Loading...
09-22-09 BZA Agenda Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, September 22,2009 7pm 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers I. Approval of Minutes - August 25, 2009 II. The Petitions are: Continued Item - 2500 Mendelssohn Avenue North (09-08-14) Marvin Frieman, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.30, Subd. 11 (6)(a) Front Yard Setback Requirements . 17.1 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 17.9 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 III. Other Business IV. Adjournment This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request Please call 763-593-8006 (TrY: 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 August 25, 2009 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, August 25, 2009 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Segelbaum called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Segelbaum requested that the order of the petitio Road, 2500 Mendelssohn Ave. N., 316 Mea I. Approval of Minutes - July 28, 2009 Those present were Members Kisch, Nelson, Segelbaum, and Plannin Representatives Eck and McCarty. Also present were City Planner J Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Member Sell was absent. MOVED by Nelson, seconded by McCarty and motion c July 28, 2009 minutes as submitted. o approve the II. The Petitions are: 525 Radisson Road (09-0 Gre 0 and Lee Anne Request: .21, Subd. 11(A)(2) Rear Yard Setback quired 36 ft. to a distance of 25 ft. at its closest point (east) property line. r the construction of a deck. tha applicants are requesting a variance from rear yard setback er to replace their existing deck with a new deck located closer to the he. He stated that staff is recommending approval of this variance e grade of the lot, the placement of the home on the lot and the fact that lot is creating a fairly large rear yard setback requirement. Eck referred to the survey and noted that the existing house is located in the rear yard setback area. Hogeboom explained that the existing house was built prior to 1982 so it is allowed to be within 10 feet of the rear yard property. McCarty questioned why the rear yard setback line isn't parallel with the rear yard property line. Hogeboom explained that the rear yard setback is determined by taking 20% of the lot depth and the depth of this lot is different on each side. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August25,2009 Page 2 Nelson questioned the size of a typical rear yard setback. Hogeboom said it varies and added that a home is not typically placed as far back on the lot as this home was. Eck referred to the application and noted that the adjacent neighbors located at 416 Turnpike did not sign the application. Hogeboom stated that they did receive a hearing notice for this meeting. Segelbaum opened the p Segelbaum closed the publ ow the eck on the aefer e tthey Lee Anne Schaefer, Applicant, showed photos of their back yard and dis back yard is unusable. Greg Schaefer, Applicant, added that it is diffic this lot because of its odd shape. Mrs. Schaefer stated that they can't b other (north) side of the property because of a drainage and utilityeaseme stated that the proposed deck won't affect any of the neighborin ro erties referred to the neighbors at 416 Turnpike and stated that the f tow gave him their verbal approval. Nelson asked about the free standing structure sho Schaefer explained that there is a sandbox and a She referred to the photos and noted where the nt's p otos. Mrs. standing structure. deck would be located. McCarty asked the applicants if they had building tiered decks in order to obtain thought about raising the grade but they that the entrance to the house is q 'e abit work. Mrs. Schaefer reiterated t e 0 place on the lot they can buil edraisingthe grade of the property or e space. Mrs. Schaefer said they 'Id a new deck. Mr. Schaefer said r so he doesn't think tiered decks would cation of the deck is really the only ring and seeing no one wishing to comment, i:tut unique situation especially given the slope and the the Florth side because of the easement. He said the visual a reasonable request and there really isn't a lot of buildable Nelson ag favor of gran area even aft dded that the house was placed oddly on the lot. She said she is in variance request especially since there will still be a large setback e deck is built. Eck agreedt at the impact on the neighborhood seems minimal and that the request is reasonable. MOVED by Kisch, seconded by Nelson and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request for 11 ft. off the required 36 ft. to a distance of 25 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard (east) property line to allow for the construction of a deck. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 25, 2009 Page 3 2500 Mendelssohn Avenue North (09-08-14) Marvin Frieman, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.30, Subd. 11 (6)(a) Front Yard Setback Requirements Eck asked if the bui . he was not sure wha however varia s ha . 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 Purpose: To allow for the construction of an addition to t Request: Waiver from Section 11.30, Subd. 11 (6)(a) Fro Requirements . 2.67 ft. off the required 35 ft. t point to the front yard (south) .33 ft. at its closest Mendelssohn Ave. N. Purpose: to the existing building Hogeboom discussed the history of this to construct an addition onto the ex' stated that this property has bee to bring the existing building into was constructed some propecl'!tY staff is supporting this req~ist d d sta that the applicant is proposing will be used as office space. He d of Zoning Appeals in the past in order ce and added that it appears when TH 169 in order to build the exit ramp. He stated that pdd shape of the lot. onformance when it was originally built. Hogeboom said ents were when the building was originally built ed to bring the existing building into conformance. rs to be unoccupied and asked if the proposed addition would . Rod Mysliwiec, RNR Construction, Contractor for the ta that if the variances are approved three tenants will be moving yare completely renovating the interior of the building. the addition could be modified so as not to require a variance along ve. Mysliwiec said the plans could be modified. Kisch asked about the rationale for the location of the proposed new addition. Mysliwiec said the parking spaces are tight in the back of the building so they are proposing to move it forward toward Mendelssohn Ave. 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 August 25, 2009 Page 4 McCarty said he realizes that a taking for the TH 169 exit ramp has caused some hardship on the west side of this property but he is having a hard time supporting the variance request on the south side. Kisch asked Hogeboom if this property has adequate parking. Hogeboom said yes. Kisch said he thinks the lot is unique. He said he is less concerned about the west side variance request because the proposed addition will be further away fro perty line than the existing building already is. He questioned if obtaining mo . ace is really a hardship. Nelson said she doesn't have an issue with the prop intruding any more into the setback than the exist' Eck said it would be difficult to establish a real hardship since thei:prop be reduced slightly however the addition would intrude less t there are no neighbors impacted so he can't object to the prop Segelbaum stated that the proposed addition give a strange shape. He said he'd be curious to know if the Board would like to s ion moved further to the north and in turn giving a larger variance from thewe f the property instead of what is being requested. Kisch said he wo preferthatoption if the applicant would be open to the idea. McCarty said he doesn't iv larger variance to the west side of the property and no matter what the 0 e building is still going to be oddly shaped. Mysliwiec said movi n to th north and lining the addition up with the front of the existing buildin with him. McCarty referred to a chi he plans to remove ;t.he would like to table this request to find alternate proposed addition to the north. Mysliwiec said he'd be willing in order to show the Board new plans that would make the end. licant, stated that they intend to be in this building for a long time and ance the neighborhood. He said as long as they can start remodeling the Isting building he would be ok tabling the variance request until the oard of Zoning Appeals meeting. MOVED by Kisch, seconded by Nelson and motion carried unanimously to table the applicant's request until the September 22, 2009 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting in order to revise the plans to illustrate alternatives to moving the addition further north and aligning the proposed addition with the existing building on the south. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 25, 2009 Page 5 316 Meadow Lane North (09-08-13) Maggie Bostrom/Leo Furcht, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(3)(c) Side Yard Setback Requirements . 8 ft. off the required 8 ft. to a distance of 0 ft. at its c10s the side yard (south) property line. ere an erro on the 8 feet to a distance of 0 rvey)~il1:lowed that the rty and the southwest e the Board of Zoning on another person's quest because the deck is his year without a building oot landing area with stairs in Purpose: To bring the recently constructed deck into confor code requirements. Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and stated tha agenda. The variance request should be for 8 feet off the requi feet at its closest point to the side yard (south) property' Th southeast corner of the deck is located 0.1 feet awa corner of the deck is 0.2 feet over the property lin Appeals cannot grant a variance to allow somethi property. He added that staff is recommend' too close to south property line that the d permit. He noted that the applicant coul the setback area without the need fora va Segelbaum asked Hogeboom if thl~. request wof1il(:j have even come to the Board of Zoning Appeals had staff re 'atthe deck was built over the property line. He asked about the City Attorney's this case. Hogeboom said if staff had realized that the deck was built over the pr the City would have required that the deck be removed and would t ha the applicant the option to come before the Board of Zoning Appeals. t's Attorney, explained that they realized after obtaining the survey st mer of the deck encroaches 0.2 feet into the neighboring property to erred to the survey and stated that he doesn't understand how it can be accurat e the retaining wall located on the property is visually closer to the property line than the deck. He showed the Board photos of the deck, the retaining wall and the survey stake. He asked the Board if this item could be tabled to allow more time to show that perhaps the retaining wall encroaches, but not the deck. Segelbaum asked how close the deck would be to the property line if Mr. Dillon is correct about the survey being inaccurate. Dillon said he thought the deck would still be within inches of the property line, but he doesn't think the deck crosses over the property line. I ap gized for not obtaining a building permit. She said she at if the deck was not attached to the home she wouldn't need Maggie Bostro , was under i a permit. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 25, 2009 Page 6 ---- McCarty asked who built the deck. Dillon said a contractor built the deck. McCarty said it is clear on the survey that there is an encroachment over the property line. Dillon said he would rather remove the retaining wall than the deck. Segelbaum noted that one way the Board could handle this issue would be to vote on the original request for 7.9 feet off of the required 8 feet to a distance of 0.1 feet then the applicant would have to comply and remove the portion of the deck or retaining wall that is encroaching on the neighboring property. Bostrom showed the yard on the no side 0 that the lot is only 40 feet nything built on the south e ng house already does. He IQt~g9t creates a dangerous condition e aining wall were deteriorating and 'de of the house is a high traffic area and he slo e makes that area hard to traverse and deck that has platforms and there is also no to park in the back and use this entrance. they have not been able to communicate with the neighbor to so issue. Segelbaum asked if the applicant has considered moving gesture of good will. Dillon reiterated that they haven't been able the south. Nelson asked Hogeboom if retaining walls have the Hogeboom said retaining walls can be built right Segelbaum asked about the hardship in this wide with very narrow setbacks on both siq~s side would encroach into the setback ar~abec stated that there is also a significant and the previously existing concre needed to be replaced. He note is the entrance most used. H added that there is a safet parking allowed on the st d so photos and explained that she cannot access the back prop~rty because that neighbor installed a fence. lic hearing. w Lane North, said it is not true that the applicant couldn't get a ed that had the applicant pulled a building permit she would have said that because part of the deck is on her property it will affect the e and will be problem for her in the future if she tries to sell her house. Laura Kisll ,303 Meadow Lane North, showed photos of Ms. Heiden's property and pointed out how the deck encroaches on Ms. Heiden's property. She stated that allowing the deck to encroach will cast a cloud on the deed of the property and could cause problems when selling the property. Segelbaum explained that the Board of Zoning Appeals and/or the City cannot allow anyone to build something on someone else's property. The Board could only allow a structure to be built right up to a property line. Hogeboom added that the City would not Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 25, 2009 Page 7 stop a person from removing something from their property. He reiterated that if the Board grants a variance for the applicant's deck it should be noted that any portion encroaching on the neighboring property must be removed. Kisch asked Ms. Heiden if she would object to the deck if it were built right up to the property line and how she would feel about a fence along the property line. Heiden said if a fence was located on the applicant's property she would not object to it but the deck is too close to her house and she is concerned about the value of her prop added that no one is allowed to park on Meadow Lane so that should not be c hardship for the applicant. Son of the Applicant, stated that t house and yard easier and to h it would hurt him to watch his improvement to the house und orhood back yard. Rose, Neighborhood Letter Carrier, said that the applicant has t and people comment to her how beautiful the house is and ever is in favor of the deck. She added that that deck allows for better ac Linda Martineau, 315 Meadow Lane North, agreed t much better. She said if she were to buy Ms. Hei something she'd like to look at. She said there ha the past before the applicant built this deck. well maintained as the applicant's and her neighbor in order to resolve the t has made her house in question is es be een the neighbors in neighboring house isn't as ered to buy property from utiful great. It makes accessing the 't over 0.2 feet sounds ridiculous. He said tear t e deck down because he sees it as an od. Avis Veselka, 320 M wouldn't have this p when she goes rou She said she is n orth, said if there had been a permit obtained they ted that the applicant has to walk on her property e her house and this situation is unfair to Ms. Heiden. deck. yridge Lane, said that most people in the neighborhood are in knows the applicant is willing to come to some sort of neighbor to her south to resolve the issue. ing no one else wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public Dillon stated that the opposition to this deck is based on personal animosity. He reiterated that the applicant has tried to converse with Ms. Heiden and clearing up the title is exactly what they are trying to do, they just need more time. He said he really doesn't think the deck will negatively affect property values. He added that hardship is really the only relevant factor in this case and the encroachment issue can be resolved. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 25,2009 Page 8 Segelbaum explained that the Board has a few options. They could grant a variance for 7.9 feet off the required 8 feet with the condition that everything complies without seeing a new survey, they could deny the variance request or they could table the request as the applicant has asked. Eck said that the deck is very attractive and enhances the property. He said he has difficulty rationalizing the hardship based on the narrowness of the lot because there is a way to build an access to the house and the yard without requiring a vari he fact that the applicant chose to build a deck instead does not constitute har 'd he would have a hard time supporting this request. Hogeboom explained that if this varianc ed staff would recommend that the applicant obtain some sort of~as neighboring property because the applicant would have to trespass Ql\fthe 's pro erty in order to maintain the deck. McCarty stated that a 25 squaref~pt, con~Prm anding located a foot away from the property line would still requir a!~pliijant to tr spass on the neighbor's property to do maintenance. Hogeboom th~t.a 25 square foot land would however be allowed by the Zoning Code. ot high ect wi less of a ~et of~he req u ired 8 d oriithe applicant's hardship in this case. d a fence because ot. He questioned why the Kisch said he understands there were alternate ways to build a fence were built along the south property line it would create t landscaped area. He said he is in favor of granting a variance feet with the understanding that the entire structure mus 10 property. He added that he believes the narrownesspfJ Eck said he doesn't understand the relevance of cQmpa fences are allowed to be built in setback areas but decks a City even has setback requirements if that is e e. Nelsd structur request is ere was no permit process or variance process before ject went through the proper channels he would p to the property line because he does see a hardship a landing with steps on both sides would provide the same y stated that the Board has given variances in the past for y been built that have less of a hardship than this property and onable use. d if the City knows whether or not the deck was built properly or is d since no permits were obtained. Hogeboom stated that if this variance nted that applicant would still have to apply for a building permit. Segelbaum said he thinks the deck is a reasonable use but he doesn't think it is reasonable to build something using the entire setback area. He said there are alternate designs that could have been considered and there is an impact to surrounding property owners. He said the deck may increase the value of this property but he is concerned about it being built right up to the property line. He added that the deck seems fairly high and would "look over" a 6-foot high fence. He stated that if a fence could be built that Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 25,2009 Page 9 would hide the deck from view he may be in favor of granting the variance request. Kisch noted that the proximity of what was the existing stoop puts a person at the same level as a fence. Eck said he still doesn't understand what the hardship is in this case. He agreed that the lot is narrow and it was difficult to access the back yard, but there are alternatives that don't require variances. McCarty reiterated that the shape and size of the lot to him are true ha the applicant can't have a deck elsewhere. Eck questioned if not being e have a de.ck is a hardship. McCarty said this is one of the greatest hardships he seen since he's been on the Board. Kisch stated that a stoop would create more of an issue with allowin maintenance because the access is better with the deck. . not sufficient. o of setback space that elbaum said he can't justify cerned that three staff roposal. Kisch reiterated that Segelbaum questioned if the allowed 25 square f McCarty said a 25 square foot landing would leav would not be usable and at least the deck is the deck being right at the property line. N member, the City Attorney and the neighbor ar to him the impact of a fence and this.deckare III. consider a!IIQwing a variance for a landing bigger than ~l!lything over 25 square feet in area would be Segelbaum asked if the Board c 25 square feet. Hogeboom s considered a deck. MOVED by Kisch, second ft. off the required 8 . recently constr ted a final inspecti e Carty and motion denied to allow a variance for 7.9 t point to the side yard (south) property line for the ndition that the deck receive a building permit and baum, Eck and Nelson voted no. N s discussed. IV. The meeting was adjourned at 9:42 pm. Chuck Segelbaum, Chair Joe Hogeboom, Staff Liaison 09-08-14 2500 Mendelssohn Avenue North Marvin Frieman, Applicant Hey Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) Date: September 16, 2009 Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Continued Public Hearing: 2500 Mendelssohn Avenue Marvin Frieman, Applicant To: From: Subject: Background Marvin Frieman is the owner of the property located at 2500 Mendelssohn Avenue North in the Commercial Zoning District. Mr. Frieman appeared at the August meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) to request two variances for the purpose of constructing an addition to his building. The variances requested were both from Section 11.30, Subd. 11 (6)(a), Front Yard Setback Requirements. Mr. Frieman proposed an addition to his building that would protrude south toward Mendelssohn Avenue. Upon discussion with the Board, Mr. Frieman opted to revise his plans and move the proposed addition 17 feet to the north, allowing the south wall of the proposed addition to align with the south wall of the existing building. In doing so, Mr. Frieman's proposal no longer requires a variance from front yard setback requirements along Mendelssohn Avenue. However, a variance from front yard setback requirements along U.S. Trunk Highway 169 is still needed prior to construction. The original proposal sought a variance of 11.29 feet off of the required 35 feet to a distance of 23.71 feet between the proposed addition and the westerly property line along U.S. Trunk Highway 169. The revised variance request is as follows: . 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 17.1 feet off of the required 35 feet to a distance of 17.9 feet between the proposed addition and the west front yard property line (along U.S. Trunk Highway 169). Recommended Action At the August meeting of the BZA, the Board indicated that it would prefer a proposal in which the addition was shown to be further away from Mendelssohn Avenue. Staff is in agreement with that opinion. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variance as requested by the applicant. 26TtlAVf N i o o o o o MEDICINE'LAKERD 9165 9124 9116911'1 9108 9161 l I It I r91M 9151 !'!IEDLEY RD::-\91OO 9153 r... '.. \ 9.. 111,11101] 9149 9115 . 9145 9114911Ol/102 9141~.".J l!ic~iIl1il1379t3j9t2S .l!c 12500 Mendelssohn Ave. N. 2: 1il .. >- ~ I I .. 3> ..( l'" ~ 2 ,cQ fQ: '", !C S JI./ a: e 2316 2314 23102)06 fJ jLL.2312~2104 ~.' 23112313 2311 23fh ,.-\222422" ~.. ~231S..J--L--i 2~ K2i~12i6 f26~2tlj, -..1 28 2Z22.-A-J.-22141 22.,,2:U4 ,.. 22 y"-"!'\ \2212 '" 2230 > 2229 2211[' Z213... . '2210. i (2211 2206 ~ e~ l~"V~ ~. :t 2215Y 2204/ " 2206. .2201 2206 ~ 2211 2209 2202 2.zo2 2215 2211> 22lJ1., '-l \2~3 > ,/ 2120' I V 2...." '..:uoo:uoo L.J:-L--2205 '.22032201"'2205"1'" 2201. ..va 2203 > 2143 'v / 2119 ...... i V'<..? Yi.---' .. . 2201 y2116 i21012201. ..... ....21422141 . ZI1S. 2114 i j . r"j /\21022140 '-' 2123 ,Y\ ~ ;i 2103 2106,)....LZ13S 2139,~211O 21132111 ' '\ 'I .J 2108 ~ > ',< ...-'\ 2108 2113 2105 l '/" 2136 21312121 2114 < -- , . 2111 > '" 2109 2~U4 21:z6 2135 2119 1 2Ui~~!~1 ~1~f-2109 €h\ 9Oi5 EI..G~~ p\.. 2111 ~ j- 28/A 2105-' 2104 n01 " 9015 9001 12113 '"'70S 2115 2113 }. I - '> > v 2111212121U 2129 --V ,. 21091 '21012102 2103 - 2115 21192123>2121~' 2125 21012105 2100~2O 2117 (j) Mtm C~'~ 'Ji$l.~~A~, !;;:~~~~~9(t'{~fl~OlS2Q~ Sept. 2001 P(OfOS~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I 18';0" 12'-o":tVERIFY !!: o-'-~---~-- ~ ~ It 1,':';::" I GENERAL NOTES 1. lOCATE NEW WATER HEATER ABOVE RESTROOM. PROVIDE DRIP PAN PIPED TO FLOOR DRAIN. 2. EXTERIOR DOORS SHOWN IN CLOSED POSITION ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE REQUIRED EXITS. AU. EXfT DOORS ALREADY HAVE UT EXIT SIGNS, 3. SPRINKLER SYSTEM NOT REQUIRED. BUilDING HAS A PARTiAl SPRINKLER SYSTEM THAT WILL NOT BE USED. 4. All WIN!)()lNSSHQWN ARE EXISTING UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 5. AU. NEW DOORS ARE 36" WIDE. 6. POSSIBlE FUTIlRE ADOlTlON SHOWN IS NOT PART OF THE PERMIT APPUCATION. 7, PROVIDE EMERGENCY LIGHTING AND SMOKE DETECTORS AS REQUIRED BYCQOE e. IN NEW ACCESSIBlE TOILET ROOMS, POSITION FIXTURES, GRAB BARS, MIRROR, SOAP DISPENSER, TOWEL DISPENSER AND TOILET PAPER HOLDER AS REQUIRED BY CODE 9. All NEW WALLS ARE 2>:4 WOOD FRAMED Will? GWB EACH SIDE CODE DATA Oecupanq<: B oewpancy Allowable Mea: 2 storiest9,COO sqft Type of constmc:tlon: Type VB Existlna Buitdln9 GroS$ SQfT; 3,866 sqtt Occupant load faetor. 100 sqft per ~atIt Oc::cupant load: 38561100 ~ 39 =p<mfs =:'':t'lW\ ,_uu __ - ~ REMd.e'EllG . . :::R~ : OVERP..ow(M'Qf2). I ~~:~~~ED: : "","~MAAW' _,_________. r:~EClON~. :' -.1 \ REIo1O'1l:BRICK~T NEWLEDGER ------V 4 Charles Levin Architects 2300 Milwaukee Avenue Minneapolis Minnesota 55404-3150 P: 612.729.5333 F: 612.729.8351 E: chuck@clevin.com ARCHITECTS PROJECT 11508 STRUCTURAL CONSULTANT MJS Structural Engineers 241 Cleveland Ave. S. St Paul, MN 55105-1255 Telephone: (651) 698-5626 Remodeling of 2500 Mendelssohn Avenue North for Frieman Real Estate Association, LLC 5725 W.25 112 St. St. Louis Park, MN 55416 ISSUED: REVISiON 1: REViSION 2: REVISION 3: REVISION 4: REVISION 5: REVISiON 6: 8m09 8/15/09 8/19109 8/25/09 8/26/09 8/27/09 9/3109 t--":'-'~--t-!'c'~<~-t--t 0", " " ~; ,-flEMDVE EXGWlNOOW ,---' :;S.J.~tm~EE l Ol'ENINl3TOREWlIN ~ ~ II ~~ ii ~ I 12';3::3(4~ ---+ ~ STEELUNTEl.~TNEW OPENIN\lINEllm~G lMStlN!l.YW,ou- PRELlM\NAR'l NOT FOR CONSTRUCT\ON ADDITION FLOOR PLAN .2009 Chat1es Levin Arc:hileClS I I ~II I I I ~ I " I NEWIfEAOERED OPENING IN EXG,WAll 4'-43/4"' ...1. I 13'-1" 4'-0" FIN ~ !!: " " 17'-5"", ~ PROPOSED ADDITION {l;03&SFj ~ OPE~{j,~~lgE~REA 6'--17:'8" o .< ~F:;~~ ~ , (__CONCRETESlAB~GIWlE(IoI. SAlllBASECtlCOI.1PACTEllfU.. , ~3 - ~ , \.._---------_.. , ,ADDITION SECTION SCHEMATIC A< CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Call 48 Hours before digging GOPHER STATE ONE CALL -for_ Twin Cities Area 651-454-0002 MN. Toll Free 1-800-252-1166 ARRAY FINANCIAL SERVICES 0)' '" ~vv--.~ boo9 ,\,Jt,DfO~ FOUND HENNEPIN COUNTY CAST IRON MONUMENT FOUND HENNEPIN COUNTY R/W MONUMENT PLS #4735 A. f $ t. f e ~ f1 ~ ~ l:/;}' t:;)" Q' ~ li::;.S 10'1- Ol.lr) -::-..~ ~~ ~~ lC'j Ol I 1 1 1-1 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I -j 20.00 I ~ 1 I I . 1 I I lO 1 I .<::5 1 I I ~ 1 I ,~I ,'v 1 I ,(' Y, I " ' , '\ "v 1 I-<"Y" I Vj I, 1- -J ,,' I ii:' I, ~,'/" - I I;;:' Y '" I, 'I I ~ Y ,'/....' . 1 , I 4.41 I ~ ~b I~~ I cy 1 0 --......1 " 0,lc I ~ ~I I ~u I ~ &~I I~~ I ~ tJisl I 0bt I ",. gafl I j !)) 9::R:I V I cy lJ.. btl I I < 1 ~: n (' ~" ~ I 77 \1 i::.... L_ '" '" " I I .90 '-- I I 1 I . ,,,~ ..... I ~ I I I I , "0", I L."". I 1 .:. rot~~tf<<~~/ :CANOP.y I 1 "t.. 'bl" ."'.".. ... 18.0 'i'-:, <:> 53.1 I 1 7 ". ",. I 1 . 7: t I 1 .. I 7"7.90 1 I ~ --: I 1-;' I cd EXISTING 1-STORY ~ I 1 ,...: 18 ~ 10 BRICK BUILDING _II 20.00 1 10 I ~ i= FFE=929.2 1 0..0 ~ 1 00 0::< 1 I 0.. .351 I 18.0, ../ JOO I "!../ ../\ I "'; all I // \ ( // ) 0' v/ ~~N") '='", O~. ~AW '" ~~ O~.~ et ~.. \.. ~~ n1 ~\'\ \.. <(..~"iJ ~A ~ cS ~ s.., ~ ~ '" o' ~ .~"".. ~O~~~ -~ ~~~ O~./ $V'?~ ~f>/ ----- ~ -------- 6'/ / /0 / ,. ---- ---- LEGAL DESCRIPTION ~ IT SCALE IN FEET Lot 2, Block 1, HALSETH ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota !.u 1-.. :::r (Q N o o V) Q' '-.:- 'I- (Q ~ C\j ~ '-.:- o (Q ~ C\j BENCHMARK ELEVATION = 929.12 @ TOP OF SIDEWALK AT NE CORNER OF SIDEWALK ON EASTERLY BUILDING LINE EXTENDED EXISTING SETBACKS FRONT STREET (S.) 35 FT. HIGHWAY 169 (W.) 35 FT. SIDE YARD (E.) 20 FT. REAR YARD (N.) 20 FT. I " "T" ,.. LlJ I ,1 PROPOSED SETBACKS HIGHWAY 169 (W.) 17.9 FT. , \ ,....,""',..... '.. ,....\ ,'"-wJ '\ ('-, \ '\ '\ ('-,' J '\ ~ , J .... ,}, "'" I LEGEND . DENOTES FOUND PROPERTY IRON DENOTES BOUNDARY LINE - - DENOTES LOT LINE - - - - - - DENOTES EXISTING SETBACK LINE - - - - - - DENOTES PROPOSED SETBACK LINE C2J DENOTES CONCRETE SURFACE NOTES . 1. THE BASIS OF THE BEARING SYSTEM IS ASSUMED. 2. CONTRACTOR MUST VERIFY PROPOSED ELEVATIONS. 3. NO SPECIFIC SOIL INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN COMPLETED ON THIS LOT BY THE SURVEYOR. 4. NO TITLE INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED FOR THIS SURVEY. THIS SURVEY DOES NOT PURPORT TO SHOW ALL EASEMENTS OF RECORD. 5. 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. 1 19/18/09 I REVISED SETBACK <l< ADDITION I BN o co - NO. I DAlE BY DESCRIPTION ENGINEERING DESIGN & SURVEYING 6480 Wayzata Blvd. Minneapolis, MN 55426 OFFICE: (763) 545-2800 FAX: (763) 545.2801 EMAll: info@edsmn.com WEBSITE: http://edsmn.com I HEREBY CERTIFY TI1A T TI1IS SURVEY WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION, AND TI1AT I AM A DULY LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER TI1E LAWS OF TI1E STATE OF MINNESOTA. \/t!Qc! 5'~~''t<'v CAe DATED: 9/1a/09 VLADIMIR SIVRIVER LS. NO. 25105 LOCATION: 2500 MENDELSSOHN AVE. N. GOLDEN VALLEY. MN 55427 JOB NAME: ARRAY FINANCIAL SERVICES FIELD WORK DATE: 8/19/2009 DRAWN BY: BRN PROJ. NO: 9-048 FIELD BOOK NO.: EDS-6 CHECKED BY: VS SHEET NO. 1 OF 1 A A\A~Vtsf 200'1 PY6pO$t&. / / / / ~f'" ~~/ , , ASSUMED EXlSme SETBACKUNE; SEESUFlVEY.~/ / / / / / / / / / / / / L / / / / 0000 WAmNG AREA "'''''' .- / / / / / / / / C~~E OPE~~AEA ~> ~i ~~ ~iI: 000 ~~ / / ~I / ~~t~ ~~T~~ iSPRNQ.EREaIlPIiENT o 6'-5112" FINISHED 2. 3. 4. 7. CODE DATA Occupancy: 8 occupancy A11ow11b18.....: 2storiesl9,OOOsqft Type of constructton: Type VB ExI.Una Bulldlna GI'OlIS SQFT: 3,866 sqft Occupant Io.r r.ctor: 100 sqft per occupant Occupant LolKI: 3866/100 '" 39 occupants i~ 4 Charles Lavtn Archltecta 2300 Mllwaukaa Avenue Mlnnespolla Mlnnaaota 55404-3150 P: 612.729.5333 F: 612.729.8351 E: chuck@clavln.com ARCHITECTS PRO.ECT 11508 STRIJCTURAL CONSULTANT MJS StIUClUnll EOQIneers 241 Cleveland Ave. S. SI. Paul, MN !l5105-12S5 Tetepl1one:I6S1)_ Ramodellng of 2500 Mendelssohn Avenue North for Frlaman Rael Estate Association, LLC 5725 W.25112 St. St. Louis Park, MN 55416 ISSUED: 8/7/09 I hereby certify thai this plan. specification or report was prepared by me or under my dired9l.lpervfslonandthatlama dulyLloensedArchRedunderthe IDws of the State of Mlnnesota. ~~:anm RegiSlrationNo.14672 FLOOR PLAN o 1 2 4 8 H-m IIII SCALE 02009 """"""""'- Av..~ IJ.. (" -t 200"1 f(()po~ f 8 R I ~ ~ FOUND HENNEPIN COUNTY CAST IRON MONUMENT Q' ~~ lI)~ ((j"l- O),lI) lI) ~t') '-=-~ ~CI) l('j FOUND HENNEPIN,\O) COUNTY R/W MONUMENT PLS #4735 ~ I ~ ::r: t. f/;}' J:::>" f.,., ~ CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Call 48 Hours before digging GOPHER STATE ONE CALL -for_ Twin Cities Area 651-454-0002 MN. Toll Free 1-800-252-1166 ARRAY FINANCIAL SERVICES 0;'- ""1 I / 1-1 f / I / / I / / 1 / f / -i 20.00 / / I / / I / / 1 / I I / I ,~I / / ...."\\' I / 1- <yo" I / /__v.... I I' J ,/~, 'I" - I '..,1', ..... '/ 1-..: 1 y / t...!<J I Js.od /!!]~ I /.........../ co k I !if / I,?u I e::j / / ~g 1 (giJ / / 4ibf I Fg / V I Q.. bf / / I \ / "I' I ....,...., '" ... I / .,... I I I I 10\ I / ~~ L_ ,.... ,.... " I 1 / / I / / ; ('IT ') I <J6 / ....".... . 0 1 / . :..~. rDE.~~~'\ ~~j'.CANqP.Y. I /i::" 53.1 I / ... ~. 1 / ~V r-: I -t <0 <J 7 / ""! . ~ I . 7 2.7", I / ~. EXISTING 1-STORY '": I / / BRICK BUILDING ~ / / FFE=929.2 _I 20.00 / ~ I / /Elz ~ .J / VlQ / Ol- e..- / / 08 11.0 -l,S f / g:< .Q9 / I~ / / (/// [>1) '(0 v 5\"")'v' 5.S All( '" ~~O 05'~ 51 S" \... ~~ n1 ,,\" \... <(..~Yi'j ~A ~ o' ~ ~~ ,~ .~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ",. I?J ~ (i co ",. I?J ~ ""1 o' ~ _~~~ ~O~'t~ -~ ~~~ ~~O~.. ,/ $'\>~ ~ ~ ~ 6'/ / /0 ,/ " ----- -- ---- .!-u 1-... ,"I- (Q f'l Cl Cl CI) Q' '-.:- "I- (Q ~ C\j 'i' '-.:- Cl (Q ~ C\j A , , ('- <,-, \ ' '" \ \ "J ,)', "J I - LEGAL DESCRIPTION o 50 100 ~ I SCALE IN FEET Lot 2, Block 1, HALSETH ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota 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. I ,..._ t_~) I ..., , , ,-,...,...."" \' J' , - LEGEND . DENOTES FOUND PROPERTY IRON DENOTES BOUNDARY LINE - - DENOTES LOT LINE - - - - - - DENOTES SETBACK LINE Q 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 co NO. I DATE DESCRIPTION BY ENGINEERING DESIGN & SURVEYING 6480 Woyzoto 8lvd. Minneapolis, MN 55426 OFFICE: (763) 545-2800 FAX: (763) 545-2801 EMAIL: info@edsmn.comWE8SITE:http://edsmn.com I HEREBY CERllFY THAT THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION. AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 'lead :;~>y;v,,/( DATED: 8/20/09 VLADIMIR SIVRIVER LS. NO. 25105 LOCATION: 2500 MENDELSSOHN AVE. N. GOLDEN VALLEY. MN 55427 JOB NAME: AARAY FINANCIAL SERVICES FIELD WORK DATE: 8/19/2009 DRAWN BY: BRN PROJ. NO: 9-048 FIELD BOOK NO.: EDS-6 CHECKED BY: VS SHEET NO. 1 OF 1 A Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 25, 2009 Page 3 2500 Mendelssohn Avenue North (09-08-14) Marvin Frieman. Applicant 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 t~9. Purpose: To allow for the construction of an addition to the existing buildi~g Request: Waiver from Section 11.30, Subd. 11(6)(a)>Frorlt.'fard S~tback Requirements . 2.67 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distan 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<~n addition to the existing building Hogeboom discussed the history of this property and stated that the applicant is proposing to construct an addition onto the existing building which will be used as office space. He stated that this property has been before the Board of Zoning Appeals in the past in order to bring the existing building into conformance and added that it appears when TH 169 was constructed some propertYV\ias taken in order to build the exit ramp. He stated that staff is supporting this re t d 0 th~ odd shape of the lot. Eck asked if the bui . he was not sure wha however variances ha onformance when it was originally built. Hogeboom said ents were when the building was originally built .ahted to bring the existing building into conformance. Eck said thEa.. i;).uildihg. appears to be unoccupied and asked if the proposed addition would accommodate new tenants. Rod Mysliwiec, RNR Construction, Contractor for the proposediadditiQ/1, stated that if the variances are approved three tenants will be moving in. He addedthatt~ey are completely renovating the interior of the building. McCarty aske Mendelssoh the addition could be modified so as not to require a variance along ve. Mysliwiec said the plans could be modified. Kisch asked about the rationale for the location of the proposed new addition. Mysliwiec said the parking spaces are tight in the back of the building so they are proposing to move it forward toward Mendelssohn Ave. 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 August 25, 2009 Page 4 McCarty said he realizes that a taking for the TH 169 exit ramp has caused some hardship on the west side of this property but he is having a hard time supporting the variance request on the south side. Kisch asked Hogeboom if this property has adequate parking. Hogeboom said yes. Kisch said he thinks the lot is unique. He said he is less concerned about the west side variance request because the proposed addition will be further away frorTJthat perty line than the existing building already is. He questioned if obtaining more>feasabspace is really a hardship. Eck said it would be difficult to establish a real hardship since the proposed addition could be reduced slightly however the addition would intrude less tha'n the ex:lsting building and there are no neighbors impacted so he can't object to the propa:~al. Nelson said she doesn't have an issue with the prop9red add,tiO~~Tcause it is not intruding any more into the setback than the existiIJg building currently does. Segelbaum stated that the proposed addition gives this buildi~g a strange shape. He said he'd be curious to know if the Board would>liketo seethe ion moved further to the north and in turn giving a larger varianceffbm the west sl f the property instead of what is being requested. Kisch said he wo pre~l3r thatcqption if the applicant would be open to the idea. McCarty said he doesn't tb.give a larger variance to the west side of the property and no matter what thea~plicantdoesthe building is still going to be oddly shaped. Mysliwiec said moving addition to the north and lining the addition up with the front of the existing building/wou efine with him. McCarty referred to a chimney/smokestack shown on the plans and asked the applicant if he plans to remove it.. Mysliwiec said yes. Segelbaum aske<:lthe applicantif he would like to table this request to find alternate designs th~t~ouldshift t~T proposed addition to the north. Mysliwiec said he'd be willing to wait until the Jlext ting in order to show the Board new plans that would make the buildingfl hcqIJ the end. Mar'4in Friem Ap~licant, stated that they intend to be in this building for a long time and they want to ance the neighborhood. He said as long as they can start remodeling the interior o~l~~~xisting building he would be ok tabling the variance request until the September Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. MOVED by Kisch, seconded by Nelson and motion carried unanimously to table the applicant's request until the September 22, 2009 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting in order to revise the plans to illustrate alternatives to moving the addition further north and aligning the proposed addition with the existing building on the south. City of Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Zoning Code Variance Application 1. Street address of property involved in this application: 2$00 ~'~hd'.~ tJJf- 6~\~ 2. Applicant: MlltlVf JJ ::fF.JT'11/1IJ1U Name '5725 W.2S" 1~ dr, . Address %iPcPt 5 rffiRI(.' Mp 55" 41' City/State/Zip '1 ~3,. 5'ot.f. 3600 Business Phone %'2,-929 -309b Home Phone /;'/2130-'105""9 Cell Phone f)11114/JlfV- rnltiMltf(l f(iJ MUt..npn/J/)u5A. L&'M Email Address 3. Detailed description of building(s), addition(s), and alteration(s) involved in this petition. The site plans and drawings submitted with this petition will be the basis of any variance that may be approved and cannot be changed before or after the building permit is issued. LJl.a-~~ #V II{'P( ~Uh f/-J$<..Y.5/be-o/f 50(7 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. <~MIL~~ ~~IvW~~.~{~) v>e~t>l~~;.Q~MA~rPP1~-rt1J;~'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. )U~~~ Signature of 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 f1~6 I-$y Pff/?-K. t-j-D Comment WP11tc7J;t;, C!' 9w/Im '8/r~7 /J-l)tJI5~/) 1?8ouf Pfl.CI!tM,::C;~ 2S=lh~rbry;4_"'~N{",,7 ~ 4r.V. Signature !W71IL'C.€~ (p,..4-;tm./-. 'h/c~ Address /6IJO rfof/((Nf r;e~~:~ 55"305 Print Name (11f1rt\J >{I),zs,r f((pf~(l.Jti Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature (1;ev'h€A- t:uIIf/IJ~fL c,~ 511?1r,.J;,u "'63 kM"7lI ff-k 6'~ Address l14fLS,tltjfV ~5'f11f t ts PI<P"~ff \-:Ie>C.DIPf1S f(3/t'lr!r'Zw8tflUK. (SJU) LX;' ftf~ BLl> 6 . Address Address Address Address Address . . 'fI .~ - ._~~.:":~~'~.~. ~-~ . ~~ I I / ,,/' / " / / J / / f ~- ~- E:::"'"- t' // / / /' ,/ I f , I I , - ~ 1 .~ .t " '"