05-25-10 BZA Agenda
Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, May 25,2010
7pm
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chambers
I. Approval of Minutes - October 27,2009
II. The Petitions are:
2461 Dresden Lane (10-05-01)
Jeff and Emilv Piper, Applicants
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback
Requirements
. 5 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 10ft. at its closest point
to the side yard (south) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the replacement of the railing and surface boards on the
existing deck.
608 Turnpike Road (10-05-02)
Dana Swindler and Gre~ Walsh, Applicants
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(3)(b) Side Yard Setback
Requirements
. 8.5 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 4 ft. at its closest
point to the side yard (north) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage addition.
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(1) Front Yard Setback
Requirements
. 3 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 32 ft. at its closest point
to the front yard (east) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage addition.
III. Other Business
IV. Adjournment
This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request.Please call
763-593-8006(TTY: 763-593-3968) to make a request. Examples of alternate formats
may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc.
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
October 27, 2009
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday,
October 27,2009 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 Planning Commission
Representative Waldhauser. Also present were City Planner Joe HogeboolJ1~nd
Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner McCarty was abs~~t.
I. Approval of Minutes - September 22, 2009
MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Kisch and motion carried 4 tp1<tp approve
September 22,2009 minutes as submitted. Commissioner Wal~ha1.lser abst from
voting.
II. The Petitions are:
8830 23rd Avenue North (09-10-15)
Merwyn and Joyce Larson, Applicants
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21 ,SlIbd. 11 (A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback
Requirements
.
15 ff.<to a distance of 11.22 ft. at its closest
(west) property line.
Purpose:
onstruction of an addition to the existing garage.
ion 11.21, Subd. 13(0) Pre-1982 Structure Setback
the required 3 ft. to a distance of 1.5 ft. at its closest point to
de yard (east) property line.
bring the existing shed into conformance with Zoning Code
requirements.
Hogeboom explained the applicants' proposal to expand their existing garage toward the
west property line. He stated that the width of the current garage is 19 feet and the
applicants would like to build a 23-foot wide garage which would be more functional. In
addition, the west wall of the existing garage is crumbling and needs to be replaced.
Hogeboom referred to the survey and noted that the front corner of the garage would be
located 11.22 feet from the west side yard property line, however the back corner of the
garage would be located 14 feet from the west side yard property line. He stated that staff
is in support of this request because there isn't a negative impact to the neighboring
properties and it is a reasonable request.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
October 27, 2009
Page 2
Hogeboom noted that there is a shed on the property which is located 1.5 feet away from
the east property line. The zoning code requires that sheds built prior to 1982 be at least 3
feet away from side and rear yard property lines. He stated that staff is recommending that
the variance for the shed be approved due to the fact that the applicants have indicated
that their plans include removing the shed in the future.
Waldhauser asked about the setback requirements for sheds built today and if the
applicants need the variance for the shed in order to get a building permi proposed
garage addition. Hogeboom stated that sheds today need to be locate et a,~ from
side and rear property lines. He stated that the applicants could recei~e uilding ~~rmit
for the garage addition without obtaining a variance for the existing shed.
Merwyn Larson, Applicant, stated that the neighbors are supportive of. eir pr posal and
reiterated that a 19-foot wide garage is too small and they wantto bUild a m standard
size garage. Joyce Larson, Applicant, added that the neighbors most a d by the
proposed garage addition are in support of this propo~i::ll an r ceived a
variance for a project they did in the past.
Sell asked if the proposed 4-foot wide addition wO'L1il(j just be the garage level or the
entire two-stories of the house. Mr. Larsothe ition uld just be on the garage
portion of the house and not on the sec tory/Ii Ge above the garage. He
showed the Board some elevation draw' oftheprQpgsed addition and discussed the
type of roof line and the pitch of th
Nelson asked the applicants
lived in this house for 20 y
purchased the house.
've lived in this house. Mrs. Larson said they've
d that the shed was on the property when they
Waldhauser referre
wall would be suppo
garage is crum a
loads to more a
tion and asked the applicant to explain how the garage
Mr. Larson explained that the current west wall of the
to extend the wall four feet in order to spread out the
pport the structure and provide stability.
if they intend to remove the existing shed in the future. Mr.
d added that they will probably build a new shed in the same location.
Kisc applicants why the proposed addition needs to be 4 feet in width and
noted t al two stall garage is 20' x 20' or 22' x 22'. Mr. Larson said he feels a
24' x 24' is andard size garage and if the proposed addition were only 2 feet wide it
would look strange and out of proportion.
Kisch asked about the width of the garage door. Mr. Larson said the garage door would be
18 feet wide.
Sell referred to the photos of the property and asked if a tree located near the garage is
going to cause any issues. Mr. Larson said he didn't think the tree would be a problem.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
October 27, 2009
Page 3
Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Segelbaum closed the public hearing.
Sell stated that he doesn't have any concerns with the garage proposal because 19 feet of
width is not a real two stall garage. He stated that he would like to consider the shed to be
a non-conforming structure and would like to give the applicants a time frame in which to
move or remove it. Segelbaum stated that variances stay with the property forever and the
Board can't give an expiration date for a variance. He suggested placing ~()me~ort of
condition of approval regarding the location of the shed.
Segelbaum asked the Board about how they felt regafdin~ 13 h
Hogeboom stated that his recommendation would be to approve tQe:varia
garage addition and deny the variance for the shed giving the a ant
amount of time to move or remove the shed. Segelbaum ask
able to get a building permit for the garage if the non-conformi
property. Hogeboom said yes.
Waldhauser said the garage wall needs to be rebuilt and it iSrlot logical to rebuild the
garage 19 feet in width. She added that there is 13lso no neigQbor opposition.
Kisch referred to the survey and askeq if gtang<the variance for the front corner of the
garage to be located 11.22 feet fr si rd property line would also allow the back
corner of the garage to be locate .22 feet from the same property line.
. quired 15 ft. to a distance of 14 ft. for the back (northwest) corner of the
closest point to the side yard (west) property line to allow for the
Ion of an addition to the existing garage.
d language to the request that states the front
feet from the west property line and the back
d 14 fe t from the property line as shown on the survey.
Segelbaum suggested tha
corner of the garage can
corner of the garage can
MOVED by Sell
following varia
i3lqhauser and motion carried unanimously to approve the
15 ft. to a distance of 11.22 ft. for the front (south) corner of
st point to the side yard (west) property line to allow for the
n addition to the existing garage.
MOVED by Kisch, seconded by Sell and motion carried unanimously to deny the variance
request for the shed to be located 1.5 ft. off the required 3 ft. to a distance of 1.5 ft. at its
closest point to the side yard (east) property line.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
October 27, 2009
Page 4
2450 Kewanee Way (09-10-16)
AI Helgemo, Applicant
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(1) Front Yard Setback
Requirements
. 13.1 ft. off the required 30 ft. to a distance of 16.9 ft. at its closest
point to the front yard property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of an open front porG.~i
Hogeboom stated that the applicant is proposing to build an open front porch that would
be located 16.9 feet away from the front yard property line. He explained that all the
homes fronting Kewanee Way were given a variance in 1959 to be located 25 feet away
from the front yard property line rather than the required 35.>feet because of the
topography in the area. He stated that even though' ranted back in 1959
any new constructi.on has to conform to current z q ents. He added that
the proposed planters and stairs were not taken i tion for this variance
request, only the roof line of the proposed p
Nelson asked if this proposed front porchldid ave 8<ro on it, if it would have to come
before the Board for a variance. Ho mtheapplicant would still require a
variance for the landing portion 0 osal>because it is greater than 25 square feet in
area.
e applicant about what they feel the hardship is with their existing
p. AI Helgemo, Applicant, said the way the proposed front porch was
designe ortionate with the rest of the house. Sell said he can see the benefit of a
front porch because it would provide protection from the weather.
clarification regarding the size of the proposed
Kisch referred to the surv
front porch.
Scott Peterson, Buil
porch will proje 7.5
ting the Applicant, explained that the roof of the front
the house.
roposed roof dimensions, the landing area dimensions, the
ouse and the location of the foundation versus the location of
f the house.
Nelson asked the applicant if there is a hardship with how the front entryway currently
functions. Peterson stated that the current overhang is approximately 15' high and doesn't
really provide any protection from the weather.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
October 27, 2009
Page 5
Hogeboom stated that staff considers the hardship to be the uniqueness of this lot. He
stated that the fact that the house was built 25 feet away from the front property line
causes the applicant to have to ask for a variance for a front porch that most properties
could build without the need for a variance. Nelson added that there are no neighbors
across the street and no neighbors behind the applicant so there really is no negative
impact to any neighboring property owners.
Kisch asked the applicant if he'd be willing to shorten the overhang to 5.5~et:irl.depth
instead of the requested 7.5 feet. Peterson said he thinks having a cov g ovefia,lI of the
steps is a benefit.
Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishin.g to comment,
Segelbaum closed the public hearing.
Segelbaum said he is trying to balance the amount of h
neighboring properties and the reasonableness of the r
because all of the houses on this street are lined
porch would have an impact to the sideways vie
foot deep open front porch.
Kisch agreed that a typical front porch is $ feet deep and allOwing an open front porch to
be 20 feet away from the front property line seems reasonable in this case.
Nelson agreed and explained to
front yard setbacks in the pa
ntstp~t the Board has been very protective of
Hogeboom referred to th
slightly more than 25 feet
variance language hat t
property line instead
s d that it appears that the house may be located
m the font property line and suggested that the
oposed front porch could be located 20 feet from the
e applicant can build a 5-foot deep front porch.
MOVED b
variance f
front y
by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to approve a
uired 30 ft. to a distance of 20 ft. at its closest point to the
1I0w for the construction of an open front porch.
III.
an update on the variance appeal for the property at 316 Meadow Lane
North. He ed that the applicant appealed the Board's decision to the City Council at the
October 20 Council meeting. The City Council upheld the Board's decision and told the
applicant to work with the staff regarding the construction of her deck and possibly
applying for a new variance.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
October 27, 2009
Page 6
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 pm.
Chuck Segelbaum, Chair
Hey
Planning
763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
May 21,2010
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
To:
From:
Joe Hogeboom, City Planner
2461 Dresden Lane
Jeff and Emily Piper, Applicants
Subject:
Background
Jeff and Emily Piper are the owners of the property located at 2461 Dresden Lane. They are
requesting a variance from the Zoning Code to bring their deck into conformance. The existing
deck, constructed by a previous owner, was built within the side yard setback area. The
current owners would like to replace the railings and surface boards on the deck for safety
reasons.
No prior variances have been obtained for this property.
Variances
The proposal requires variances from the following section of City Code:
. Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements.
For this property, City Code requires a distance of 15 feet between a home/attached deck and
the south side yard property line. The applicants are requesting 5 feet off of the required 15
feet to a distance of 10 feet between the closest point of the existing deck and the south side
yard property line.
Recommended Action
Staff finds that the condition of the existing deck constitutes a hardship. The deck, which has
been part of the home for many years, does not detract from the character of the
neighborhood, nor does it detract from the enjoyment of the property south. Therefore, staff
recommends approval of this variance as requested by the applicant.
\ r :
~ \ ~.
\ ~.-------
\, \
~ \ 2480
//-\ \ ",,/
/ 2461 \\ '\(//~/
~.r'-- 2461l
-------
-~
2441
2630
2620
2610
2600
25&0
2421
2401
2361
2341
2321
2541
:2.6TH"AVE N
~I~
wi
IoU !----
zi
~h
I 2510 \
I \~~-
\--2490
\
\//
\
\
\.
2521
\ "'. \""
\..--------- \
\ \
\ 2SOO , Subject Property
-~
y' /-------i-----""" v <~
! / \ ..,. I 'w, I~ "~
~\ r' 4041 ^'
\-...---_ I" / ,,<$'1'~
.....u. / ',/ ~ ,~ _
2311 2340 \ /~ C'1! ' /
~_~ t-,- \. // '. &<'J \, /
~.l '..,,_,,/~- ~. //"//-- \( 4005~: ~ '\.... //
4221 r 2301 ( ~ 2300 \ // "", ~\ / 3950. .
I \ i a. .< >,'" '~!l //
~-~
~~~".:I~~~i:::1
Dear Commissioners,
Thank you for taking the time to consider our request for a variance. We live with our
children Louis (3), Alice (2) and Edward (2 ~ months) at 2461 Dresden Lane. We have lived at
this house for almost 3 years.
We are requesting a variance to the required side-yard setback allowing us to replace the
railing and deck surface boards on our existing deck. In early April, we visited City Hall to
determine whether we needed a permit to complete this work. During the process of applying for
a permit, it was determined that the previous owner had not applied for a permit to build the deck
originally. Not only had the previous owner not applied for a permit, they built the deck 5 feet
into the side-yard setback without obtaining the required variance. Upon discovering this issue,
we immediately began the process of obtaining a survey and applying for a variance to remedy
the situation. As described below in more detail, we believe we have several grounds on which
the required hardship may be found justifying approval of a variance in this situation.
First and foremost, we would like to highlight what we believe to be our most
compelling example of hardship. Last fall, our daughter, then age 1, was out on our deck with a
relative when she slid between the rails of our deck and stood on a narrow ledge outside of the
railing with nothing between her and the ground approximately 8 ~ feet below. Luckily that
relative was able to pull her back onto the inside of the railing, preventing her from falling to the
ground. We need a variance to replace the existing railings with child-safe railings. This will
provide increased safety, not only for our three children, but also for those of family and friends.
As evidenced by the attached photos, the railings now maintain gaps of 6" on the main body of
the deck, which a toddler can easily maneuver through, and a whopping 10" on the steps of the
deck extending from the second story down to the ground.
Second, many of the deck boards pose a risk to anyone walking on the deck. The deck
was improperly constructed with boards too short to have both ends secured by the underlying
joists, causing the edges of the boards to stick up and warp. These warped boards are a constant
tripping hazard, particularly for children and our parents. This is especially troubling with
respect to the boards on the deck closest to the steps.
Third and finally, there is a door from the house out to the portion of the deck which is
within the side-yard setback. Without the deck at this exit point, this door would be rendered
non-functional. In order to replace the deck boards and rails in the vicinity of this door, we need
a variance to the side-yard setback.
In conclusion, we respectfully request you take into consideration that we did not create
this problem for ourselves. At the time we purchased our home, the issue of this nonconforming
deck was not disclosed to us. This is a problem we inherited from the previous.owner. Further,
we are not seeking to extend the footprint of the deck whatsoever. We are simply attempting to
make an existing structure safe and in compliance with the building code. Thank you again for
your time.
Jeff and Emily Piper
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
Jeff Piper
LEGAL DESCRIPTION PROVIDED:
Lot 4, Block 1,
CUMBERLAND HILLS 3RD ADDITION
Hennepin County, Minnesota
Sub ject to easements of record.
PROPERTY ADDRESS PROVIDED:
2461 Dresden Lane
Golden Valley, MN 55422
<>
o
C\J
;::;
(\J
"-
....
<:)
~
\f\
<J cz,
....<\ ~
\ . ~ ~
7- ?-'6
~
\ ~ SANM
~ YO
\t-
(t\
\
\
~
4
",-"...--
\
\
\
\ Qrt,Cv...
<
"
"
"
" -\
" -- .:....:
'\ 'f.,
:." \
\;"
fA >; 00 ~
\f:J?i:;fi$~ !#-
~6 bt ~o'J
~ 5 I
13>
.
."
ci
E
o
,g
o
<>
I
"'
CD
<>
M
-"
Vi
-"
13>
.
."
-"
C
..
."
In
..
~
'"
~
....
(\J
. Denotes Iron Monument Found
<>
<>
I
"'
CD
<>
M
-"
~
..
a.
0:
I
"'
CD
<>
M
-"
'"
g;
M
I
<>
g
M
-"
In
....
U
.!!,
o
~
0-
-"
:f
o Denotes Iron Monument Set and
marked with #47223
-WL - Denotes located edge of pond area
I hereby certify that this survey. plan or
report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I om a duly
Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws
of the state of Minne~
~:n: ~
Theresa K Foster
DATE ~pOltJ lie. NO. MN 472;3
IE. . 1440ArcadeSt.Suile250
· Saint Paul, MN 55106
.. . Phone: 651-766-0112
"-.... Fax: 651-776-0206
............-......,........... E-mait info@mpasso.com
o 30
I I I
SCALE IN FEET
DRAWN BY M.. PROJECT NUMBER 3085.0010
City of Golden Valley
Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
Zoning Code Variance Application
1. Street address of property involved in this application:
~y (,?) DfUc1 1\ ~
2. Applicant: Jt. b ~ &.,vtcl G ~ ~ L ~ (), ~
Name ~
') l/ ftJ ( D ~sclQ Yl CCGhG {;; 0 I Ju, 0. /~ /11AJ Sf f~
Address City/State/Zip
7~}' ~O~- '7S-t/ ~ ~/J. - ;2J~ - S S I 7
Business Phone Home Phone Cell Phone
a f. J (lC.Y"@ V' ~n1 /J. C4 rYl
Email daress
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.
$a <A. tp.~ l~
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.
U~ tt~4d, /vb
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.
'"
Address 7-YL// )[)~/Vl ~,
Signatu e
~
Address dJo I ~EN r WL
> Print Name
S-f.u teCt 1-,:)
Comment
Signature~- -
Print Name Pt/;uL- j<.. c(< ~SL
~
Address 2500 ~J;6tJ L.t<J
Comment
r:;;;t;;U?
Address 2-4&'tJ P rzs~
Signature
Print Name
Comment
Signature
Address
Print Name
Comment
Signature
Address .
Print Name
Comment
Signature
Address
\
~1
ri
III
II
!~
I
I,
I I
"
Planning
763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
May 21,2010
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
Joe Hogeboom, City Planner
608 Turnpike Road
Dana Swindler and Greg Walsh, Applicants
To:
From:
Subject:
Background
Dana Swindler and Greg Walsh are the owners of the property located at 608 Turnpike Road.
They are requesting a variance from the Zoning Code for the construction of an addition to
their attached garage. The proposed addition would extend into the front yard setback area as
well as the north side yard setback area.
The applicants have stated that the existing garage is of inadequate size to comfortably
accommodate two automobiles. The proposed addition would extend over a paved area and
terminate at an existing concrete retaining wall. The proposed addition would extend along the
east plane of the existing house/garage.
No prior variances have been obtained for this property.
Variances
The proposal requires variances from the following sections of City Code:
. Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements.
For this property, City Code requires a distance of 12.5 feet between a home/attached garage
and the north side yard property line. The applicants are requesting 8.5 feet off of the required
12.5 feet to a distance of 4 feet between the closest point of the existing deck and the north
side yard property line.
. Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements.
City Code requires a distance of 35 feet between a home/attached garage and front yard
property line. The applicants are requesting 3 feet off of the required 35 feet to a distance of 32
feet between the closest point of the proposed attached garage and the front yard property
line.
Recommended Action
Staff finds that the lack of adequate garage space constitutes a hardship. The proposed
addition would extend no further toward the street than does the existing plane of the house. In
addition, the proposed addition would provide articulation to the north side wall of the home.
Therefore, staff recommends approval of these variances as requested by the applicants.
401
400
411
!j;
I
..j
m
;0
~~
"
"'" "-
A
/// "'.
'-,
\
5221
5211
410
SOl S09
424
500
.-------
----~
17:
~
;at
..j
m
:=
616
632
llJ.otSSO~ \\0
611
621 637
633
5310
5300
523tI
629
508
624
. TlJRNPIKE ItO
516
616
-,
'"
\
\,
625
"-.
\
\",
.~.
621
5220
5210
,/ /
53$ II
/ 541
~ /
~ ~-I ///
~ '"
~"-'\ \//
, Subject Property ,
5201
5121
$111
$17
525
549
600
601
S031
60S L'
------------
---.~
----
_.
611
I
^
--~.// ~
\ "'.
\ 613 ""-,,,,
\ .""
/
I /1
/
5120 /5100 ;/
/ /
-------------..1--._ Ii
----
!------------,..-~ ~,
I ! r_
I
/ S200 I
1
--""""""'---l..
609
/
/
/
/
{
/
,/
SOlO
Variance Application:
608 Turnpike Road
Golden Valley, MN 55416
-'1'
Request to reduce required 12.5' side yard setback to ,)$5'
3) Addition to existing attached garage, to allow for fully usable two car garage.
4) The house was constructed in 1953 and the width of the existing attached garage is
significantly smaller than today's two car garages. The additional space will allow for a fully,
functional two-car garage by current standards.
As a corner lot with a driveway that rises up the sloped site, the only logical option for additional
garage space is to increase the size of the attached garage. A detached garage is not a reasonable
option for the lot even thought the setback requirement would be less stringent (see aerial
photograph).
The side yard setback requirement is greater for a corner property. There is an existing 5' -0"
concrete masonry retaining wall 2' -5" from the property line. The proposed garage addition is
designed to align with the location of the existing eMU retaining wall to take advantage of
existing shoring/retaining capacity (see photos & survey).
The garage addition would match height of existing garage and use the same siding materials.
No windows would be installed on the north side of the garage due to proximity to property line.
SURVEY FOR: Will m Enright
I ~
-e-
I
SCHOELL & MADSON, INC.
ENGINEERS '. SUR~ · PlANNERS
SOIL TESllNG · EtMRQNMENTAL SERVICES
10580WAYlATA BOULEVARD. SUITE 1
MINNEroNKA. UN 55305
952-546-7601 FAX: 952-546-9065
wwW.sc:hoellmad8Cll1.com
I 0
~ ~
11.
;l
;l
l:l
I
i':
<>
ci
~
ftnis drawing has been checked and
~eviewed this -1l/6 T day of
I Jf)L'(14' ~tl
~y ~ " 1fAAA.'7
~-
,
';'.
,.....~
~~
o~
co~
00 oj
0l0)
L_
I
r-,
,,_oJ
I
__oJ
\
\
'\.
"-
'-
:;0
II-
~~
. .~
~~...... -
. JI :::&00 ^
(J) t .'. ~ '
~ :-"t . (T1
f\) ~"" g
d JI I\l,.....
CQ~-u
...: ~~'-'
'-It\:)
rrf~
CO
.
'-
?
......
,
\
..~
r'" -(
\ \ \
...J
,
,
,,0."
1.0.....
EAST
141.50 (P)
141 "~/A.ll Property.line luns 010n9
.07U t WI / _ foce of limestone woll
...--
t:
~
$:)
~
o
~
~
'-"'1.5
....2.5
"0 ,.7-
'ot~
~
AmITrOS:.....
- '-32.2--
,-0""\
I
I
I
I
o
, t.!?"
bt~Y f~) ,
b~.....O \:
,V:!>.J 60 .,
: \f ....f>. , ,,0
: a,J A4~
, A" tff>" \
'<t
I
I
I
I
N89~0'41 "w
123.40 (AI)
123.50 (p) ,
ROAD
o
\0
TURNPIKE
60
-I
C
;0
Z
-U
;0
o
)>-
CJ
60
-,
.,.
.::/
}012-001
618/73
(127-11)
o 20 40
'b-t. _ I I
GENERAL NOTES
.1. For the purpose of this survey. the north line of
Lot .3 has an assumed bearing of East.
2. ~e address of the above property: 608 Turnpike
Road. Golden Valley. MN.
3. The field survey of this site was completed on
J~.dy 18. 2003.
4. Parcel Area: 13.961 SQ. FT. (0.32 Ac.)
5. . - Denotes Iron Monument Found
6. 0 ,.... Denotes Iron Monument Set
'\,
DESCRIPTION
Lot 3. Block 3. SPRING GREEN. Hennepin County.
Minnesota.
SPECIAL NOTE
Spatial relationships of some items shown on this
survey are exaggerated for clarity.
-;;
I hereby certify that this survey was prepared
under my supervision and that I am a Licensed
Land Surveyor under the Jaws of the State of
Minnesota. '
Date:
License No. 17006
1
City of Golden Valley
Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
Zoning Code Variance Application
1. Street address of property involved in this application:
roo ~I~~\.\~ ~~ I b-o\..t),j \J0l\-~':l/ ~ 5S"-H b
2. Applicant: ~S\...JI('lQu:{l. d- ~. W~'h
~
100 K Tvn.Jn\ v1L 110100. 60\"~ VO\Y1 yryJ 55 L-II .6
Address. . \- I G1ty/StatelZiP.
Q'5L- Z,l'2:-'1 ~~'1
Business Phone Home Phone Cell Phone
DW3>2-<>8\062..~. (Y)~, Corv\
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.
~ eE, brt~C~-=LO
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.
~ A1T~f.p
5. To the best of my knOwledge the statements found in this application are true aAd correct. I also
~nderstand that unless construction of the action applicable to this variance request, if granted,
is not taken within one year, the variance expires.
c~
~k~cant .': ~. ~
~rr~~\rJPtd'- .
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 6'~ fJtv r {l u.lf (!O/'2f},J
.-c-ommenf-~-7dt'"f'6(C rfflr$vft;zr/ff..Jt.:€;71{ClceISJJC; .lvE0ffnU~u.ljlllf'IfC1".. }ZJuotJR;. ~~,
. U.: ,. ."
Signaturec::=::;<,,::;~..zv;-&- ~e-?'-..."_..... Address 6t>s Tl..!l<IVr'lfc..e /2...P .
,/
Print Name
Comment
Signature
Address
Print Name
Comment
Signature
Address
Print Name
Comment
Signature
Address
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.
PrintName G.ALEXANDER \<.OLAND a.\<'.3. ALEX COLE
-C-ommenf- .. .-.-..--\----~ld:VPGm~b.t'ROJ
)
Signature
Address loe) 0 \L\R N \J\ \<E
Print Name MA R"Y \-\; 0 R"'\I'JA -rH
Comment \ SLl~PoRTT\-\-~ ~ROuCGT.
Signature ~~ Address {OOO ,URN\J\KE
Print Name
Comment
Signature
Address
Print Name
Comment
Signature
Address
Print Name
Comment
Signature
Address
Print Name
Comment
Signature
Address .
Print Name
Comment
Signature
Address
,,^A\' \ \ , 20tO
WE SU\JPb?:,T \\4E 'lAR\ANC~ FOR ll4c G:PS<.lxdc-
APO\l"tON AND \l" WtLL NoT \-\A'i'E ANY NEGA\\\l\::.
\ tv\ \/ACT ON ouR pP>a PER\Y, \~ ERE \ S A
RE:"TA\\'-\\NE:J 'NALL AND ~LANl'''-\E5S AT T\4t:
\-OC,A-rtDN Ne.X-r --'to OU~ O~\\LS '-NI:\'-( sO \f.Je:
\N\LL Nor 6E EfFECTEO 'tS"Y 1\4E ADOIT\ON #
(000 \UKNP\\(E RMD GOLD~N VALL\:::Y
aKd. ~ t(J
G.ALEXANDE.l<. \<OLAND .
l'AARY t-\ORWATH
Hennepin County Property Map
Page 1 of 1
H
s
Hennepin County Property Locator
~ Zoom In ~ Zoom Out ~ Pan I Move [iJ Identify [g Clear Map
.-
_ Parcel
Available Map Features:
Click on a check box below to turn on or
off map features.
Map Features:
--
_c;ty
--
11II County
Municipal Names
o Water Names
8
~
Print
D~
DTwD-Rn9-Sec-0Q.Grk1
o l.QLDJm=i2rTh
@)
Legend
Street Centerline
::::J :iY=J!J'ar~
~Wat.[
21eark
212009 AerlaLfb=
Overview
m
. Features may not be available at certain
map scales.
About the application
Parcels updated on: 5/5/2010
Welcome to Hennepin County's Property Locator. To begin using the appliCZltion either search by (PIO, Address, Additon
or Twp-Rng-Sec) using the "Quick Search" commands or Simply navigllte to the desired location using the "Map Tools".
For more detailed information click on the Help Button!
Although extensive effort h~s been m~de to produce error free and complete data, all geographic inform~tion has
limitations due to the SCllle, resolution, date and interpretation of the original source materials. You should consult
availl,ble data documentation (metadllta) for these particular data to determine their limitations and the precision to
which they depict distance, direction, location or other geographic chanllctenstlCS. These dat~ may be subject to
oeriodic chanOfl! without orior notification.
Copyright @ 2010 Hennepin County, Minnesota I www.Hennepin.us
Accessibility PoliC'l1 CQfitact.J::ie.nn.eQln....CQ..u.nt1 Security/Prlyacy Sta.te.men.t
http://gis.co.hennepin. mn. us/HCProperty Map/Locator. aspx
5/11/2010
r ~:'~~
~~~r
f ~~, i.~
" "" ~ t,
"'" .4:.~
,
.\,1
r
,
.,
'\
l:I
~
:0
\~
~
:J<
i
, --
/f~ J,
~
Jl
,r "\
~ ..
!l ~~.. . I-
1l:!"J ~
101 p
ICI ..,
tr
r" ..I'"' ".
"
:I ,,-Q..
,. .,
..
~, I-
....
~
1:1 'Ill
!':!....~
...f1
~
~~~""'"
;::~~
..-
~_.
'--~-=-~~ --'-, ,
--.. ~~
.,"-
~ -~
--~
::I .~;
~~
~.o..-~'. J
Hl-
'\:;,.
.t .'" i:!1
~ ....
fL
L.
r
\
~
\ '~
\
~
15. ~
"'"
"
D Il
:~,-
.".-
~
-~1~
"'"1;\jI
~
W., ~
D
1Iif'!'~ l:l.:llllQ
~ a a~ ~ ~
~1llllIIa -~I:l' 'Cl
.r~llI-a QCI I:l ._.
~ -~I!I~;S:Il;~ =-
~ . - -.... 1I:l'
.'s. ~ ,... Q
'""... '1 Il! ~
III ilta~.. . ,~, a. ~1lI_ !:I
iii!I >~~ " ~ III ~
'" D""'l;;
1:1 cC'~ ~ w ~
Is;! :"10
- '" .-: ':,- ~-~
1:lIj
I:l Ir c;; ,
II
;!:
III
1:10",
"'II!
.&
=
1:1
1:1
...,;0
,)
15
I:l
Ij;IIlQ
'lIl' _
Q
tL C:
.. 1:1
1:il!J
~........
,[5
..,
<:
-'Q, .:c
\.
Iil
II-
..... ..A,"" r. .
'"'~~'.~'u- .
~~-i,;;;wt"'
t" g
..~,.
c~
~
..
.
j'"
"
,..
,..
...
.................... ...
........- -....
.....-......-
j'~
.~.~,-
I
1\1
j, /-
- ~-
t,.
.I'
,.
,
"
L'_\.:-
-........~.....-