existing driveway into confo applies for the distance of the existing driveway an the building as shown on the plans submitted. . 3 parking spaces off the required 36 parking spaces for a total spaces to allow for the construction of a new parking lot. III. Other Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourn 09-08-12 525 Radisson Road Gregory & lee Anne Schaefer, Applicants Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: August 20,2009 Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals Joe Hogeboom, City Planner 525 Radisson Road Gregory and Lee Anne Schaefer, Applicants To: From: Subject: Background Gregory and Lee Anne Schaefer are the owners of the property located at 525 Radisson Road. Mr. and Ms. Schaefer are requesting a variance from the Zoning Code for the construction of a deck. The proposed deck would be constructed within the rear yard setback area. Mr. and Ms. Schaefer's rear yard is significantly shorter in length than the front yard, greatly reducing the buildable area for an attached deck. According to the applicants, a larger deck is needed to replace the existing deck and provide usable space in the rearyard. No prior variances have been obtained for this property. Variances The proposal requires a variance from the following section of City Code: . Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(2) Rear Yard Setback Requirements. For this property, City Code requires a distance of 36 feet between a home/attached deck and the rear yard property line. The applicant is requesting 11 feet off of the required 36 feet to a distance of 25 feet between the proposed deck and the rear yard property line. Recommended Action Staff recognizes the hardship created by the home's unusual placement on the lot, and recommends approval of the variance as requested by the applicant. S601 I LAUlUlt AVE I 5501 ~I 101 GOLDEN HILLS DR M~ f'::;'~'<'P{M N''..i\'l.$: C(t))'nifli tCf ~OGiSGtS A05 $SOIl $SOIl 9 15 17 5317 5 5 30 25 40 4 100 101 104 109 108 109 112 117 116 --4 111 200 ~. 201 200 115 201 208 209 208 --l C :lI! 209 315 216 ! 220 221 ill 301 319 3lIll i'5 327 S111 40Il 500 .508 516 W 614 filS 611 621 5310 S300 S230 5220 5411 5301 5231 5221 ~1,1 &8 EEB 5311 c .:lc54\. O/;1x ItthJ WtUV httdt ilr aryl has ~w~ I-e:e-,ls .bectU1~ of wtder -tfJar wz;uJcL.h1lh veivtu 1Jtu /10ufe- . h pn)p{)~d M rtpIACt<V ct,~ rfltlv) rn~ ) ~J ?Luk. W { IfJ7)uP ~ /;t~ 10 IvtLht\ tf-tt, dkk Dzd fL)Dal-ds ~ rLt?t y 1lJ1/< v '1 an d . '6D --fa;t rJ1L fzp bu---t ~ liL be- lJ~lli qxiU . J11b W01 f11t; ItU7L IS r:jhJ heW J thu g1~ is fro harSh -ft;-v- tlhj6v(0 fD 5it-J~){J'r IJ~ /hL ItZhcL tfft7j1. {L rrai.Ji;riJ.,h M C0 -1fLu 2 Lf I X UP' {iuk.- /AJPv<1c?L_1J"rfrD YG nM lY1 ~ 1B1v ~ ~ ow- btdz- ytn( kitt rJJbsr; ~ - ~tCh YVlQ'rG (Mt(bLL- 6fACL ifv- 6l-tr W86 titrJ-.t-e. 1hi( , :.s \.0vJ-7 ~ v t?N'thC ~~ f.Jf-trJrt cL S . 1-'{hiS lk:w~ t:lhu SWf $ \ Df0 t;hcct: yY\~ tj1.v b~LtbArJ--, {ol) ~S 10 ~ ltvW~ fA ~c1/fULv(P ~ -rho 1~S,hovO '~l( tfv n-eM) ~ ~ rf Cfflh-G CJL;<:K tDWC{N cL -rAv \oV\ck- .ut0~^c1- . -- """" "'rn:~A,"""IAIRESrDE'lmA' CODE. APPROVED SET OF DRAWINUl) lUl'l: UN JUtl "^,,.J 1111 Ull."IIVlV'IL. 1111t\L SITE AT ALL TIMES. BEST ROY PREVIOUS OUTDATED SETS. ,,;-,. ........ "-. I:lUILUING OI'HCIAL REVIEW AND AUTHORIZATION REQUIRED PRIOR TO CHANGES, MODIFICATIONS OR ALTERATIONS. lV'[) -;It ~ ::()'~:;./ .;-,.....(. Je:/ "Z''''':' -:-:;;r::'f, .!-i":':.,<i";::.::'~'~ ./' 'f.. . 7,3.'; ii.(" rt!-. LEDGERSHALLBEPITACHED\'VmfMINl -I I - .::",o;~\~ 1fl" U\G SCRE'NS WITH WASHERS. AT if I I I p.~:--.- - a.c. STAGGERED. OTHER SCREWS: i. .,' !i' ;1 .,. 0 SHAll BE APPROVED BY THE CITY' ! L<r-._--~g: :1;1 7.:~"'l1.('-':'.: 'r.' ;1 B.E~~INSTAllATlON. ;.; I .. .. . '/ ~/ _L_ :'~"I':'~'~.!l"!:;" / . ., ., b;> fto1\l-1<" llf , ,.:~~fom; It,..,,,,^ '" 19~~ ~ iit;,"" \ 1"0<: 7'A}{.t.~;) .~ .. r\.. ,'10 l.i'C"/. . . oj.o, J- \0 :;" -- .? \' :{J 7-;:(!;./::r:"7- ) !.. WOOD EXPOSEd-m GROUND. WEATHER OR LOCATED O~J CONCRETE SHALL BE OF NATURAL RESISTANCE TO DECAY OR TREATED. Ii I ~\ ~ -eM.'.!;,.l< 11:.". . 7~ ~ ....:. "... '" -.., . 0-. '~l' ~.-. _.'.- ~ 'i'~';t$~~<:-.. _ __. ::.' - lk)=~~- :;i.::.[." I .I \\ i': &,//1.. , , .',/ .' 7. 'i' /.' I J 3\1 t."t'l'c'I~" . .... .. .. ~ . '" .' - , REVlEWf:D FOR COrE COMPLIANCE :t 7o/()9 (,e:J I .'.. . ., '," . . . ,',' . -. ....,. .' City of Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Zoning Code Variance Application 1. Street address of property involved in this application: 5"~ 1Z~'s.s.v~ (2.J..., G..I~ V~'t. J IV\N ~4/" 2. Applicant: G~ ~ Lu-A-n~ ..s~ Name <J -...) ~2..$ ~'ssor- f2-tJ~ I Add ress G,,,/tk-y~~ I MN ~/l::, City/State/Zip 7(,3-300 -32-0~ Cell Phone Business Phone 7(, 3~S-IZ -01bt> Home Phone I-NSc-HAeFetL- e- J~lJo. (...() ~ 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. 2{'){ IU'~(L/~ tUd-. 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. DIAL to ~ 97~ o-PO-Ur' M Uhz tIn) 1Jtb eiellaitrYJ . ~ Vltr 1t1f1;).J lV'U tAVU. /An~-tu tt4 It re~~ tUdlthLL Wn~ td: htlrK. ;/' k~M.Ll 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. 6. If the applicant is not the owner of all property involved in this application, please name the owner of this property: !~An~~ 'tW Print Name of owner jillffunl M~. Signature of own'1r Variance Application Submittal: The following information must be submitted by the application deadline to make a complete application. If an application is incomplete, it will not be accepted: Completed application form, including signatures of surrounding property owners. A current or usable survey of the property must be attached. See the handout on survey requirements. A brief statement of the hardship which provide grounds for the granting of this variance (see Frequently Asked Questions for an explanation of a "hardship"). Attach letter, photographs, or other evidence, if appropriate. You may submit detailed description of building(s), addition(s), and alteration(s) involved in this project. The site plans and drawings submitted with this application will be the basis of any variance that may be approved and cannot be changed before or after the building permit is issued. Variance application fee, as follows: $125 - single family residential; $225 - other Signatures of Surrounding Property Owners Note to the variance applicant: As part of the variance application process, you will need to attempt to obtain the signatures of all surrounding property owners. This includes all properties abutting the applicant's property and directly across the street. If on a corner, this means across both streets. To obtain these signatures, you will need to personally visit each of these property owners, tell them about your project (we encourage you to bring along a copy of your building plans) and have them sign the area, below. The signature is meant only to verify that you have told them about your project and gives them opportunity to comment. If you have attempted to contact a property owner on two separate occasions and not found them at home, you may simply write something to the effect "made two attempts, owner not home" and then write their address. City staff will also send a written notice informing these property owners of the time and place of the BZA meeting. Note to surrounding property owners: This is an application by your neighbor for a variance from the City Zoning Code. Please be aware of any possible effect the granting of this variance could have on your property. You will also be receiving a written notice informing you of the time and place of the variance meeting. By signing this form, you are only verifying that you have been told about the project, not that you necessarily agree or object to the project. If you wish, you may comment on the project. Comments can contain language of agreeing with the project, objecting to the project or other statements regarding the project. Print Name 1) A\J/l0 LE M Comment ~~k Address S"b ~ WiSt:>>oY\ 1Qj. Signature Print Name S 0 1'\ Z 8.- F0y+)e\- Comment Signature ~~, r~";"l Address t.t <1 8' ~ 'r#\..f" K"<- Rd. Print Name -:r b~h ~ Co'LeL ~tf\Y\ r ~ CU7~ M ~AY U:l b;1) ~ {),. Comment A lN~ (~W-~ ~hft\C.- fJ.t\L- rr.b.J.<i) ~ ''OIL' Signature Address C;o l etJd;(~ (LL Print Name Comment Signature Address Print Name Comment Signature Address Print Name Comment Signature Address Print Name Comment Signature Address GX~~<, 1: "'-...;:;, I "'~ ,<,0 ",~,':., V) 50 !:J~ xG f/,yoUS ~~, .~~"" G:".,." ";~ 'Ji ""'::'" ~)' "~V G "<', "' 0' " .S:; " ' '" " " -- - ---=--=------=-=--l" >- - ~ BENCHMARK I;~ _ ~ OF NAIL:i " = 109:...0.9, ,jJ " >perty Monument ~ty Monument ~. No. 23677) Curb Electric ~'" ')~ 50' "G '? o XG r.oc:, - '~" (fl' """ "' " " " " " " ~ " ....- X-" ~ r- FOUND IRON ____ " -------- " -------- -------- r.o ()" . X ~) '--) ~^'\ / J~ /<. J/ t> / ~~' ~ / V .,-) (J '\-~ x'V r.o \)"' ' K '\ '.b x~ t " ~\ " 500 xG ^ r- .... .... ...J y' .'0 o<;:')~X:~' )~ . t> <Y' X- ~"\ ~. " ~\!')" ~.- II\' ~/ ? ~~/ ",-- ~ / {.; :p,,- ,,' ~~~ /~/~(-, ~..... 7\.... Y \Uf <0' ^,,,, "'-- STEEL GRATE *" <' 1 '/ / v~ 50' x'5 ~'" ~. " -\"\ /'-" ,- 'I. . X: 0" \. ; ') X102,8 " ( ~~~. '---../K '). \)"' . X: -7 L- ~) <:> \)(). X m N o X to< "'. xc:' I 66.5 \) / . 0'0' . " - - ',,,, X 'l.L.# . <) , 110.7 o~,~ \ '" ~~''':> \ '" , , FOUND IRON \ POINT OF BEGINNING - ~ Xl O~ MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF LOT 13 Xl 06,6 x,o. ~<9 " " ".> ()" . X: ~ ~... yO ,r- FOUND IRON I I !\-':" X\) ~ ( '......) \ ( .......; \ (, \'"\ 50/ xG ".> ()". X: " " 1- 0.J} l')() l, '^)-1 ") C ~ 0:>"" "~ "" "'\ '\ , ~.9 '(Y " - () '" \X-()() , ~"" \ \ ') ~~' " ^ r- .... .... ..J v' 5DJ'{. - \It :;.ml " ~ 0~ ~ X" "~%, " x " >Yo ~s " '" 09-08-13 316 Meadow Lane North Maggie Bostrom & Leo Furcht, Applicants Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) From: August 20,2009 Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Date: To: Through: Subject: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development 316 Meadow Lane North Maggie Bostrom and Leo Furcht, Applicants Background Maggie Bostrom and Leo Furcht are the owners of the property located at 316 Meadow Lane North. Ms. Bostrom and Mr. Furcht are requesting a variance from the Zoning Code to bring the existing deck on the south side of the home into conformance. The deck was constructed earlier this year, and did not receive City authorization prior to construction. The deck is within 0.1 feet of the side property line. Ms. Bostrom has stated that a hardship exists due to her inability to access her home or her back yard, and this deck provides the access that is needed. (The applicant has submitted letter to the Board, dated August 4,2009 in which she explains her perceived hardship.) Ms. Bostrom has informed staff that she was unaware of any city regulation concerning the location of the deck. No prior variances have been obtained for this property. Variances The proposal requires a variance from the following section of City Code: . Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(3)(c) Side Yard Setback Requirements. For this property, City Code requires a distance of 8 feet between a home/attached deck and the south side yard property line. The applicant is requesting 7.9 feet off of the required 8 feet to a distance of 0.1 feet between the existing deck and the south side yard property line. Recommended Action Staff has concerns over the proximity of the deck to the property to the south, and therefore recommends denial of this variance. If denied, the City would issue an order for the deck to be removed. ~;I ~ 4213 4Z05 4212 4215 4135 4127 4121 4200 4124 BEVI!RLY AVI! 4205 4127 4121 4117 4212 ~ 4200 4124 POPLAR DR 4125 215 M.tij:l Ctw&xj 'Nitl N'CNS., c~.<~ ~C~ l~G~~ 5D8 SOIl 4113 4116 4108 4113 4112 4108 501 24S 221 219 449 401 315 303 J 1316 Meadow Lane N. I 1300 II 3910 J WOODSTOCK AVI! 425 4Z8 420 411 408 405 416 401 400 ~ :z 324 ~ is I 320 !it 316 325 404 :III: :5 I :i :t 321 400 317 320 311 312 4016 303 240 220 G 425 421 417 401 325 321 3901 212 I I I I I I I I I I I /60 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 60 <J. .1f-- I ~ C) .!OC) "')C) ~<:) C)'I:I- C) <: \ '.... "- ~ ~ CIl :tJ l/) Ll Le(jal Descriotion (suoolied bv client> Lot 201, GLEN WOOD, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Subject to any and all easements of record. Parcel Address: 316 Meadow Lane N. Golden Valley, MN tiQk As-built only shows parts of deck & retaining wall near south line of Lot 201 as of 8-11-09. SCHOBORG IAf1JD SERVICES INC. 763-972-3221 www.5choborgLand.ccm 8997 Co. Rd 13 SE Delano. UN 55328 As-BuILT SURVEY Prepared for: Margaret Bostrom ....,...., ..., /' I ,. ~- ~""-'- S88034'31"E 126.64 (c.) - 50.8 - BituminoUS Driveway 14 I I I \ r- ~ I C)~ c)' I <:)- 'l:l-t'l g I <: l I _.-, ~ +- ~I ~ I 127.13 (p.) <5'0 ~ .. "(5) ",/- .~ "'o~>;,,- I I ." . \ ./' ",- _ Retaining Wall IS 0.2 north of Ime II(--Deck carner is 0.1' narth of line S88034'3,l"Ej126.90 (C.) 127.11 (p.) Retaining wall is 0.2--- south af line - 35.7 - ...,...., A /1' I ,,_ ,... I ~~ 0". I <:J J Deck comer is 0.2' --___/ south of line ..., ...,...., ,., II I ,,- ..... ,... 14 Le(jend . Found Iron Monument o Set Iron Monument (LS 14700) (c.) Computed Distance (p.) Plat Distance x 000.0 Existing Elevation SCALE 20 0 10 20 40 r-.-"'- 'I I 1 inch =' 20 feet Bearings based on assumed datum. 08-11-09 line (8-11-09) August 4, 2009 City of Golden Valley Board of Zoriing Appeals 7800 Golden Valley Rd. Golden Valley, MN 55427 Dear Members of the Board of Zoning Appeals, On July 22, 2009, I received a letter from Mr. Hogeboom regarding a deck that was recently built between the south side of my home and the property line. My home is located at 316 Meadow Lane North in Golden Valley. Mr. Hogeboom's letter states that my deck violates Section 11.21, Subdivision II(A)(3)(c) of the City Code, which provides: In the case of lots having a width of sixty-five (65) feet or less, the side setbacks for structures fifteen (15) feet or less in height along the north or west side shall be ten percent (10%) of the lot width and along the south or east side shall be twenty oercent (20%) of the lot width (uo to twelve and one-half (12.5) feet). A survey drawing of my lot, which I obtained in April of 2008, is enclosed for your review. See Exhibit A. The deck at issue is located between my house and the property line on the south side. As indicated on the survey, the set back of the house on this side ranges from 6.5 feet in the front of the house to 7.1 feet in the back. A door on the south side of the house provides access to and egress from the kitchen. This side door is used as much or more than any other point of entry. Before the deck was built, this side door was accessible from a concrete stoop that was showing obvious signs of aging. See Exhibit B. Instead of repairing or removing the stoop, the deck was built over the top of it. There is little traffic along the north side of my house because there is no door on that side. Additionally, my neighbor recently constructed a chain link fence along the north property line, which is approximately 4.8 feet from my house. My perennial garden is planted between my neighbor's new fence and the house. The grade on my lot slopes from the front/west to the back/east. See Exhibit C (taken from the back yard). For many years, a wooden retaining wall along the south property line held this slope from eroding into my neighbor's yard. Because the retaining wall was rotting and infested with red ants, I removed it in conjunction with the deck project. See Exhibit D. The rotting railroad ties were replaced with a retaining wall made of block. See Exhibit E. Photographs ofthe deck as it now stands are attached as Exhibits F (taken from front/west), G (taken from side/south), and H (taken from back/east). As shown in these photos, the deck now provides a safer path of travel between the front yard, the back yard, and the south side door. With so much traffic along this side of the house, and given the aging stoop and deteriorating retaining wall, I believe the investment was necessary . I received Mr. Hogeboom's letter just over one week ago. Unfortunately, the contractor did not prepare a scale drawing of the deck. Although I have not had time to prepare a scale drawing before submitting this application, I am in the process of having an as-built survey prepared and will submit it to the Board as soon as possible. What follows is a basic description of the deck: · Deck surface is comprised of two platforms (6.5 x 16.3 feet and 6.5 x 10.4 feet) that are separated by one step. See Exhibit I. · Deck is not tied into the house. See Exhibit J. · Deck is supported on the south property line by pressure treated lumber set on five concrete footings, each of which was poured four feet deep. · Deck is supported near the house by six concrete cylinders of varying height; these cylinders rest on the pre-existing concrete stoop, and each is eight-inches in diameter. See Exhibit K. · Deck is accessible from the front/west by 2 steps and from the back/east by 9 steps. · Distance from deck surface to top of deck railing = 36 inches. · Distance from deck surface to ground ranges from 21 - 54 inches. Mr. Hogeboom's letter states that in order to comply with the set back requirement, the deck may be located no more than 8 feet (20% of the 40 foot lot width) from the south side property line. I did not request a variance from the Board before building the deck because I was unaware of this requirement. I sincerely apologize for the oversight. I also did not apply for a building permit in conjunction with the deck project because, based on my conversations with a city building inspector, I was under the impression that a deck built according to the specifications above would not require a permit. If my understanding is incorrect and the Board approves this application for a variance, I will apply for a building permit and take reasonable steps the Board deems necessary and appropriate to address the building code requirements. I am submitting this application after-the- fact and am asking the Board to issue a a zoning code variance. I fully recognize that I should have submitted this application in advance and am willing to pay the consequences for my mistake. However, I respectfully request that the Board allow me to maintain the deck as it was constructed. The City Code and state law allow variances to be granted if strict enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual 2 property. Golden Valley Ord. ~ 11.90, Subdivision 4(B)(2). I believe my request meets that standard for a number of reasons. First, my lot is unique, and strict enforcement of the applicable 8 foot set-back requirement for my south-side yard would result in an undue hardship to me. Because of the long and narrow shape of my lot and the footprint of the existing home, there is only 6.5 to 7.1 feet of space between my house and the south side property line. There is even less space on the north side property line. In other words, the house itself was built in violation of the existing set back, and any structure located on the south side of the house would necessarily be within the set back. Second, the narrow space between the south side of my house and the property line is compounded by a significant downhill slope from front to back. Before the deck was built, a path along this slope was marked by stones that often were covered with snow, ice, or mud. Navigating the slope proved to be treacherous, if not impossible, for several months of the year. During those months, I could safely access my back yard only through the garage door, losing significant amounts of heat in the process. The deck now provides a safe flow of travel between the front yard, the back yard, and the south side door. As noted above, the south side of my house is a high traffic area, and the door providing access to the kitchen is used as much or more than any other door in the house. The deck now provides more room and a safer approach to the door. It also provides a new and safer way of accessing the back yard. For these reasons, and given the unique shape of the lot, the deck is a reasonable use of the small and sloping side-yard. Third, the deck was built in way that is intended to respect the character of the neighborhood. With the exception of one particular neighbor with whom I have had various property related disputes over the years, my neighbors and guests have been extremely complimentary of the deck and the new, useable space it provides. I have communicated with the neighbor who is most affected by the deck - i.e., my neighbor on the south side. She does not want to be put in the middle of this dispute, and she agrees that the deck is an improvement. Finally, granting a variance in this case would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the City's zoning laws, and it will not substantially change the character of Golden Valley or the neighborhood. As shown by the signatures attached to my application for a variance, the deck is generally supported by my neighbors, many of whom have already commented on what a significant improvement it is. 3 City of Golden Vaney Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Zoning Code Variance Application 1. Street address of property involved in this application: 316 Meadow Lane NQrth 2. Applicant: Maggie Bostrom I Leo Furcht Name 316 Meadow Lane North Address Golden Valley. MN 55422 City/State/Zip Business Phone (763) 208-2833 Home Phone (612) 251-6565 Cell Phone masnoliab22@hotmail.com Email Address 3. Detailed description of bUilding(s), addition(s), and alteration(s) involved in this petition. The site plans and drawings submitted with this petition will be the basis of any variance that may be approved and cannot be changed before or after the building permit is issued. See attached. 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. See attached. 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 expi 6. If the applicant is not the owner of all property involved in this application, please name the owner of this property: Maggie Bostrom Print Name of owner Variance Application Submittal: The following information must be submitted by the application deadline to make a complete application. If an application is incomplete, it will not be accepted: Completed application form, including signatures of surrounding property owners. A current or usable survey of the property must be attached. See the handout on survey requirements. A brief statement of the hardship which provide grounds for the granting of this variance (see Frequently Asked Questions for an explanation of a "hardship"). Attach letter, photographs, or other evidence, if appropriate. You may submit detailed description of building(s), addition(s), and alteration(s) involved in this project. The site plans and drawings submitted with this application will be the basis of any variance that may be approved and cannot be changed before or after the building permit is issued. Variance application fee, as follows: $125 - single family residential; $225 - other Signatures of Surrounding Property Owners Note to the variance applicant: As part of the variance application process, you will need to attempt to obtain the signatures of all surrounding property owners. This includes all properties abutting the applicant's property and directly across the street. If on a comer, this means across both streets. To obtain these signatures, you will need to personally visit each of these property owners, tell them about your project (we encourage you to bring along a copy of your building plans) and have them sign the area, below. The signature is meant only to verify that you have told them about your project and gives them opportunity to comment If you have attempted to contact a property owner on two separate occasions and not found them at home, you may simply write something to the effect "made two attempts, owner not home" and then write their address. City staff will also send a written notice informing these property owners of the time and place of the BZA meeting. Note to surrounding property owners: This is an application by your neighbor for a variance from the City Zoning Code. Please be aware of any possible effect the granting of this variance could have on your property. You will also be receiving a written notice informing you of the time and place of the variance meeting. Comment Signature Signature Print Name Comment Signature Address Print Name Comment Signature Address Print Name Comment Signature Address 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. Signature , Print Name Comment Print' Name Comment Signature !ftrVC Print Name Comment Print Name Comment Signature Address Print Name Comment Signature Address Print Name ~ ~I\ W& love. ..f-k.t. WfJ.-'-/ +I...L A11 ~ tU h"us-e...- 100 ks~ Xf is C he.er..fJ / f / Address Lfh/ JJLeu.&w unt::..-1lJ Comment Signature Print Name .f. ~ I ~1 r~ - I: 11/, . ~~ r~ . M1 W4L /tI · [rJ~ A1Jlv~ 1, ~ 'Ndl ~ ~ fb,l~ *:J g t2 ~hvJ Iml. ~.t ~ ~ll1Ihlt. )f{j~ ,. ~~1' ~ ~D tMt \JAut m ~ t, I h4Wb~~~6rDtw t~ ~ J-wl ~ -b Pe lef O~ ".li+- ~~; Hi fll,(W ~ llAJ-lli 1 ~1J. 5k Jl ~ rxw .~W4 4 k ~ ~ f.f, ~ ~ J (11m IIV hl(f#( ~ ~ ry-~ ~ IAI~tit{tJ{f; !JJt, ~rnk It 16 4~8it flqllfr(VI?t : ~T:2"'~ m~fIJ/I;; "}oD [~ir~~9L NkM[ : O~JlJ/ttfi(r " flit tltr(l/(e. .' ~oy(t ~(cul . , ~ - '.\ b j) S) :I EXHIBIT /3 . ~ J .-~ , ..~)....... ~=e"!''''-='~~i'.~ - -= J~~$~~l' _~~~_-_. _ l' to '. r. . - .a .----' ~~." . "".. ~ .~ . .'t. . ~ S) S) :I EXHIBIT e c'-': I'l 6' i:l ~ /'.1' ,~ .... ~ . ,) W f VJ~ l'.r1J....'a tr"')!Yf" , J)/ ~ ' "\~ l- I ... , if, "~ .II t;, ~ '. ,," J:.~ {j ~ '? f I It J ./ ".j i, ~ '( '. . "', ,,; Xioir (,.-- ,. 'U I" ") 'l 1, "i. i1 t:/ ( i :J -tY ~",t ,. o '- ,I ~ ,-t;.....}'~.' ~J ."" i,~ '1(, ..l ," 6'~ .~jII ~ {I' ';,f" 1t. '{J =i,",f. f.! -,'~ 'J .... _.. "" EXHIBIT ~ '" ~ LJ p , ~f;; ? ,'~ . ,:4 -~t ;"~9 i.I ( .,.. ~t1', :Jj ., q ,~ ; ~ ... . ;I. :~""" '" I'll!", ,). J', · " '~ ;J.J~;h~ J " I," / I: J '!i}, f "G (;'4 ~., I)r ' J.: '; ,. 'f" ,...". . '1 I r , , J:( " 1'; J'i1,'1 \ f j~f ! 11{ , ~ ,;j ! 'It: " J ~,. ~ r, ! r, .,. ~ . . t ~~ M .!~ ~ ; ~ ... #; ,.; ~'!f, -~~' , l "i ' " ' 'fl I " Ii i. f" "r.,rl 't ,.. J 4 it: /~ !~ .I ~~' At', I ,~~ 'fl, '~,',(,J; I.-'r - ~ ; " fi' " ~ '11,: l " ,~ I., }. !lI .I ~ 'IJ 'j!< 'I, ,j t I , } 1( r 'l" ~ I ,lj!1 '~ ~4 If' b L .ii J ~f' Of.' " . ,~ EXHIBIT IE If ft , \\ · r~, ,i1:1 ,.,'" ~ "t,.... ,.~ \ ~ ~t. ...:. '. -"," .. ,<Ii , .~ " .\~i'i" '- ..$- r b :8 :l ~ - - j ""', - ___~TIif'-'" ' . ,. ':.' ~.:: \.~I'\\~\:~ 0 I I'" "'" ' ,,' \ t ~ I'~I \0'~ ~' \;' I I . 4 I ~, '" ~ i.! I) , ,"" I' 'J,I.......... ,1 .:",~.j .~ ' .......--: -" " JiiIl' ~-" ~ ;-- ./-, .,..... ": ~ ft~ ----;.....' [, \ , t ~ --- ,~I l' I~'" .. """'-",f ~ ',,,',' ~ .. ,~~./ . ~,\., .'..~'.. il' """','" '~' .~,lt'" < ..:..........1 i' .,' \ ' " I' <, . , '''''''Old''''''''' · .. \ \ ' .' " '. C'" f\ \~~III\\','. 1,1111111111 .,'. f ' ," I. \! ""1.\ ,,11\111111 ' ,. ""'-- 11\\1111111\ ~ t. t' .. 1 f """ ~II'I\IIIH ' ., ~ ~ I \,1\1\1\1\11 , . ,.,.,.t.< · \.\\\\,111111 . , .~. . I II \'1\\1 · , ""t". \1',1,1.\.\.\ \ ., " "~ 1 , . ~. ... I ' .... 9 .~ . I.. ....,... _ __ _- ....'-c _'!OJ " -. . I ~-I "" f..!' " ll~. \!, ~..~~k~ ~ ..~:.", ,.l:L, ~ IL" .: 'J -, .' r r , t' I r ' I I 1 I :;.. ,,~ :: }l I - - ..... - EXHIBIT j~ ~ ,- !'1 ----:t I ~ --,1 ~ " .... ... _,-." ,-' ~.J- ,.;.... .. ~ .. "'~.B "', OJ:::;,~ t _ - ,. ;~~t, .....", ~ . ~~ " I - - 'l' 'J tj~:'_~, fl. _ ~ "l1t.," - I.... -:l ,:;;,.& ~ .... ~~ ~ .~..".\ ... ~ '~ ~~ kl. .. ~ "ql . rr ~ , ..... ~r ,~ .~.- ~ '..,. "'- ~r-- ~ .~-,~~ ~~f~~ - ~ " 0.'- . ,.. - -- . l ~ ~ J::' -i.. .., ~, ---.....~_.l'. "', \.. '.[ ".-, .... . ,'~ ';::.."t_- "'~ ~ ',' .t', i~\,~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ b :ii i EXHIBIT II .-.J' .. ~i~ ~ j> EXHIBIT "'7. .!! D D l!I J ~. .- d ''l..il.:l~.;_ .. - - --- - ----...,. ~- .' ? i/"" I .;~ ~I ~ ~ J. . ... -ql.~ i.,~~ I - " "~i .~ :.~ " ,t till.& t , , ;"'.,.~ .,\.~ '-Ii ij teSt ..L .'.--' ,~_!~ .'~,i... ~~ ~, & T J~~t ":" .~_ .-...':~ ...j:~.~,,. _. . v . -';.,.' ':~'''''''''*" , ~ . :~~' by ~'~f · ~~.- . "":('~," ~~.~. " ", ~~j'':G...i~.ict'..~,,'. ,Ii' ~J'~'" "~:1;0~~'~:~L: ,'J~I!'OJ , _" ,". ' . It," ~.. . -a __ " \ -':'L ~-"R k oJ.. __ - -~-"'-r r, '" - ""1- ,. 'l:l I ( ~ EXHIBIT i J l < - ~;.;i~;;ij ~ ;;",:~::':-::~'I;; ,; :': ~?' :i '_ ;. :,," ~ III 1- ,.. .... " , 'V 'j I '-- "'I '\} .. , \~ ~ Ii . .. 1..-- ~,.,i'. ~~f /. ,di ~f.:- .t",.. ,,,. ./ , :. '-" ,..""' '- f~ ..*~ ~r! >./:J~ "f~v1 EXHIBIT ilL. , r Jr-I 1\ ".~;.;~ - " , , "" . '. " . '. ~.. :4 , ". ,-t- .;.! '~: Iii .~ ~ 't' ~ 09-08-14 2500 Mendelssohn Avenue North Marvin Frieman, Applicant Hey Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: August 20,2009 Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals Joe Hogeboom, City Planner 2500 Mendelssohn Avenue Marvin Frieman, Applicant To: From: Subject: Background Marvin Frieman is the owner of the property located at 2500 Mendelssohn Avenue North. Mr. Frieman is requesting two variances from the Zoning Code. Mr. Frieman is proposing to construct an addition to the existing building. In doing so, variances must be obtained from the front yard setback requirements. 2500 Mendelssohn Avenue is located within the Commercial Zoning District. The property is asymmetrically shaped and borders U.S. Trunk Highway 169. Because of this, front yard setback requirements exist on both the south and the west sides of the property. The proposed addition would not extend further into the setback space than the existing building does. Several variances have been obtained for this property in the past. In 2004, variances were obtained to allow the existing building to extend within 5 feet of the front yard property line along U.S. Trunk Highway 169 and within 20 feet of the front yard property line along Mendelssohn Avenue. The proposed addition to the building does not extend closer to either property line than does the existing structure. Variances The proposal requires variances from the following section of City Code: . Section 11.30, Subd. 11 (6)(a) Front Yard Setback Requirements. City Code requires a distance of 35 feet of landscaped area between a building and the front yard property line. The applicant is requesting 11.29 feet off of the required 35 feet to a distance of 23.71 feet between the proposed addition and the west front yard property line (along U.S. Trunk Highway 169). . Section 11.30, Subd. 11(6)(a) Front Yard Setback R.equirements. The applicant is requesting 2.67 feet off of the required 35 feet to a distance of 32.33 feet between the proposed addition and the south front yard property line (Mendelssohn Avenue). Recommended Action Staff feels that the proposed addition will add to the usability of the building. In addition, staff feels that the proposed addition will not negatively impact neighboring properties. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variances as requested by the applicant. (i) 'w lie: ;5 11.1 lie e 2316 ~14 ~10 230li fJ jLL2312-J..-.l..:;:2304 ~ 23112313 23112302 ,..-(22242220 ~, ~2315.J-l-i ~ """"22202216~2r26~ 4'11 2228 2222"-w' 2214 2215 2214 III 2't30Y 22292211 ,-2213 \ \~~:() ;:! 2217 2232 2231 :22011 2210,' \,-'2211 'y-"" ;ff: (V 2206, '--:''-';"<......1 /y ~ 2208 % 2215'-( .:I:~i ..", . .... < 2206 , /2:1:01 2206 ! 22112lO9 :1:202:1:202 2215221l'2~ ,'-I ()I203, \/. 2120~ J:J;:l:295:1:2032200:I:2OO ~:lo51?~ 220i:'" 22~921l. v v/v'-":' ". ..'. 2201/2.... Y211 12101:1:201' . . ... 2142 2.141 21:t5 2114. j ~1d;J 21o;'ff, ~.1111' ','--' 2123,2118" V\, . ....- / '. i .:1. .,2108..^r 2138 21...~. r.~. '.. ,<.2113., 2111....21.2113 t 1051 \ /) 213& 213121212114< 1-""\ ., f :1:109 '21:1:OTt1t,2'iii' '-'2U9!',! ,,2. 109. .. 2101 . <2111,. m ~.'.J~2II<jU2~~,. ......, 9015 IZe3....21.11. 2:121:2125:tUg ~211~ 2~13../2..109......1......n....' .t012;0(~iin \~, 2115 21192123J2127--V:~ 2125.21Ot210521OO~201 2111 26TH AVE N . 12500 Mendelssohn Ave. N. M~~'w..m~~~~.:'..~~\9}.~~OO~ I I I I I I I I I 1 GEN ,. " 3. 4. 5. o. 7. o. OPEN OFFICE AREA ......... .. wm. ..... '" ,w. 0" I I I I ";/>1"" ____ ~/I ", : (" ...~ , ...'lo'" ~ '~ ....... ... II it' ':'~ ~III if II! o o ~_'m I : I ' ASSUMEO EXISTI<<lI I ~~I WORKROOM I ~xH I I I L/ 8'05112" FINISHED I I I I I I I I .J.. I -- - " :1 , ~ .. : = II Lr DU' ilJ I : I , ,,' I ---'1-,'- __ __ : _ _ EXERQ8E ROOM ___J144ul1'tO """"'" """"'0 ."""" [lo.~ II ~ ,.,-CWJEDLH8IlCllII8 h-- -1 -, =~= o I - ~ CODE DATA 0cctIpancy: 8 occupancy Allowable....: 2 storie8I9,OOO sqIt Type of constnIctIon: Type VB hl&llna Bulldlna Grou 8QFT: 3,866 sqII 0ccupInt Iud f8ctor: 100 aqIl per occupenl Occupant LoIId: 3888/100 '" 39 oocupants , ...- Cheri. Levln Archl_ 2300 MllwIlu.... Avenue Mln....poI.. Mln_ 55404-3150 P: 612.729.5333 F: 612.729.8351 E: chuck@c1evln.com ARCHf1'ECT'S PROJECT 11508 STRUCTURAL CONSULTANT U_ Engineers 241 C1e_ Ave. S. SI. Poul,lIN 55105-1255 Telephono:(851I_ Remodeling of 2500 Mendelssohn Avenue North lor Fr_n R.I E818te A880c181lon, LLC 5725 W.25 112 St. SI. Lou" Perk, MN 55416 ISSUED: smoo I hereby certify thai ttUa plan. specification or report .as g=~ea:::::r.:~ dulyl./censeo'Archlectl/ltdef'lhe laws 01 the State of r.tnnHota. ~~WK>9 Reglslndlon No. 14672 FLOOR PLAN o 1 2 4 8 , , I ~ I SCALE ~ SHEET A2 C2000 """"'......- City of Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Zoning Code Variance Application 1. Street address of property involved in this application: 2500 ~'~d.?~M4 ~ 6~\~ 2. Applicant: MfJ,lYI JJ :::F;</'iM.l1-V Name 7725 W'2~)'1?- &r; %&(/(5 rEt/e.Kr M,v 554/' Address City/State/Zip -1~3"~oef. '36t:::lO t:i5-z,'''92<;-309t) l:./2130-9oS9 Business Phone Home Phone Cell Phone 1J1J'1l4tJ!/V, rnJ'iIl1AN f<<J Mv'-(I ~RAJ/)V5A. Lt'M 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. ()/.Mi-i.e.. ~ #V II/'a ~ o'h tL'$t;.T.5/Pe ~ [;0(.,. 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. "Mto1<tifW ~~~W~~~(~) tpe~,t~~~~,uA~q;~J4I!w~'1~~~ ~MA' 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. Sigl~~?1:~ 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 M~6 '-5-1 Pff/<.t< ?:to Comment tJPl'fc7f;b C! 9/~/Im 1J;'J,7' pi)V/Szl) /)(3(}uf Pt!f7.C#A-Il.!J(;~ Z.S=IU~~A''''~W' k!/) -4r.V. Signature !Y:rr1iL'U"/0 O:t>pHtrv-.70jc~ Address /6&0 ~ff('N> c;;.e~;:'~ 55'30:> Print Name /V}l1rfl) 5'(7),z~T P~f4fZ.fti Comment @~ 'Cu/lffl/€./L GiltS 57l1f~,u Signature ";63 J(1t~6"flI fl:-I>:.. 6'~ Address t14fLS,Il1'ffV ~3WJf Print Name [6 Pfl.t9(J~ff'H~c..o,P6.5 r3{trr/{~fAJ 81'f1UK. (5::J1O V$ -rtf~ ?5LL> 6 Comment Signature Address Print Name Comment Signature Address Print Name Comment Signature Address Print Name Comment Signature Address Print Name Comment Signature Address FOUND HENNEPIN COUNTY CAST IRON MONUMENT FOUND HENNEPIN COUNTY R/W MONUMENT PLS #4735 f e $ I ~ ~ >., i $ t. f7.J' t:;)" it' ~ li).s. (()~ O),lt) ~~ ~~ ~~ lli 0) CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY -for_ ARRAY FINANCIAL SERVICES 0;" ""1 o' ~ 1 / 1-' I I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 -j 20,00 I 1 I I 1 I I / I I 1 I I 1 ,~I I / ....\\' I I /_ <'y" I t, --J"" I ,I ' './., - I , ..J. \.. '/ I y /, I J...... Y 1 "-1<1 I .3s.0d l:!f S I 1..........1 0~ I 1r I 1 €U I fJ::J I 1 ~g I (gi'J I 14j!;f I ~g I V I CJ.!;f I 1 I \ II ..~ I "" I' ". I ,,<. I I I I..... I . I L-' L. '" '" I... I I I / I I / ;nT? I <.36 / ....... . 0 I I.": ,~, rO.E::~~'\:R.~~/"CANqP.'l' I I '2;' "- 53.1 I I ~:. roY I / .... ": I I ""f'!!. I .2.7", I EXISTING 1-STORY --: I BRICK BUILDING ~ I FFE=929.2 _ 20 00 I . .J c... ~ ~~ ,& .~ ~ OJ ~ 0;- \( t\. ~ ~ & CO t\. ~ ~ ""1 o' ~ <.3.77 / I / I I / / 1 .3s. Q91 / ........../ 1 7 / ( /// v/ 5l~) ~ h't-05.S5AW) ''G> \.'" n05. €I ~ \.~" n15. . '\ S ~"iS'\ ttA ~~~!! ~~~ ~,\>.C;J~7C;JO~ /' ~~ ~ //" % ,/ / ---- --- --- LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 2, Block 1, HALSETH ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota ,lu i--- .:"t (() 5\1 o o V) Q' ~ ~ (() ~ C\j ~ --.:.. o (() ~ C\j BENCHMARK ELEVATION = 929.12 @ TOP OF SIDEWALK AT NE CORNER OF SIDEWALK ON EASTERLY BUILDING LINE EXTENDED SETBACKS FRONT STREET (S.) HIGHWAY 169 (W.) SIDE YARD (E.) REAR YARD (N.) 35 FT. 35 FT. 20 FT. 20 FT. . ,...... " L.lJ: .j , \ ,-,...,.....\ '\.....\ ,'_J' ('-,' '\ '\ ('-, \ J '\ "', ' J "" \...., "" , LEGEND . DENOTES FOUND PROPERTY IRON DENOTES BOUNDARY LINE - - DENOTES LOT LINE - - - - - - DENOTES SETBACK LINE []J DENOTES CONCRETE SURFACE . NOTES 1. THE BASIS OF THE BEARING SYSTEM IS ASSUMED. 2. NO SPECIFIC SOIL INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN COMPLETED ON THIS LOT BY THE SURVEYOR. 3. NO TITLE INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED FOR THIS SURVEY. THIS SURVEY DOES NOT PURPORT TO SHOW ALL EASEMENTS OF RECORD. 4. EXISTING UTILITIES AND SERVICES SHOWN HEREON OWNER LOCATED EITHER PHYSICALLY ON THE GROUND DURING THE SURVEY OR FROM EXISTING RECORDS MADE AVAILABLE TO US OR BY RESIDENT TESTIMONY. OTHER UTILITIES AND SERVICES MAY BE PRESENT. VERIFICATION AND LOCATION OF UTILITIES AND SERVICES SHOULD BE OBTAIN FROM THE OWNERS OF RESPECTIVE UTILITIES BY CONTACTING GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT (651) 454-0002 PRIOR TO ANY DESIGN, PLANNING OR EXCAVATION. o l:O -- ENGINEERING DESIGN & SURVEYING 6480 Wayzata Blvd. Minneapolis, MN 55426 OFFICE: (763) 545.2800 FAX: (763) 545.2801 EMAIL: info@edsmn.com WEBSITE: http://edsmn.cam I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION, AND THAT I AM A DULY UCENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. !feed S;;"u'v"--,, DATED: B/20/09 VLADIMIR SIVRIVER LS. NO. 25105 JOB NAME: ARRAY FINANCIAL SERVICES LOCATION: 2500 MENDELSSOHN AVE. N. GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427 FIELD WORK DATE: 8/19/2009 I DRAWN BY: BRN I PROJ. NO: 9-048 NO. I DATE DESCRIPTION BY Call 48 Hours before digging GOPHER STATE ONE CALL Twin Cities Area 651-454-0002 MN. Toll Free 1-800-252-1166 ~ IT SCALE IN FEET FIELD BOOK NO.: EDS-6 I CHECKED BY: VS I SHEET NO. 1 OF 1 I::. ..-r t~ ifV .- / / : . iIf.-- -+~;I.' ~ . -..... , . -- . :;;; """ ,/ '" / ~..'.I~~ ../ / ::..e:.'~ / /!' \ 'f.~ 'J . \ "