The URL can be used to link to this page

04-24-12 BZA Agenda Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, April 24, 2012 7 pm 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers I. Approval of Minutes — March 27, 2012 Regular Meeting II. The Petitions are; 1109 Rhode Island Ave N Robert J. Holly, Applicant (12-04-04) Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1}, Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements • 5.4 ft. off the required 30 ft. to a distance of 24.6 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of an open front parch. 4224 Golden Valley Road Denise and Rob King, Applicants (12-04-05) Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1), Subd. 11(A)(2) Rear Yard Setback Requirements • 5.5 ft. off the required 25 ft. to a distance of 19.5 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard (north) properky line. Purpase: To allow for the construction of a balcony. III. Other Business IV. Adjournment This dacument is availabla in alternake formats upon a 72-hour request.Please call 7b3-593-8006(TTY: 763-593-3968}to make a request. Examples of aiternate formats may indud� large print,�lectranic,Braille,autliocassette,etc. Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals March 27, 2012 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held an Tuesday, Mareh 27, 2012 at Gity Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Galden Valley, Minnesota. Ghair Nelson called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Members Boudreau-Landis, Maxwell and Nelson, and Plann'rng Commission Representatives McCarty and Waldhauser. Also present werenCity Pla�tner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. 1. Approval of Minutes — February 28, 2012 Regular Meeting MOVED by Boudreau-Landis, seconded by McGarty and motion carried unanimously to approve the February 28, 2012 minutes as submitted. Waldhauser abstained from voting II. The Petition(s) are: Rhode Island LLC, Applicant (12-03-03,� Lots 6, 7, 8 and 9, Block 3 and Lots 7, 8 and 9, Block 4, Cottage Grove Addition: Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1), Subd. 11(A)(3)(d) Wall Articulation Requirements • City Code requires �any wall (4nger than 32 feet in length to be articulated. The applicant is asking fo.,r a variance from this requirement. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1), Subd. 1'l�A)(3)(c) Si�le Yard Setback Requirements • City Code requires an increase in side yard setback area for houses over 15 feet in height. The applicant is asking for a variance from this requirement. Lot 10, Block 3 and Lot 10 Block 4, Cottage Grove Addition: Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1), Subd. 11(A)(3)(d) Wall Articulation Requirements • City Code requires any wall longer than 32 feet in length to be articulated. The applicant is asking for a variance from this requirement. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1), Subd. 11(A)(3)(c) Side Yard Setback Requirements Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zaning Appeals March 27, 2012 Page 2 • City Code requires an increase in side yard setback area for houses over 15 feet in height. The applicant is asking for a variance from this requirement. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1), Subd. 11(A)(1) FrontYard Setback Requirements • City Code requires structures to be tocated 35 feet away from a front yard property line. The applicant is proposing to build the houses 25 feet from the frant yard property line along Harold Avenue. Hogeboom gave a brief history of the land use in this area. He explained that the General Land Use Plan Map adopted as part of the City's Comprehensiv� Plan in 2Q08 designated this area for high density housing. After further study, it was decided by the City Council that this area wasn't appropriate for high density housiiig so the.General Land Use Plan Map was amended back toJow density housing whicf� allow�for Single Family (R1) or Two-Family (R2) zoning. Hogeboom referred to a site plan and explained that there'are currently four homes sitting on nine existing lots of record so a developer has the right to construct homes on these lots even though the City's current requiremenfs wauld not allow lots af this size today. McCarty asked if the developer would need Planning Gommission and City Council approval if they decided to reconfigure the lots. Hogeboom said yes. Nelson asked about the side yard setback requirements if the house is 15 feet in height or less. Hogeboom stated that the north side yard setback would be 10% of the lot width and the south side yard setback would be 20% of the lot width. Nelson asked if there ar� any requirements regarding the depth of a lot. Hogeboom said there are no r�quir�ments regarding the depth of a Iot, but the front of a lot has to measure $0 feet in wid�h, or 1�t�'feet in width if it is a corner lot. Nelson noted that the homes are bank-owned, active listings and asked if the applicant owns the properties yet': Curt Fretham, Applicant, stated that they are scheduled to close on the prop�rties this week. Waldhauser asked if conditions can be added to a variance approvaL Hogeboom said the Board can make changes to the requested variances but adding canditions is not recommended. Fretham referred to the 200$ amendments to the Zoning Code that required articulation and increased side yard setbacks for houses taller than 15 feet. He said he feels that those amendments didn't take into consideration narrower lots like these. He said he thinks the intent of the amendments was to prevent McMansions, but the variances he's seeking are consistent amongst all of the lots so no one house will stick out. He showed Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals March 27, 2012 Page 3 the Board illustrations of homes they built in Edina which would be similar to the ones he is proposing for these narrow lots. He referred to the variance regarding articulation requirements and explained the reason he asking for that variance is to allow for 2-stall attached garages rather than detaehed garages. He said he feels having attached garages would be more in character with the neighborhood and the community. Nelson asked about the size and price range of the proposed homes. Fretham said the homes wauld be in the $350,000 to $400,OOQ price range and be approximately 2,2Q0 to 2,500 square feet, with 3 or 4 bedrooms and 2.5 to 3 bathrooms. McCarty asked about the square footage of the existing hames. Fretham said he didn't know the size af the existing homes. Waldhauser asked how long the baek wall of the proposed new:harnes would be. Fretham said they would be approximately 40 feet in length. He added that he understands the articulation requirements, but in this case articulating the backs af the hames would take away the articulation on the fronts of the homes. Waldhauser asked Fretham if he is determining the design of the homes or if the individual homeowners will determine the design. Fretham said the design could change slightly from the pictures he showed and.homeown�rs will be able to choose some of the design features. Nelson asked if a buyer wanted to have more square faotage if the depth of the house, not the width would be increased. Frethem said yes, in that case the depth of the house wauld be increased. Nelson asked if they have to build this many houses to make the proj�ct economically feasible. Fretham said he is buying th�se properties regardless of how many houses can be built and that he will �uild something on the properties. Waldhauser asked if the properties could be developed with twin homes. Hogeboom said if twin homes were proposed the properties would need to be rezoned to R2. He added that he thinks what the applicant is proposing, with the requested variances, will look better than!if he constructed homes that conform to the Zoning Gode requirements. Maxwell noted that detached garages may work on these lots. Hogeboom said he wasn't sur�; if detached garages would work because driveways are required to be three feet away from the side yard property lines. McCarty said he would be inclined to grant variances for the driveways. He noted that there could also be attached garages on the backs of the homes. Fretham said he garages on the backs of the homes would take a large portion of the back yards. Nelson said she agrees that detached garages would have a negative impact to the existing homes in the area. Waldhauser stated that if the Board were willing to bend on the side yard setback requirements then the applicant may be able to meet the articulation requirements. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals March 27, 2Q12 Page 4 Hogebaom said he thinks the applicant intends to articulate the walls where possible, it would just allow him to have more flexibility if he gets a variance fram that requirement. Fretham suggested possibly allowing the articulation to encroach inta the setback area, but his preference would be to have straight lines. McCarty asked Fretham what research is indicating that this is a good area far this type of development when there are houses sitting there vacant now. Fretham said his first- hand experience with similar types of infill development has been successful. Hogeboom added that the homes aren't vacant because people don't want to buy homes in this area; they are vacant because they were foreclosed. Waldhauser asked Fretham if it would work for him if a potential buyer wanted to build a smaller home. Fretham said yes. McCarty asked Fretham how many of his other projects have be�n next.to major highways. Fretham said several af his developments have been ne�r busy roads. He gave examples of project he's done in other cities and noted that th�se kinds of issues are part of the nature of doing infill developments. Waldhauser noted that there would be some buffer from Highway 55 because the lots to;.the north have a home or a pond between them and the Highway. Waldhauser asked how the grading an the site:would be done. Fretham said the homes will probably not be walk-outs and he is proposing to do a grading plan for the entire site. He said that it appears that there are a lot of nice trees on these praperties but there really aren't. There are diseased elm trees that need to be removed. He said he doesn't think�he'll be interfering vyith th� nicer, mature trees. � � McCarty asked Fretham how:he defines the character of Golden Valley. Fretham stated that many neighborhoods have a lot of different hausing stock and that is their character and other neighborhoods:are defined by the size of lots rather than the houses. Waldhauser stated #hat a new character will be created with this new neighborhood. Hageboam add�d the neighbors and the City Council have defined the character of this �rea as single family homes. Nelson asked Fretham to address the unique circumstances of these properties that were not created by the landowner. Fretham stated that they already exist as 50-foot wide lot� and the amendments to the Zoning Code in 2008 changed what kinds of houses cou4d b�built on these properties. McCarty noted that there are several areas in Golden Valley with narrow lots. They just have more design involved. Fretham agreed and said that many houses designed on narrow lots have flat roofs but he really doesn't want to build that typ� of house in this area. Waldhauser asked if the homes on the corner lots will be taller. Fretham said they will not be taller but they will have different roof lines. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals March 27, 2Q12 Page 5 Nelson opened the public hearing. Larry Kueny, 7303 Ridgeway Road, said he totally supports this proposal because the neighbors fought hard to get rid of a senior housing development that was being considered for this area. Hearing and seeing no ane else wishing to comment, Nelson closed the pu:blic hearing. Waldhauser said she thinks for lots that already exist this proposal is a good fif. Maxwell said he is supportive of the proposal as well. Nelson referred to the state statute regarding the granting of variances and said she feels this proposal is in harmany with the intenf of the Zoning Cade ar�d the Comprehensive Plan, it is a reasonable use of the property, it wil1 not after the essential character of the neighborhood and the sizes of the existing lots were not created by the landowner. McCarty stated that the Board typically gets a specific request for a specific variance. This proposal is more like a blanket variance or a carte;blanche variance for the area. Fretham said he is trying not to make nine separate variance applications. Maxwell suggested that the language in the approvaf state that no wall could be longer than 48 feet without articulating. Fretham noted that he is not asking for variances from the side yard setback requirements. He is asking for a variance from the requirement regarding the increased side yard setback area once the house is taller than15 feet. McCarty said he thinks the varied re�of lines help break up the facade even if the walls don't articulate. Boudreau�Landis;agreed and said he feels articulation can be addressed in other ways:such as landscaping. Nelson added that this is also going to be a new neighborhdod so #he hot�ses won't be built right next to an existing house. Waldhaus�r ques�iQned if�th� Board should put a limit on the length of the walls. Maxwell sugg�sted limiting the length of the walls to 50 feet befare they need to be articulated. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request to allow walls to be 50 feet in length without articulating for the houses on Lots 6, 7, 8 and 9, Black 3 and Lots 7, $ and 9, Block 4. MOVED by McCarty, secanded by Maxwell and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request waiving the requirement regarding side yard setbacks increasing if the house is taller than 15 feet for the houses on Lots 6, 7, 8 and 9, Block 3 and Lots 7, 8 and 9, Block 4 (The houses shall still meet the side yard setback requirements). Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals March 27, 2012 Page 6 Maxwell asked about the length of the back wall of the homes on the two corner lots. Fretham stated that the walls on the north side of the homes are proposed to be 70 feet long with no articulation. He stated that he could move the houses forward slightly in order to have more room to articulate the backs of the homes but he wauld then have to amend his variance request to allaw the front af homes to be 23 feet away from the front yard property line along Harold Ave. rather than 25 feet as requested. He said another idea would be to articulate the walls by 1 foot, rather than the required 2 feet which would require the articulation to go into the side yard setback area. Waldhauser stated that the rear of the homes on the corner lots will hardly be visible. McCarty suggested that the roof lines be broken up or a dormer be added tc�:break up the long facade along the backs of the homes. Hogeboam stated that the notification to the neighboring properties indicated that the front yard variance request was for 25 feet along Harald so he didn't think it'would be fair to change the request at this point. McCarty said he is not interested in allowing a larger,front yard va�iance and he would rather that the facade along the backs of the houses be broken up visually. Hogeboam said staff can work with the applicant to help hirn meet t,he guidelines regarding what type of structure can or can't be located in a setback area. Nelson asked which lot the model hame will be built on. Fretham said Lot $. Waldhauser asked if the homes on the corner lots are located right at the rear yard setback line or if they could be longer fhan shown on the plans. Fretham stated that there may be enough room to add a third;garage stall but that could be articulated. Maxwell stated that the Board could grant a variance for an unarticulated wall to be 70 feet in length and ask that th� applicant work with staff on ways to break up the facade of th� back wall by using bay windows or cantilevers, etc. McCarty said he thinks the.Board's hands are tied because they don't know the exact design or dirnensions of any of the propased houses. Waldhauser said the Board could restrict the length,of the walls ta 50 feet before they are required to articulate for the corner houses lik� they did for the other houses. Maxwell stated that the corner lats are oriented a different way than the other lots. MOVED by Maxwell, secanded by Boudreau-Landis and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve the variance request to allow no articulation of the walls for the houses on Lot 10, Block 3 and Lot 10, Block 4. Wafdhauser voted no. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to to approve the variance request waiving the requirement regarding side yard setbacks increasing if the house is taller than 15 feet for the homes on Lot 10, Block 3 and Lot 10, Block 4 (The houses shall still meet the side yard setback requirements). Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals March 27, 2012 Page 7 MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to the variance request to allaw the houses on Lot 10, Block 3 and Lot 10, Block 4 to be built 25 feet from the front yard property line along Harold Avenue. 111. Other Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 pm. Nancy J. Nelson, Chair Jose�h S. Hogeboom, Staff Liaison �.�� s ��. , Fy¢�� b��i�f YF{�R Planning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(f�x} Date: April 19, 2012 To: Board of Zoning Appeals From: Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Subject: 1109 Rhode Island Avenue North Robert J. Holly, Applicant Background Robert J. Holly, owner of the property at 1109 Rhode Island Avenue North, is seeking a varianc� from City Code to allow for the canstruction of an open front porch. The front porch, which would replace the existing front stoop, would extend into the front yard setback area. Open front porches are allawed to extend to within 30 feet of a front yard property line. Typically, homes are setback 35 feet from a front property line altowing a 5-foot deep porch with an additional 30 inches of roof overhang. However, Mr. Holly's home is setback 31.6 feet from the street at its closest point, requiring any front porch to extend into the setback area. No prior variances have been obtained for this property. Variances The proposal requires a variance from #he following section of City Code: • Seetion 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements. City Code establishes a 30 setback for decks and open porches in the front yard setback area. The applicant is requesting 5.4 feet off of the required 30 to a distance of 24.6 feet between the proposed porch and the east front property fine. 820 812 = 7728 773U 7�12 77U4 7832 7$i2 � 11�0 a � _ .� .�, �. .� � .,. �..� ... .. � „_ _� ., _.a _,yi� �. ...„.� _..�... .�. �... .pt�,m�utltiAvea N..... .��.. �� . _. � .... _ � .., ... �., _» �.,�.. ,,., .. ,�� .�a� .-� .,._ � � �, ....................••,.-._ � i ~7'70i " 7$0`t � 7729 � 1�24 + � i22� y F ��ZI �zis �x�e �z�s . � � �..___..... ; �a�� a��► � �Z�o � �z» 12t19 � � 1200 ' � 12tl3 � 12�18 — � 12fl0 � z i201 � �s 3 � 1201 `� 1124 '111� � 1134 11�0 � � � — � � ..m,. _�, 1119 a 1112 1111 t� 1972 Subject Property __.._.._._ � , '11p8 �^ i � 'i�irj i i'" � �i; t 79t1� ? 114$ /J r i�'i r'i � ��i ::� � ii�'!,��'/�ii iir 11fl8 11'IS / .ii, . I !.r„�� F i'','!-i A J ��l..�//�.%l'.//f.f/ ./�. t I��T � 41�5 � 11fl4 114� � 11tiR 11t19 _ 1 _.,_..._........_......_.._. i 110fl E � ! � 11t10 11€►1 t i1tfU 1101 . � �—�------- _ _,__.. ._....,___, � . ... � _ , .. _� _v s . � _ _ _. .. ,. W ,�..� F`Mto�r�ix 5k� �. , .. .... ,_. s_ _ _�. _. ,_. ., _ ._, .�. ,..a. ..� r_.� .� ,� .� M. ,. .... __._.. � # r �______ � __..._. 7 d38 ' � _,._.___�.,_ 78C11 { 7i11 77115 � � 7635 � � 1437 4U34 1U35 � 1034 1t135 � , � < � i630 1031 k E 6 14�8 ` i0Z8 � " 1�25 � 1 t127 . 1024 1t125 a 1024 , ___..�.. ;i.r.�;aw+o�.sJm�:.��aiA15� mY'T ''^: t;C.,'s;'�t.TS E; .. si".�tt Certificate of Survey for: ' St��1�1 � . . SURVEYING SERVICES INC. ,,,� 3730 Wlof Knob Road � '/� /,+ . Eogan.Mimesoto 55122 ' ��,�,r�.,, /`f� r l,�i" r: (612)452-3077 ` ( ' � . � .� � -- ' ! D 9� RHODE ISLAND AVENUE NORTH � 1 O Eege of Ottvrn�nov5 Su�face 0 N . . . . . N 9.6{� �.�.. . . . "+-8.5 •� - 59.00 • . ,� ;� • •+. r. � ,,' . . . V . ,6 . � 9� qleO o. '� ' .� s�• � � O V �'. a•%� �V � � .� ��'" �� . • 0.5 � �.e �1 SC�.� • . � • 32A � / '-, � r r , �,� r �o /�//�//j � . � �-� . ,� // .Exfstin9 � � , '� s� • #/ 1�/2 8fory j�� ' < < r � , '� j HOUSE' �� '"' ... r• 'i � � -' �' Exiatinq , ' E � � ��j/ t � � _ W HOUSE � �, � , , 7 to � ' `(1 � Q F-�{"o'�.',�'La � M /+dd�¢ro/� v ' r � / � f F . 1 �..�,�,_.�.�� ,��o . .� c�.. 6.1 � • „ '�,.,"r.. �- . � � � �� r � r" � 1 � j , � � ,� Q'F- . � • . . . . " � C � „� � 1 � � , O'� � � ° �r �\ G . !_.....,., .. Of O . . . . .. ._ . . .. . .. ....._ . ..- .. ..._._ ._. _ _.... ._......,_`.. ... . ._. �..... ._ � .. � M; . �,..� ..,,. f {�r�;' . ... . . . ... . ��-� b � ' __._w..�.._.. !r ;$F �� , _ �� o �► 7� ..,...._�--._.. �y 4 _.w._.,.._. � ! u° �. '� 3 , _ '"�•. � o � . � � + a , --� ` '`° , � ~=:- i y �o / ...� i � " '`� !`� f�`' �, a _ ....y_; n '�. -o " „ � X i 0 `; (� 0 . �� 1 � � � � � ��'�"` C ��. ' . 0 � _ /!� 0� � •� � � / ,\ i J " r T(y+1 � �` 1i� I ' . ,\ I � . 1� . r � ; � `� . '� I � 1--2�; � °' S°,se,��Q�,� � . ;\ i Gft2�t-��' � � „ `. I � � p IA � �.` � 36" Willp / o.z _a.. $COI@: 1��= 2�� _._._._ ��1 �_ _\R� t.R_ _ o.H. uti�:i -•- •- •- -• � - - -,__—_ --�' — * �o n x e _ a, •tl • b �"� �9.QQ 6 W od Fance µ c►+4��+ �..:ntc Fence o'� � �� o - Denotes Iro� Monument . �_:..�-i � �-S",�-f,,�� SUAVEYORS CEf�f 1FICATI(XV- I hereby certify that th;s survey, plan vr Yeport _P�E� �$��- was prepared by me or under my direct supervision LOT 7 ,Bu.QCK 13 aM tha t I ain a du l y Reg i,s;�e�red:�L'ard Surveyor urrier the laws of the::S.t��e.:�of�.Minnesata. WINNETKA � '��`�`'� �' '. accord irg to the recorded plat thereof, � �! '�'�'`'; ''•�1Zp.I8$ . j+�. ��;Datg�,:�.: - - Hennepin ��ty, �linnesofia Wayne . Cordes, �:�nn: Re�:�`No. 1�575; � � •�'..r�•' "" 1��T°�� •�tt•r` '�'..rl+��' .� . ' l�'':;..:�,'�;1,1�ri':4"_;�:� ��;.'r.,..` :.••, -'i�.'.a;f;';mr9'.:� . • . i . � 4 city of olden � va e Zoning Code Variance Application 1. Street address: ��1 ��—��an.c� �Je- � 2. Applicant Information: Name: �o5�t� ..S` /-�o ll�,t Address: I�O q �'�w��- � �'Ic.�.�'/4 t��.� � ��fe�`��t t!�-,✓�'�'�,� �tJ �'��°,� � Email Address: ��1��"'. ,S� vl�� c�_ �'r�ta�(� �'Q�""? , Phone Number: 76�3 -_�r�� -- ��'.��/ 3. Provide a detailed description of need for a variance from the Zoning Code, including: • Description of building(s) • Description of proposed addition(s) • Description of proposed alteration(s)ta property r/ � . _ �/ �'c`C°�r�''�. GF_'' i s � `.,'n��c? -o---```'�=�j'� � �/a �'� !'�.�` Gr 6 n c.-- l��,t',`".�� r��,.�"`c°.. �� `�GUE°Sa�:�.�f� za� �� -��cBeC �P,'�, ,�,,.�,.� �" '�� ;�.,`'°'-�;r�� '� rt �-- � �."rF.. � _ r / '?�`3 ;v,��r,�r=°'�;�}t°� '�wi� ;+�'�'1"r^?,v?,� ;�"`c�_�`s�� -,�^i'°��'��r�fl �S(Ctre o�M c✓!'�n C'�. ��a c —�r,�n�t.,_ ��r�r;r' �issrt�..�.,�s �.ur��-�..:�.. .��`�' ��c� 3�? �'t. .,.T� vo �lt( lrl��.... �t'? c..cfc� � �,4�ti r-r� e�vc r M��a�f _c�.��-r�/ �,-� � � �t ��' �1 �a�'�..�, �'�� . � �y'' �^r r r r �° � � ' 't .r a1 �",A°��'s, ,S' r ;v�;.� .aC9�°. �rr? ," '-,. �.,m r �r�� /vol�� ✓�ts r�'4 t�' 7��" t�Gc�.,��,.. � k 4. Minnesota State Statute 462.357 requires that a property exhibit "practical difficulties" in order for a variance to be considered. Practical Difficulties: • result in a use that is reasonable. • are based on a problem that is unique to the property. • are not caused by the landowner. • do not alter the essential character of the locality. To demonstrate how your request will comply with Minnesota State Statute 462.357, please respond to the following questions: Explain the need for your variance request and how it will result in a reasonable use of the property. � /t��c�' G.. varr'��r�� s�a �G�e r�,p��i ,p a^��, ��acG� /'e�v L c.`�'��';. � ,C'c� �: �°C�'LO' c.�.�'�- b e�,�%/t�,sS aJ�'",o,�"c�u c� h.a�.e. �.�-�" /�of. �a�/��1.4�C.�s,/��'. �j''�!'�' +�.$ �. �`�-"�"o�7�� .�t r.��''er'`_�i r�� es.o�c-°<�t�� .e.s� r'�+��f t�f�� "c..�s!Pt t.: r�;;''�� /� C'e5c��` o.,� n n c_e ,. What is unique about your property and how do you feel that it necessitates a variance? /''�tf r,%��f � �� %.� �� J� _ ,�� . ,� r,� �- ��a r�,:��a c��°;.;,��"�o5�r r;.� , � Explain how the need for a variance is based on circumstances that are not a result of a landawner action. �P � c�c�c�. /l�'e/" �'+c,�P" _ � ,� � .��^f�*�z-t` �^r.� ,�� .�.,� `�`�'�' Explain how, if granted,the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of your neighborhood and Golden Valley as a whole. �C'G(�/c/ ec�CC+/afNel' �tcatSS�.. �%ac_s G �"c� U r!"Ft� �'�'cr,�!7�v�'ra}�r',� ��lC� VG/"�e../t�P tJlt'� ��a u ✓�-�e.. -f-a c a M e ��/� fo �Da�' c.r��h ��,e_.-('ee„c�-- �{' r/�°.�.,,_ ��h �Ei c�� i G cn cf: r� 5. The City requests that you consider all available project options that are permitted by the Zoning Code prior to requesting a variance.The Board of Zoning Appeals will discuss alternative options to seeking variance with you at the public hearing. Please describe alternate ways to do your project that do not require variances to the Zoning Code. __�n_r�.t��P�'/tf`"Sc�Sa�'GC cs�' �-c.� 6��,M,c. �d+.� �"� c1�a� r+o►�_v�c� � � tJtS �Pe.fi. A=� �n ��C_�,��^-r�l� <�l c�t'r�'e'f � �C��.�o� t..� �'�-�'';et .Se.f�c.—�'G�°` 1 kF 1"�� a�'C�_�-��mS. Z rc✓i�- �-fn r.�t� ��F' �.�. �j f-C'P'�cE: f t c�[� O�r`"ld�as �� .r., ��,��Caic�'� �. �°�a�i��'r��'' �✓��'°,,�° u��u t`_c_ �c�'�'a n c c�__ 6. Please submit a current survey of your property. You must indicate the proposed addition, including new proposed building and structure setbacks, on the survey. A capy of Golden Valley's survey requirements is available upon request. Please note that this application is considered incomplete without the submittal of a current property survey. 7. Please submit at least one current color photograph of the area affected by the proposed variance. You may attach a printed photograph to this application, or you may email a digital image to plannin�@�oldenvallevmn.�ov. You may submit additianal photographs as needed. �� 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. I have considered all options afforded to me through the City's Zoning Code, and feel that there is no alternate way to achieve my objective except to seek a variance to zoning rules and regulations. I give permission for Golden Valley staff, as well as members of the Board of Zoning Appeals,to enter my property prior to the public hearing to inspect the area affected by this request. j` C'=��,^��y C ��N�� Signat re of Applica ff the applicant is not the owner of a11 property involved in this application, please name the owner of this property: / �( / /� € �� ,�;$V� �l;i� lf(�'' ,�/ �`��f r�tr ' e'`, Print Name of owner ° Signa re of owner $150 Application Fee Attached Please note: The City of Go/den Val/ey will send notice of your variance request to all adjoining property owners as well as owners of properties direct/y across streets or a/leys. Your neighbors have the right to address the eoard of Zoning Appeals at your public hearing. You are advised ta personally contact your neighbors and explain your project to them prior to the public hearing. � , �' �-�:;"/ 't, � I `�1K ` ` "t1° x r Q� � � . =�,/ �, #, : K".�f •� ,-{ ` � �€.� ! � �� ,,,,.. f � _ . ,. � „ ,, ,� � , . � � . ,: .a- .. _ ' �. • _ � , ,,, . , �Y �. �.. � r� r�,s ' , �� , � � � ; �� d` < �t .` ;� I I � ��•��` f � � � � . ,�'�;� t � � �j � �t� � . �� c �- ,�,. � ;� ,:� .�,-� � ,,► �� , ��3 ;, �-- t� ,,;� �� r ► .� � � � . , i�r� �� ; * f�,hi � �� '�Y �� r � � �� _r , . . . ,�:�� X- � ' � ,�; i�► �I� fl I� _ __ `� r '� " , ; 1 ` ! " I �. �� r��:� ��- � .��'!i��"� ' li ► !f !� � � � i ; ��:—=?'..� � ��1►;I�I,If i� �� .:.�,�;> ' ��I!1�� j��!I I ` '� � � ; ��,I��I � � ��,f : �; � � ►1r� � �f� � � �� . :� —=� 'i��1i1 �if��I( ;� i�I � II � I�I � � , � I� � M{ I , � _ � !w`.,..___--�"^"�-�. '— _ j�'I�� j � �� ` v� � '�# �� Yq n '�� .. . ��_:�-..,��—' - � � � ��I � � � � � � t �� " .. � _ � � � �� 1 � � � � �� - . �� , ,_ i� ` � , _ _ _ . � � � � '.�j?��?` ��r r ' I !'�� i _i § �.y � . .- .. .Y -�- � , � � , E � � . --�= -.I,'�,';'!��' , � � i i � . �` � , � �: _. _ � �, � � , � ? � �f If� i,'��f�� j � { � j � � � -.::, � � � � � � �� C �a I� �I � I I �I�� - � Irl , �� + � I� I � ji . — - �� ` � � � � t. 5 _ � _ ; �� 1 � +� ' E + f � b � ��i � � � �- � ° - _- -. , � , ! ; � � � . .� � . + ..: ,. � �� ' � {1 � � - � �� , �� 1 I�� g . . � r`� � '. � � � � �� { v - �a3� E�� E �� _ "�� - _ I�� - �: � � , ! M �I ► �� , � �i� �� . � , , �� ,�� 4, : �� : �� : _= � ► � :, ,4�,I , � � :� � � �.�;..��,� . � ��E��I I �1. �� '�� s_ _ � _� � � 1�� , ,� E � � � � �` _ � � . . f � . _ , _ _ :. �I! �� jN� -�� .� �� . � �� f- � r� ►� �� `� E � °� _ �� ~ _ I�� ErE��. � � _ _ �� = � ��!�1►� �� _ . ��..�_ t:� � �� ;� � ��I 1' � ; �� !- �::.��:. �'; � ,. N � T { � E�� {�. t�� „��I� � � � 'I IiI��'��'i �` _ � ,��t �� f , ;I ., � �� — �� _ �� I � � ( � - � — .�� .� I�,, � I� E , � �, ,,��,�� _ �� , �+ ( � �� ; � t•i � � 1, : � � � , ,� �- . � ��' � r°>:.., ? \� � . \��..` ; . �"�.2x^'":� .. .. '�� g�V i �� f9 l� ( , . y��,.�'" . . ,",e . i d � ��,. °� � �'�7� � 4 ��" t a c.Y1�� `�-�� 1„ � �ii � �.' ,�� , ',t .. . i � �'i � �.'y+r � I ,� �+a �a �a r . . � �,; " , � , �r�� ,�r ;�4.� � �" i� �°�� #� � �=��g �'' , '�: , ��t � ,� ,� �� , ;�� °.., � _, �, . ]' r: ��'S� .,i��*, •rt , -� � � �1� t ��. � kf '� t� �:: � • . � �,x¢ ,±,{=t- h ��. 4 ! t� �,._�r ��,'. � y� t .� I\ ..�? �.' a � {t tt�1. :"( �Q'�� t �4 . �.r,�,1., , � `� .� �T �� r tiJ�1��;5 i , 1 i� � ''� �'�y, � .. � � ,."� � � . , y`� y �l� ti.' � -r.ik �c, �� .��- "��.�;+i$ � �� ' � , . _ . �� { `� " .�' � '"� �r �, s"� �� .�• � . �� i � . Ip'� 1c L `�,� 'y� �- i - �-�.1�!+Y�' ' , w� �� ' i-� r t1 � �.1+,� .. . � "'t Y . . �, . � . . .:. " y � , �., � = �� s n � � ±� , l r 'r..,��,n '�Y ; �� , , �k f �+'� �?� � �� xy �� ,t r /�^ "/ a �� q�' ,,y �' "1 `� '�`:� �l ��. . � '� `ryT� ' J � �'. t\ f * 'w'� . 'C'��;� � .�,�.., '� i � �r�j�'�.' � ,, � , •��,drr � � , ,:� �- . � . . � •.�,.c�� "�.� � , f. (�S r �., < < � � + �c 4.0 .. , �:�� —� `Y � \,�� ..� �` l t l . . ,�iu ...:: �5Y'*�. ,«�. � ,f., �♦ \ 'I' � �� .�..:,;� .,� a, +�'r1:� i "�� "� �� 1�� .�u �:�!��'� "?a � �..,+ , , ��...:�J��i~u-�^�- �:� _� ,� j+�- .;..��.l,n.�—., � � �� :. �,`r . �' � w ' �, � '�i�'� `�L �� x a ,�t' � t .� _� �:`�` �y�r� , ��_,�.: r.�.�,,, �. _ � � �� Y� �� , , r � � �'� , k—�`�,, ,+� ;.. � a, � � , � ,� ,� �� S J � � t� ! 1 F�` ��v� /�,!.��Y � Y' �� ) E�J�4+� -•`w..�y .�:�• ,�� Y , � � � ��'�" �_. �;_,��-/ ��\� ." ��`'�',v+ ��a.,•-�95 j�� .�LS �� . 1 �a ,� . .'��-�',. � . '�.t ' � ..�sr f '�� , � ��, i�' �r � �f.� � . -r 1= .t , e� ��t,'�,�;� ,y� ��..,�f 1'`; - �t ��'� ",r..�"�t��\� .�� !'�t1 :`°., i 3 i�`:; r +.°i`�r jr .-r/��,. \ "�d Z ti�f/J �p` t }�1!1� ��; ��'`t�� \•`l. �.� ... � . � �/ �_ � �. ?r 1� :�I � � � ]� F�9.+c�S'� �- .. _ '�y' . " . . . � . � R / j;!'y -QP^ ,�� ti � ��V �`� 'J t• ��T�,^h.54�'*i.�� b �� _ "'r ti �'� .�i �� '1 �_ �✓ `3�1 �_""�l � �:'�� 4�� t,f�..� � P� # i'_. . . .. ' - . � � �� " \� \_� } R> >.� 'A . Y' f� . �--�I �: .�� 1:, _.�_ . = ( � ��, _ � � �� .�` � i;.�S � ; �: �� } � . . _�'�.'.�-a'^MTr �@�� o � Fr` �� .�`��.tk'� �� . �.,' . _� ,�>.. � d �.�',��` 1 � :�:.r : � - ` _ � G �S: �r � ��±v. i ;fi� 1 1 -' - � _ ` �� , � '' �� r.r'r - �� - y.-'� � 'y :+ ��l � �;?' _ � �� >. S� � .. ; t - �'.,, _. . �. .' � -'. 1Try _.'"` ly-,�/��/ '"�.: � . - . ___ _ . � Ct }i � `: y .�. ' /.=.1 , / .`;��....,y:,� 4�—i't^� . � ,� � 4 �.? �\t� .._ � ��-._ - - ' ' '_' . � ��` " h` ��i � ' �"` � ' ' - � � �`��J � �,� �_` ` t"ti !`i y �_ �, � �-4��.�.�� G.��"- � 4:�� r}" � � c . ��_ ' �",... — - i Y- ,, a,�•� � ,�d i �.,. � - - - , � '�;� �; > � "� ' J � ��„� ,. ' ,` . ; , p�? . �y� \ � f � �... .- . j' �,�; p�14 ;�. _ �' � '�`��'�`�"�r� ' `4� � 'f � : �j` R '-e�:� � ..' �� ... � ..} ' ,'�� w ,�.. � 1.� , 'h�\k'�3E � � .'' . .� `'�-x,. .� • ... .�,•�. ...5 " + . � � - ��` �... :.,. .`�:1 - " pt � J,�,y2,`�`?;�� - � � � �� ! � '` �� . a ��rr� . ��" I. F . ' � , . _ . � 4 � _ A I . �� ' �. l�i.�. n �' _ � �' ! , � 't � ��C' ,ri'. �'`�� `�_ -.�1`�"��'°'�TM1 Y //,!�///////i�/iiii,,. ,>;� �. `-� -^'j � , . � � ��4fiia a'� �` a;t� `�f� - . �. .�:.�ti o'�'�, �i�'' - ._...�Z- 'i�'`1�-'�",�,�' �-� -�`�' � � � �Yr I- .� ,� -�!-r� .a�. ` 1 > �� . . . �-------- -- -_._. __.__.. . _. _ . .___.__._ -t �`�wO: � - ,.. :� � "��a.a--.�vw'ar � _ i r �, � ' � _ , , / � . . � �..i' \'� ,. _.�,\ /.- _ _ , _ �. � . ,;�. _ - � _ � Q '�s;'C�,'t i� �� - .i:'1;�'�'. _ "� , " 1 • :_ �r�� _ ; � i I �-�,..� � �� ' . ; � � i ' ' � i ��- "��,�ii� �1�\' � � � �. � -�. ;� . . - , � -�.� - ` _ � � Ij �� : ��_ �=�� ,... �� , �,...,: Cl�� t�� Planning Departrnent 763-593-8Q9S/763-593-8709 tfax) Date: April 19, 2012 To: Board of Zoning Appeals Fram: Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Subject: 4224 Golden Valley Road Denise and Rob King, Applicants Background Denise and Rob King, owners of the property at 4224 Golden Valley Road, are seeking a variance from City Code to allow for the construction of a second stary deck (balcony) on the back of their home. The deck would extend into the rear yard setback area. Rear yard setback areas are calculated to be 20 percent of the total lot depth. The home at 4224 Golden Valley Road is located partially within this setback area. Any additional construction, including a deck, on the backside of the home will require that a variance be obtained. The rear yard setback was amended by the City Council in 1964 ta be 25 feet rather than the required 42 feet. A variance was granted in 1978 to allow the placement of a detached garage to be located in front of the principle structure. A variance was obtained for a deck in this same location in 1998; however, it was not acted upon and expired after one year. In 1999, a variance was obtained that brought the existing hause into conformance with City Code, and an additional variance was granted ta allaw for the construction of an addition to the detached garage. Material related to all variance requests is attached. Variances The proposal requires a variance from the following section of City Code: • Section 11.21,Subd. 11(A1(2) Rear Yard Setback Requirements. For this property, the rear yard setback is 25 feet. The applicant is requesting 5.5 feet off of the required 25 feet to a distance of 19.5 feet between the proposed deck and the rear property line, � 23t15 t '`--+Q,�� ` ..�� ` � � /� 49U5 f�', ° * ��"`.. I'F�` i 1 �, �`. � 4531 �d�21 d311 4�41 M� ��'�Q� ^; 4'2Z1 ' "°'� , ,,r' � `� % 23Qi � � 2�Afl � �$55 + ., � }! /A`` �\� � 2281 ,,��s�,�` , '1 ,__ �\ r , ,` . �'. % �C",.^^� ..�� 221't` 2200 � , ��'" 9941 �-' '�,v�, �. . � � 2?B11 2241 � "�, �� 34fl � �r' 224 i � �` :''� �` 22'Sfl . \\ ,-�'�3931 � � �`�� 4050 � �' � " �l 223A 2221 2148 ; 2170 �, ` i�404U > . � 4 $la/fl ' 1 -�"-�, i'r .' � 2231 � �,r _._.._ . 322t1 -, �. _. . ..._. . _--- -, �' � ""._._'` ` ' ,,,M �/ � � �� „,,. ., `'� 2a"11 � �18� � 21�0 .,. �« `� Afl30 ,�' ` ; �`,...,, � \ '- � � � � , : � � ,•°' \�' J ^-�. � , �� 1 -.�.� I xs�►� � �` 4240 2201 � 2121 � 2i3#1 A035 p � 22t11 .��. � .� s ,�c 4fl20 � _..�_� . • ,..... ..__.. U , -, � � � .. � 31'10 4fl25 � : � '" C.e �r�ct�.p.'" ... 9_ ...,..._,�,-.. ti , 2111 : w .r� Subject Property � _.._. _ .-- � ��,p , � ' "V 4231 4�i21 21A1 } ?1C15 � 2104 4015 �`''`,��--�.�1^ � � �,,;O� °' �� m 2fl88 ► �>r,'<:�.; �� . \ r/r �- .,��,., f i G:9 Ztfl1 �' 21flfl `� 40fl5 r,,.._..,.,*� 204{? i�if: °0 4 �� •., �Otl7 '�._ � 4$#ICI � i!�'; 421t1 � � '`�,. /r /�r� � � ..�:' �-��""�.-- �� $�k� ��i��%i�i .� � �v�.-^.._. ' -""� 432Ci �ii� �;, °� _ � 2t100 --- _ �;��f„�� { d20tb 4120 4110 41t1� � . �.: --..,; v � .��— ^ � _ _ .. .. � .�. . ,� � ,� _, �� 'rrzt�an l�ait�y 6��.. � . __ M ...�. w,� W� ` g, „� �..--___� ° >.. __,�,.�,.�-, � ..._._ -- $f�� 1J45 i9�5 � 4325 �.� �, t � 19�f1 � 437� � �`'�-. � �``-� � w �'i" "'`-��' ''.,-._ '3` .p ,...� � , -,,,_.� /�45t� � 1935 � 18Ati ��w. ,. �93ti � m�, w. "`__-~ �[ � € � `----.,'--�`._� � �-�. .. - �s�o tsY� 1 .�� H��thksrc+�ice ci�r 1 192p 1925 w�. �^ � 45�15 „ �� 18&5 � � � , ..,._-w.. ��5 .� � 1919 1915 � � c 19�D5 1J1� 19U5 � "`,., � . 18i5 y � ' '�~ � � 18�,5.,y J ~^'''�--,. /� 190U ' i - .,,�,��``��`' � .�_ � ' �. ° Svt�e�rrey La�F�: ,.•` � ( � � f s ,�� 18�{1 �i ' ' , ' � , ' �Mt�@CI�l�+.E.c��f�P�f{C ��,u�.��n,��s�.>-..w, �'�.es��c��as � . . . �, �. .. � � � . '��, � ..._ . '�, � i f .%� r-,. ----- _. , z.. ..., .... . ..:.. :,,, . ,�.r. _., SURVEY FOR: Tiae Kin 's • �a` g cm � �co � �ssoci,��es, �nc. DESCRIPTION: See Attached Sheet 2 �OFESSIONnLIAND$URVEYORS � AND LAND DEVEt.OPMENTCON4IJLTANTS (furnished to us by owners) � (612j4Z1-9126 13621 VINEWOOD LANE DAVTON.MN 55327 � r -�ouhd Irov�� _ -rouwe� Ivo�'1 � M oh�r►,e n - ��o o _ M o.,►„w�eHk ....- t c''l,�oo �r�va�y, Fe�ce .. off' !,� o,zt � �, nf � � ' �%,� aI MI �. �l . N N �� 3 Zy.i y rB•b7 i7•of' ` f 5� - - -� M - f'P' - - � y ° 10' �� - M �� '`" ',�s 11 � I hereby certify.'that tihis survey � S � �y � was prepared by me .or under my �J' � �pob , �� direct supervision and that I am � yL � ,�'V� ; �.;� a duly Licensed Professional Land � � � �' ��3 - Pb � Surveyor under the laws of the ; f ( h �, : ' . _�` i Minnesota. J `9t V � � Dated �ly 10, 199$. / F"� �' � Z 5 o� '� w ByMi sota License o. 12267 � . ,� i �, �x � � �� `x � � . ,� r: � - �► i ° � �: I ti � �. : 0 ° I N � ' 1 ` � r zy LS I, I r „ � i � � � � ; a a � a �2� � . x_kl �'; a � a ,�! . z y,LS �,�+ !�1 � . � ! _ ; � �� - . � �� - � � � . � . - �, ., , . . . • , . i�� ' G .. � r f .��0 �v' , �---, (��, . .,��,��:� /''- .Zo � �, �, . _ 1 � � - � �ov„� ��o„ This corner Ealls witiiin t?he \ �� M o,�� N �,- . � cor�crete drive. ._ � _ _� __..�..__..,....�_._....__�-�;v�c>- y._._._.__,�_.._ _ __._. _._ . _____ __...._ ___._�__.�__.�'?� T�:�Q.�e u,,,a,j,(�".-. .._ �__..__. ___._._ -__._ ___.__ _�:___ ._ _ � , . . , , __. _ � _ �..-..._.._.._.___- - , .. .- c u�. .. __- -._ _.__ _.�._----- ,. e �'' �'u,•� -_ --- _. _.. _..�.___�.._, N° _ ��_,__--------�,.._�_ C>Ca: �� ;�G G�y --=_.��_—•_..�.,�„_� �o.�t.�y —�---_ e�.czte city o olden va � Zoning Code Variance Application 1. Street address: � 2. Applicant Information: ' l Name: � Address: !/ ! � Email Address: • Phone Number: .J� , 3. Provide a detailed description of need for a variance from the Zoning Code, including: • Description of building(sj • Description of proposed addition(s) • Description of proposed alteration(s)to property C�o,.,��-rv c.-(-- � ' p`` �c. �j � p" Dn C�' �� L��b.v_.--1��' ((�I, L 5 �' A. fi i r'CS1'L * ��Yl , � U �,/r%�`�1`1��Gtri'? �/�' D.��' �,��l�•C c��l'.7�1� , . �:��' 4. Minnesota State Statute 462.357 requires that a property exhibit "practical difficulties" in arder for a variance to be considered. Practical Difficul#ies: • result in a use that is reasonable. • are based on a problem that is unique to the property. • are not caused by the landowner. • do not alter the essentiat character of the locality. To demonstrate how yaur request will comply with Minnesota State Statute 462.357, please respond to the following questions: Explain the need for your variance request and how it will resutt in a reasonable use af the property. _ / � � . l o� o � � What is unique about your property and how do you feel that it necessitates a variance? Explain how the need for a variance is based on circumstances that are not a resutt of a landowner actio . Explain how, if granted,the proposed variance will not alter the essentiai character of your neighb rhood and�Golden Valley as a whole. � 5. The City requests that you consider all availabie project options that are permitted by the Zoning Cnde prior to requesting a variance.The Board of Zoning Rppeals wiil discuss alternative options to seeking variance with you at the public hearing. Please describe alternate ways to do your project that do not require variances to the Zoning Code. � ., ' • � � 6. Please submit a current survey of your property.You must indicate the proposed addition, including new proposed building and structure setbacks,on the survey.A copy of Golden Valley's survey requirements is available upon request. Please note that this application is considered incomple#e without the submittal of a current property survey. 7. Please submit at least one current of the area affected by the proposed variance. You may attach a printed photograph to this application,or you may email a digital image t You may submit additional photographs as needed. 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 ane year,the variance expires. I have considered all options afforded to me through the�ty's Zoning Cade,and feel that there is no alternate way to achieve my objective except to seek a variance to zoning rules and regulations. I give permission for Golden Valley staff,as well as members of the Board of Zoning Appeals,to enter my property prior to the public hearing to ' area affected by this request. � � a Signature of Appiicant if the applicant is not the owner of ail property involved i th�s application, please name the owner of this property: ;� I � � � • � , . Print Name of owner Signature of ner $150 Application Fee Attached Please note: The City of Golden Valley will send notice of your variance request to alt adjoining property owners as well as owners of properties directly across streets or alleys. Your neighbors have the right to address the Board of Zoning Appeals at your public hearing. You are advised to persona/ly contact your neighbors and exptain your project to them prior to the public hearing. ;�� ,x��:., ;� t � � • � � � .� � _�.3�,�s,.rt�., � � �; , � �� . �;� � „ �� 1� , � � ' i, ,� ��+` �� µ �_ i " �� ..#, f� � , �`s . � .w"�° �__ � i � � I e�• , I � '�a�� r��;9 lr ��' z�� .. f q.�. t �'� ��,, � , , ; � � , � � � � �� ,� � � � , � 1 �� , � � � � � , � ( r,�i� ,;; r�. , � _l � ,�; ' . � S � .t� � � �,,, �,. � ij, e � , I ' _ , .. � ° � . t i `}r�... -iy�!,,. I � � ..��N I � }�� '��. , $ • �.�` . . �' �t�� .•.at a..-'' �� •,.� . " i� r �:! ` . ----— � �-——- � � ,�\r n��.S ti��`'.� ' �1�'��• < i,�S' � � . � � �'� �� . _ '�� 1 I >Y.. �y�� i � �,F 4 ,y��' a�� ' { •��,; � -� _ ,? ` Y:� �16' : .� J -�� ,...� {� M1 'e ��.r3, . - � �� g +� �� '•� _.�_" 1� Y � , .__,��:.-. .._._ R _ e �* t .. Y-. r k � . � �., l �� i\ , V ��t // e+ ,� �� ' �r � . �� 1� , �� :1y� �, . . . . _ �t��k'�� . l � !/ � 1 � �*��.1,; / . �{�`. 4 . t i ��,Y t' : ;'.t t ` ' }.��k.i �� . - i:d �rr � � `� I'i .. - ._. .. . ._ . . ---. , �X1. , . fn�4�♦ 'T . ' � � �1�� 1�' �.�. _`�— .rr..'"'�� .J ` �r!+� .>?:v..,,,:,._,- . w, c„. � �� __._. ... _ _.._ . �. . � r r i � .� �� ., #`.. _, . '�--� . .---- I _ �� I i. � � � �.-.f' . .� � �.: r " �.,.1 _ l � ��. '� 1 �, � ��M� . .��_� � � _ . �� .��: A�� y ��"' �� ,�- , , _ _ - �-;�:fi „�;; ` �i\��. "r '-.. ' - �_ __ - - -- _ _ ,��- — —- -- -- _ `, —` - - i k � 1J' l'�'J -------- ti" � � ;t � . � ,. , , � ��,��*,��,.�� .��,� �� 1" ` , � �'� �� , ; <a� , � "� � � �' � � � � j y , ° � 1 g '""'�,�„ ��. �t, � � � � . { � �t � " _.. i 1 �� : .-�,� ,,,,,,�� , r, ��.�, �� + J �� :: t,� '71��TJ:;�''/ �J�' 1 " J -' � �/ �% �� - ' `�, �*� �,/.'r .yyi ,-`�,%"�.-- � ��' �,', , �: ; � :� ,; 1�,_,...-} . If� � .• ".,.�cll �� =�,�'� , . � 'y r; .e � ' � � ' . , /.. �. � �i i / �� ,. � �. t �,, ��-- � .:,,�r=�`=�� f �� t � � �� , II � --� ,: ; * +��Y ,�z;'�� f' �c , �' -�'-`-�- .:, . �, � � s,,��z� '�� __ -_ �� :� � ,' . , t � _,�.-,,.,,�,..�- ----'-�'�" �..�; ; — �, .� , � � � , _ � , � ' I � � , ri.___ ,,,..,..�--_ , � ..-.-- ,� y ___ -- -- , -- . � �7 � �',1 r ' F �' ' �: ,�,� �l � � , ' . d��t �� ' . , � � �� . `� . � r� { � � �"� ,!� 1 ,, ,I y � _.�- �� '3 .��r Lor...,_�:+ { I . . ( �7�� !� _ - ' ,�a,�,.y�,. �,�� , lll�� aw._. �- � � � - ��, ��llrr��. . r. ;�� < ` -� _�� = .« _ �. �.� � � � �. _ . �� :. :� ;,. �- .. . - " ir . �i� _ _ 197 Minutes of the u. V . Flanninc Comr-:ission �- 1 �-�4 Fage 2 . 8�00 Western Avenue (22 ) =abri -Tek Corporation C� �mittee Chair�nan Straw re�d the f�llowing r�port : "Mr , arry A!<man, representing the Fabri -Tek Corporation , nd the a hitect , Mr. Herb Cromr;ett, explained their rezon ' g petiti� to the committee. The petition is for a rez ing from Open Dev lopment to �ight Industrial of a ten acre rcel to be used f research facilities, manufacturing an assembly of • electr�nic evices and offices allied therewith The Committee eit�rated the Planning Commi ee reiterated the Planning Commis ions � position concerning evelo�ment of this areG which is to old industry south �f ' stern Avenue and develop the are� tween 'vJestern Avenu and Bassetts Creek with Professionul and Bu iness Office use or multiple dwellings , The Committee unanimo l � recomm ds denial �f the rezoning request pointing out th t the p posed industry is very d�sirable and wouid be an asset to the llaae at another location . �' The petitioners , Larry man of �abri -Tek and Gene Reill / of M B Hagen Realty, wer p sent. It was moved by Je on �nd econded by Bra-nschwi� to ack- nowledge the Commit e' s re port and that action be def�rred for one month for furt r study of t e proposed rezoning. The motion carried wi o yeas, 4 nay . It was move by Velz and seconded y Bedwell that the Zoning and L�ng Ra e Committezs meet to re nsider the Land Use Ptan for this eral area. The vote carri d unanimously, It w s moved by Van Hauer and seconde by Straw that a study e �nade by the Planning Commission theIndustrial Zone and that the Village Attorney, Bcb S� e, be present . ORDINANCE A. 4224 Golden Valley Road (5) Virginia Webster Committee Chairman Senstad reGd the following report : �'The petitioner was unable to attend the committee meeting . The p�oposed division is of parcel 4400 lying west of Sleepy Hollow Addition and fronting on Goiden Vailey Road and 22nd Ave. The Petition is for a waiver of: 1 . Sec. 14 of Platting Regulations to c�nvey by metes and bounds 2. Sec. 3 . 04 of the Zoning Code to create substandard lots 88 � wide 3. Sec. 3 , 11 to locate a re ar lot line 25 ' from an existing dwelling where 42' is required. Both resulting lots have adequate area. 9 g MinUtes of the G. V . Plannine CoTmissi �n 9- 10-b4 Paqe 3 The Ordinance Committee rec�mmends approval of the petition, stipulating that Village Ordinanc�s and �egulations be complizd �ith in all other respect� . �' The petitioner , Virginia Webster was Fresent. It was moved by Jensen snd sec��nded by Raugland t� accept the C�mmittee report of approval . The moti�n carried unanimo�sly. Winnetka at Erie ( 18) F�w Bel Constructi ��n Co mittee Chairman Senstad read the f� llowing re port : ��The etitioner Earl Wilson was present . � The pe ition is for a waiver of Secti �n 3 . 11 of the Zo .ng Code - Front y d setback, The petitioner desires a w�iver 1 �' t� a setback lo ' in order to build a 24 ' h��me on a 50' l �t at L�t 21 , Block , of C�nfer and Eric�s�n ' s Boulevard Gar ens . The h�me �n �ts 1 and 2, facing on Sumter �venu has a sztbac� of 9 ' from Erie verue. The Ordinance C mittee r�com�ends sFcr�val the petition, sti �- ulating the Vill e Ordinances and Re�ulati s shall be complied with in all other espects , �' The petition was re esented by h1r . Jas S�ith. �. _ It was moved by Van Ha er and szconde '` by Discher t� accept the ; Committee report of app oval . The r �ti�n carried unanimousl �. ' l� C . 683o Sandburg �ane ( 1 ) Wayn, lJ�c�F C�mmittee �hairman Senstad ea �the f��ll �wing reFort: "The petitioner , Wzyne Jopp as present, The proFosed division is or pa cel 3�bJ l�cated at 6�30 S�ndburg Lane. , The petition is for a aiuer of S° . 14 of Flatting Regulations t� convey by metes and ounds , and Sec . 3 , 04 of the Z�ning Code t� create substandard �ts 95 ' wide. 8oth 1•�ts thus cr Gted are more than a quat� in area. The existing home o the lot fronting on Sa burg Lan� is in c�nformance with the setba K ordinance. The Ordinan e Committee rec�mmends aFpr�va of the petiti �n, stip- ulating t t Village Ordinances and Reaulati ns be c��m�;lied with in all � er �spects . " The pe iti�ner , Wayne Jopp, was present . � ; It s moved by Van Hauer and seconded by Jensen accept the � Co ittee report of approval . The m�ti �n carried anim�usly. ;t@�1T�.'t'' :.L''3��•i.2:� :7> �u�_G ;�'.1�..,,j� v::�I:(`.�_' � �G�':C:��LZ �.js .t�'Ct3; �'"^" C., G-V V � �.-�1 n f'�/�`1•�• �. �� .�- ',�.� l`. ('t �l.• �Jl�<sll YG�S �l�r�VC.�C3L' �� C.�J.'iCA C�1''3Jl'1'.�f::r .LVl. .'.''aV YV',�s"2C7�� I�C'-��',:.�LClZT�.i; 4l.?J .S'�ra::'QcJ:io 1'f�.�.�f�l� IYC.C�C::I.,y J.i..LQ 2iCi CivL'1:t rfly� :�� y� 'S7 Q.�.��sC�'iL�'�'.::S:G �� , V �i'ii� 'u.17.S .'C"J_It'C.ii; �^,.s't Z�il u%:c?? 'i::� ��?��.:(:�'i, l,'w i¢� •tin?.Cil �1.:^.+� �:_8i; 'CG�i3 CC.-'i�.14'L10 a?t1'n �'G1�$.-�. iw'':-e� �:� :�'e .�ii.';%c.t �i� L:;�+�^�.i?G'iC:C: CJlt--i Z:i3 F.':1':.1.."� Ai'Gk7,�,�'•"v�' :J'-'-a; . 1.i�:C�:'•LLT�� i'<8 idl� 't�'ti�^5,� i`�:'u .iJi�<a� i'i;�?�.:L�1 � u�:Q a�F: �+:41%�v I�.'. ac^.:.Q �`•� i.l:? :i.�t�ati+ ��i:iC�. :1<.'I-:L"rL.t�. i5 -.t'.i:"L ;1:.:::;:; �►w'o 1�•'i1.�.�. �'.'.1��t?'�I3t,�^- �:K7L��d �.:^, i.'�'� 3i a�� 3�.'LiA �GB G�iiB�'u e 1'i�v�i.� bJ T�il:.g.L ��'.�'..�i::l:i sr "'1n -�.^r,� -+��. � � �T >�� r�� _ . �� b,; ..r� ...�. .a r.:a_ c-.c i-� c�er. u:, � c�.e�� ;� .. .. _. , A:a _�:�+,Gn - y : -.-...r-�� . �'• i n �' �•„y o 's 'n�i1r�n,, _ :.� St11 V��.'...'.'" '.`Z'-�+ .. .'_� -.il.t_ o ��.�: �T.�.� 1�?s ..::tvy.l. . r�'S:c: -!'��;'Gl' C.:•��.a:;Li 'C__� ..:�>',:��.C:_ i:___:;�:�.! i.�!: �::e3 C''::z:L.'_�:L'� .`::_�'3:.' .'i:i:_:S�• ' �?,.Y2"i G'G u r �C�.M��Ct .�:�° r:��::.:��'.'� :'��.:.uaC� 3'.�G;! L'C�:..i:� �rs�..�_•_2v �C....�" / � :�iae�F'srnv�w• 9�wswi�:r.��7� c� • , �1`�...j f.�M T.T��$�.�i V •a.:..m�.s.A:.,..a:.�..er�<�-..s.:a�_.��.�...s,.. ��'1?C? ri-7 i-^-u� i�^i'.,•J�-,^ "':.a.:.'C:�...... '�:;":. x:��'.'•:'.. {'C:: c:ii C:.'�:�a'_:�_.�.3 :"�.::.""�_ .:G_ r�� ,n.,.- ;�.� +.�e .._.,�_• 1�`%`�! `;nl .�'1 ^•ilcl`j ?� •��. . ".1.1;. c �i:il:iuv�v.�.., .:.Ct� �..r. ! �7.�._ .>v::.i1y ��- Si:'i:i � _ t�� r - r.,�.� ' -M..' -� " •l ';..- ��i;'`? ". ' ^'t •+t ^*V1-,�^"•, _�• �' . ,. .:C3 1�,. :.i�.i::a: _.. ._:i.C.�..� C: :�L i' ..ri.:.i_ ._� GL_.�:,.i.0 :3-«• f':. .. :�:v.: errB i'+�.Q;.��.u.(��..i:Qi�t:.i.L�.a� v�'.. �4«:{.: �'��.ta:�. ' V.r,�:�?i� c�r � 7: �v Vi�.ls �T.'...`�i�L�.� ��: '�^ 'J �JJ..�11� l�{� C'•��` ��i' • 4i.�'. vl.�.j:�:.i�l4:.r.L1 _,._.� 'Y��.J?^J� �i:'�.'ii^:'��u [•.�r�e r:1':C�.�_'�Z�+:.d ��i t.v:`.'_�y.!.��i.' . ".'i�'Gi: :S� c!D yG+_:�: .�.::�lt;^'�:-:30 ��:'3 ^?.�ri:T=:?$ n�-ZL'p�},� ��JlUL:s �j LL.J.''��V:�a�J�.] �1�i�w1..�. ��Z i.•� �v. 1 h • ' l 1 L r,,:- ,, ^3�X C:;�i�.^.i. 'u4 c�..�.�ITU'1� �C'3:".�. �r':i'."�S':. �`. ��. ...� �y F'„^. �•�. s�" s� r��:".'^:_ :i3?.�?' .!I.U.+�i..T.G 74�i.Jllr.. :y:� Y'. '�-.L�L�. � � �14� i•�rT�lV� ��+M�.f.:.l�� 1�.:\"i i..V V:.:Jl� �:i'�.i.l��,.� C�.l�l.i �LZ?�. �-:1:..�'i.l:'�1��r4 �'i�a�3.'ialZ 1�i�i'v.y3�' ;:;;�p�,��ad� � ��- �° � �:: -,, ,. „. ,:.�� .., : r�_e:: f7 `.�r '�..t ii ?"�• :�y„li-I�ii��G 4.V I:. �i �l. wt1` .1.�.. �l. ..=a.. J.4Yi:� .��•aas.u<,-.:s�.,.z.s.an_.aan�- scui.wv-sa.::.:-.w-:-rss:...ua:a� _G:J '.jtiv �CTI3{Jx":'`:fJ:l ...,e.x..,..�..,....�..:�-a��`:<<:t.__.�.. r��.�. :�.....�>.G'�'� :"f<F. • ��•vl -� -. . ;t.-. ♦ ..n '�`f,,...J ' .C� t ' s• � �� - L /��!j`r �u .�V�SL:! 1:1.s .�:.b �l� �J�:. :.:�J.' G:..• �'1�:�..-�.�.y..°. i'::t!T-�� :i!' �`+ `�V� VL.�'.c...w.��r.:�.L-1�.4 �`i_.�..��v��:. ��., n. 1} .^�IS f��."i%.�. u�...1� . .�. .I. T:.SJ . •� 1�i'. vEiv�.~_':�� i7.:�� Li^:~.�e �±w�wL�� i��-�J :\ .:\n,.�:. •ri./ L.w�� ......N�.4u��u-t �.✓J•`.-'.•'a�t. .r�i.` 4�.�i ll�if.�4•�..rV . 3''�'�� Vf."�.,�, tJO ..�_'•`J-`;ii+, ».�.^:�.c...:4, fi{" -t la ��•4.- •'t;Z^ ^�:SY..�� ' ..-. i..�n:::�.,'•�1 .-,,c�..n :S:V ::i:i; . � U :J�.'v._, �,�.. t.,., ? � �.� r:� , .f. ('+ 1.-:" r2:�„^. _ '�:�.- .� ` '1 n Z".� � �!'�l S'w`i�t�t«::�i::.�"4��..1.v� '.f._ �L,_. �-.�. .. :;� », .,. tr �i '(. -��'.-�.:. i.,.� _'�,.. lf�a.s.. ..:�r._. :.� :J�Jw�.'' 4ti•L:�7 uZ: a � -�dt��. .!�Z.�•f i'�.'.!j:.::l_ ...�.; . �� ..''..f n r -� :�� r-.�..�.� _�T_,�=, i.r�,.;.�`t .`j�i:�� ::� r...,, '�11�.Le � . .� � .�:.�l:b_i.....» ,.. . � ��' -. . ��v ��,-.. ...'T'1 z:, ..�.':� »n_.. !.. 'a '` /, ... iri��oLi �� ..,� ... { .�. _ ..v » -i�.:�-..�.. `'y,;�•`�.'.:� ,..'.1�.:_�v /"'1,i �V��a:�.i ...�12�)".rt^. �L) `a•v...`.'�.�:i . � 'r;'t '_.�: y��'� r �.. �'...�•v. ti.". .�. y_..Y, l.�.f�.. .. ,i V��'�.J '7 .. . .- 4`.4%4 J..y l.�..... v..w . .. ... .. L:� +_ . . . � �l'�Li�_ . . i}V �'�?.� i'.�',.: ��...:.�..�I.;":::.�1.�>� .�:� _...':J.'.<.'•.��" �._..,.�i�.,.;'., �t'�As�. �'�4.:-4.i� <�'�'�-ti.YL.�-1�'.:�: �.�:n� �.:��' .:..J..� .�� "' 7 ' .n .. .�v ..W_... r� .. J<i'. r . �,�:.i._._.2::•.. _ Ct,. �l•.. C,.'�:..� . ..1.° . �I: �"i�:.'n-t;'�.t�b� � . ' CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY 8oard of Zoning Appeals ' Notice of Final Order . Number: :78-10-38 Date: �tober 10, 1978 Petitioner: Kent t"acPhail � Address: 4224 Golden Vallev Road . ' . . At a regular meeting of the Golden 1lalley Board of Zoning �ppeals held on Octoher 10, 1978 your petition for a waiver of Section (s) 3.12 (1) of the City Zoning Code was acted upon. Attached you will find an unofficial copy of he minutes of the Board. � . Secretary � Board of Zoning Appeals Board of Zoning Appeals October ]0, 1978 page 2 Glen Christiansen moved to approve the request as now amended for the loading docks �facing Laurel Avenue, subject to the berm being constructed as shown. Forster seconded the motion and upon vote, motion carried. Chairman Sr�edberg and Mr. P.obert Johnson signed and dated the approved plaan and it was marked Exhibit "A" by the Secretary and is the official plot plan to be used in conjunction with final construction plans a�hen the building perr�it is issued. f�Rc 8-10-38 (�1ap 5) Resider,tial 4224 Golden Va11e P,oad Kent Phail The petition is for the waiver of Section 3.12 (1 ) to place a detached garage forH�ard of the principle structure but maintaining the required 35' setbac k. t4r. Y.ent ticPhail H�as present for the meeting ard reviev�ed his proposal u��ith the Board. Signatures had been obtained for approval from adjacent neighbors. This hous�e is placed v;ell to the rear of the iot, which is 2�9' deep, with the house being 23' from the rear lot line. This lot h3d t:een divided vrith Council approval in 1967 a;ith the rem�ining 149' bein� platted as a lot novl facing Leaend Lane. "9r. �".c°hail has no other place to construct a garage but forv!a•rd and to the sic�e �f the present d►�e{lina, It :��as n�ted �he ^ara;e c�uld �ereraliy be in iine with the fronts cf the adjacert hor�es. During the discussion the Qoard asked the Secretary to revievr the �ortion of t�e Zoning Ordinance vrhich relates to accessory buildings to confirm �•:hether a detached structure can be placed vrithin the same side ]ot distances when in front of the princi�al building as i•�hen it is placed to the rear (5' from the side and rear lot • lines). The Secretary reviet:ed the Ordinance and it a ppeared there ��ere other conditions that speak to this in the Ordinance and that an opinion ti�:ould be necessary from the Directar of Planning and Inspection and the C#ty P,ttorney if n�cessary. Larry Smith moved to grant �he variance as reeuested, subject to the following: 1. Every effort be made to place the pronosed garaoe in essential alignment and direction a!ith the dv,�ellings on either side. � 2�. An opinion. and verification of application of side lot setbacks be obtained from the Director of Planning and Inspection and/or the City Attorney prior to issuance of the building permit. (Mr. McPhail agreed to adjust the side setback to a�hatever is required �then placing the garage for��ard of the house.) Glen Christiansen seconded the motion and upon vote, motion carried. 78-10-39 (Map 1 ) Residen±ial 2400 McPlair Drive �Robert J. Shellum The petition is for the araiver of Section 3.07 (3) side setback for 5.3' off the required 12.3' to the addition • at its closest �oint alonc the east 1ot line and for 2.7' off the required 12.3' setback to a distance of 9.6' from the east lot line to the existing house. Mr. & Mrs. Robert Shellum were present and explained their reasons for proposing this addition to their home. ° CityOf . e C;ryHall CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY 7800Golde�V�lleyRoad Board of Zoning Appeais cda�v�,�ss�n-��s {6i2)593-s000 Notice of Final Order FAX(612)593-8109 'TDD(612)593-3998 Mayor and Counal 59�g� Number. 98-7-23 Date: August 18, 1998 Ciq Managa 5��gpp2 � Petitioner(s): _ Den i se and Rob Ki ng A,bGcSafeq Address: 4224 Golden Vallev Road Polia 593-8079 Frc 593-8080 Gol den Val 1 ey MN 55422 ` Fu 5938098 � P�bGcWo�ks At a regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals 593-8030 I�o� held on _ July 28, 1998 your petition for a waiver(s) of 593-8090 Section (s) 1 L 21, subd. 7(B� and of the City Zoning Code Mo�o�v� � ;� Subd. �(c)(2) 593-8io� was/were acted upon. Plaaning and Zoaing 593-8095 Attached you will find an unofficial copy of the minutes of the Board. Finana 593-8013 Staff Liaison �g Board of Zoning Appeals 593-8024 P�kandRa�ea6on If waivers are notacted upon within one vear from date of approval 200 Brookview Pukway - GoldcaV�t�INSS4�6�t364 in accordance with statutes, the waivers have expired. (612)512-2345 FAX (612)512-2344 TDD(612)593-3998 4/95 � . Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 28, 1998 Page 4 haffer asked if the entryway would be a vestibule. Kapsner said the inside existing door g k g into the house would be eliminated and replaced with an archway. He said he had . not 2��cided whether the new entrance would be one or two doors. �.;, � �� , � Swedber�g,�commented that the proposed drawing shows a limited amount of s �ry around the��ntrance. Kapsner reviewed his survey noting where existing pt S4�nd bushes are now locat�^and talked about what would be replaced. Kapsner sa' ` �t he still has not decided on k' ether to construct a cascading waterfall over rock "� � � � � �� .� ;�;* Shaffer brought to th�:attention of staff that the proposed ov ��i9 would be 36 inches instead of the allowed�3�iVnches. Kapsner that that he co ,� -pull the roof back 6 inches and stilf maintain the peei�'�.s found on other parts of t��;,, �use. ,��,, � r ' Shaffer said that he usually do�not like seein ��nstruction in the front setback but in this case he does not believe there w��d be an x �ct on the neighborhood and the entrance could enhance the area. He said h��' a ��' t�cemed with the roof line and the extra 6 inches and agreed with the applicant� ��t should be cut back to 30 inches. � ',� �� Swedberg asked for some ass �ce that th��roposed entry is the minimum amount possible, but still practical t��ontinued sayin�� at due to the topography of the land, the request can be�ustifiec�, �sner said that he cou! duce the size, but the entry would become very crampe �:� Ye believes the pillars would �* ; e the addition more attractive and be an asset to th, �. °rghborhood. Kapsner said he mad 'k �ery attempt to design an entry that would haY e least impact on the front setback and t �-eighborhood. Shaffer �d if the side walls of the entry would be glass. Kaps said yes. <: ,-� ;�°� `D by Shaffer, seconded by Swedberg and motion carried unani )y to approve ' requested variance from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) with the understan that the aves wo�d rmt be any longer than 30 inches. » � � 4224 Golden Valley Road (Map 5) (98-7-23) Denise and Rob Kinq Request: Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(B) Rear Yard Setback for 5.5 feet of the required 25 feet to a distance of 19.5 feet for a proposed second story balcony, at its closest point to the rear property line; and Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(2) Side Yard Setback of 2.2 feet off the required 13.20 feet to a distance of 11 feet for the existing deck, at its closest point to the east property line. �-:� Purpose: To allow for the:r.pc�struction of a 5' x 10' balcony off the rear of the house. Sell read the requested variances. Ms. King was in attendance. Sell pointed out to staff that the rear yard setback was amended in 1964 from 42 feet to 25 feet; therefore the variance would be for 5.5 instead of the 22.3 feet as noted on the agenda. Staff took note. Grimes commented that the file did not indicate why the house was placed so far back on the lot. He told the commission that the subject deck was replaced in 1994 and the Inspections Department probably did not require a vanance at that time because the ' Minutes of the Goiden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 28, 1998 Page 5 footprint of the deck did not change. Staff's intent at this time is to address all nonconformities. Swedberg commented that this is a unique piece of property with the house placed so close to the rear property line. He doesn't believe the proposed balcony would have an impact on any of the neighbors. MOVED by Swedberg, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to approve the requested variances from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(B) and 7(C)(2) as noted above. b�36 Phoenix Street (Map 16) (98-7-24) J�enninqton �:� , Requ�st:;, Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setback for 10.26 fe� °,- ' � off the required 15 feet to a distance of 4.74 feet for the existing house s its closest point to the west property line. {�. �.� Purpose: ��«�o allow for the construction of a conforming deck onto the north"�st comer ��, o�F the house and conforming detached garage to the rear of t�y#�ouse. . � �_-- Chair Sell reviewed t�ie.requested variances. Ms. Pennington was in ��dance. Sell noted the placement ofsthe house next to the west property line andz `sumed that the east property line was the furthermost point to the east, and not the d��d line down the middle of the survey. Grimes said,that if the owner ever wanted to se�N' e east lot, a variance would be needed for the exis�ing structure. The Board and„-=�� '��s continued discussion of the width of the lot anc! vrhethet,`�he eastem lot could 5e s. ' ='`off. �� ,, � ��, Sell asked the applicant if she woui� Possibly sell off,,�t�one lot. Pennington said that would be a possibility, but at this time�she had no ��ns to do so. a � +� ;� " +.. �,?�:-�, . Grimes said the survey reveals that the Fi�o;u��e�`�s built on one lot. Pennington told the Board that she believed the first owner owr� many of the lots in this area. Sell said it looks as though many of the lots are 10�et iti4width and by selling off this lot it may ,x�-�� •,�,,, change the character of the neighbort��od. x:, � � ��A Sell said the Board did not have,�a problem with the req.uested variances and the proposed deck, the problem is whether.�`��e house sits on a 50 fo�t�ot or 100 foot lot. Grimes �= suggested giving two vanar�ces —one for a 50-foot lot and one for a 100-foot lot .:��r'' � MOVED by Polachek,��'econded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to approve the variances from Se��'n 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) as submitted and r�,oted above. �,�„ �-.ti � .,` Gnmes said h�would have staff�eview the survey regarding the lots�for this property. � ��`�"' , � � III. Ot��e Business � b� w. �k�`` � ��' �°�� A. ,,,��cknowledge receipt of letters received from David.Licht and Rober�;Van Hauer. '� . ��. �,�. �ir Sell acknowledged the letters received from Mr. Licht and Mr. Van Hauer. , „; f�� p?.� . , ` czry Q{ e H CiryHall CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY `:,7800Goldenv�lley'Road �� Board of Zoning Appeals Golden Vallry,�4fN SS427-4588 '(G12)593-s000 Notice of Final Order `:FAX(Gt2)593-8109 TDD(612)593-3998 . Mayor and Council 593-BOOG Number: 99-5-11 Date: June 15, 1999 City Manager 593-8002 Petitioner(s): Robert and Deni se Ki ng PublicSafery Address: 4224 Go]den Valley Road Police 593-8079 Fire 593-808o Gol den Val l ey MN 55422 Fax 593-8098 P�,bG�Work� At a regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals 593-503� Insp�rio�s held on May 25, 1999 your petition for a waiver(s) of 593-8090 Section (s) 11.21, Subd. 7(B) and of the City Zoning Code ;�=;�MotorVehicle � � S� . 1 �� i93-gioi � � was/were acted upon. .;�!Planning and Zoning � 593=so�5 Attached you will find an unofficial copy of the minutes of the Board. Finance 593-8013 Staff Liaison ��;,,g Board of Zoning Appeals 593-8020 P�k�►dR�r�do� 1f waivers are not acted upon within one year from date of approval 200 Brookview Parkway Goldm��l�y,�iN5S426-�364 in accordance with statutes, the waivers have expired. (612)512-2345 FAX (GI2)512-2344 TDD(G12)5933998 4/95 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting May 25, 1999 Page 2 wedberg asked the applicant if he had consulted with an architect or builder regarding the pr osed addition. Ruble indicated that he had not received any professional advice rega ing the addition. Swedberg asked how long they have lived at this address. ble indicat d they have lived in the home for approximately 13 years. Swedberg state that the requeste variance is outside the parameters of what the Board would generally nsider approving. uble responded that he was aware from discussions with staff th his request was unusua . Swedberg stated that the Board has never acted favorably in gard to a request for a v iance of this size from the required front yard setback. indicated that the Board generally Ids the front yard setback as more sacred since fro ards create the distinguishing char teristic of a neighborhood. Swedberg stated th the applicant would need to prove some rdship or reason that the proposed constr ion is necessary in order for the Board to appro his request. Ruble responded that he It this was the best option and wanted to pursue it b fore they considered other altern ' es. Polachek asked if they had considered adding onto the ack of the house and wideni the existing garage. Ruble responded that they had origi Ily considered widening e existing garage but decided that as long as they were adding on ey wanted to expa the project to include some additional living space. He indicated that the do not want to uild into the back yard. Lang suggested that the applicant discuss possible o 'ons with architect or builder. Swedberg informed the applicant that the Board generally lo ks f orably on expanding single car garages and that he may want to consider other option or increasing the garage size. Shaffer stated that even if the Board approved the variance eq st he felt there would be difficuities in building the structure due to problems with th oof line Sell stated that the Board would be willing to work with the applicant if a varianc as neede or the sideyard setback. He suggested that the Board could postpone a dec' ion on the propo I to give the applicant the opportunity to investigate some alternatives nd come back to the oard within the next 90 days. Swedberg clarified that this discussio applied only to the varian requests for the front and side yards. MOVED by Sell, sec ded by Polachek and motion carrie unanimously to delay action on the variances re sted for the front and side yards to give e applicant opportunity to investigate oth alternatives and come back to the Board, no ter than September, with a different pr osal for expanding the garage. MOV by Sell, seconded by Lang and motion carried unanimously approve the variance fr Section 11.21, Subd. 12 Accessory Structures, as requested, for he existing shed. 4224 Golden Valley Road (Map 5) (99-5-11) Robert and Denise Kinq Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(B) Rear Yard Setback for: • 3.3 feet off the required 25 feet to a distance of 21.7 feet for the existing house at its closest point to the rear property line; and • 10 feet off the required 25 feet to a distance of 15 feet for a proposed second story balcony off the rear of the house at its closest point to the rear (north) property line Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting May 25, 1999 Page 3 Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 12 Accessory Structures • To allow for a 5.5 foot x 24.25 foot addition onto the existing detached garage which is located to the front of the main house. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a second story balcony and addition onto the existing detached garage. Chair Swedberg read the requested variances. Robert King was present. Dold stated that the applicants appeared before the Board of Zoning Appeals in July of 1998 for approval of a proposed balcony constructed onto the rear of the house that would intrude into the rear yard setback. Dold indicated that this variance was granted. She stated that they would now like to make this balcony four feet longer than originally planned (10' x 10' vs. 6' x 10') and are now requesting a new variance. She stated that they are making a second variance request for an addition onto the existing detached �arage of 5.5 feet by 24.25 feet. She indicated they would like to have the extra space for storage of lawn and snow removal equipment. Dold stated that this addition requires a variance since City Code states that detached accessory buildings shall be located wholly to the rear of the house with at least 10 feet of separation between the main building and the accessory building. She stated fhat the variance would allow for an addition to the existing detached garage that is located to the front of the house. Dold noted that one of the neighbors is concerned aboui drainage problems due to the increase in impervious surface on the property to the rear of the property. Robert King indicated that he had spoken with the neighbor who was concerned about the drainage issue. He indicated that the neighbor would be satisfied if the size of the balcony was restricted to 6' x 10' as originally planned. He indicated that they would stay with the original plan of constructing a 6' x 10' balcony which would eliminate the need for the new variance for the rear yard setback. Dold stated that the variance granted in 1998 is effective until August 18. King stated that he would need an extension as he does not anticipate the work will be done by that time. Dold indicated that the work would not have to be completed by August 18 but the permit would need to be issued by that date. Dold stated that a variance is also needed for the existing house. She said the house is 21.7 feet from the rear property line and indicated that the nonconformity of the house was not addressed when previous variances were granted. Shaffer stated that, as a general rule, he dislikes garages placed in front of houses and would be opposed to increasing the width of such a structure. He said he would have less of a problem with the addition if it were placed off the rear of the garage rather than increasing the width that faces Golden Valley Road. King said the garage is set back far enough that it is in line with the surrounding houses along Golden Valley Road. He said constructing the addition off the rear of the garage would require the removal of a large tree and would interfere with the current location of the foot entrance and the sidewalk that leads to the foot entrance. Shaffer stated that the addition could be constructed in a square off the rear of the garage to avoid interference with the foot entrance. King stated that access to the storage area would Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeais Meeting May 25, 1999 Page 4 also be more difficult if it were located to the rear of the garage. Sell noted that the garage is 70 feet from the property line along Golden Valley Road. Swedberg stated that the distance between the garage and the street makes the proposed addition more acceptable. Shaffer said his concern is with allowing the expansion of the garage when it is increasing the width of a structure that is placed in the front yard. He suggested that this would not be an acceptable option for most homes, but that the distance from the property line makes fhis option acceptable for this property. MOVED by Polachek, seconded by Sell and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variances as requested: _ Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(B) Rear Yard Setbacks for 3.3 feet off the required 25 feet to a distance of 21.7 feet for the existing house at its closest point to the rear property line. Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 12 Accessory Structures to allow for an addition to an existing detached garage that is located to the front of the house. 2240 Pennsylvania Avenue North (Map 14) (99-5-12) illiam Malvin and Hanna Anderson Req st: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 12 Accessory Structures • to allow for the construction of a 10' x 26' upper el balcony (deck) onto the rear of the house which would make the ' -ground pool less than 10 eet from the house structure. Purpose: To a110 r the construction of an u er level balcony onto the rear of the house whic will make the in-gro d swimming pool non-conforming. Chair Swedberg read the reque d vari ces. Hanna Anderson was present. Dold stated that the applicants wo to construct an upper level balcony off the rear of the home. She said there is a ' -groun wimming pool located approximately 19.8 feet from the house with declining ste into the pool roximately 17.8 feet from the house. Dold stated that the propose alcony would be 10' 6' leaving 7.8 feet from the balcony structure to the steps of the p . She added that the Inspec ' ns Department defines a swimming pool as a structure an erefore the proposed structure re 'res a variance because there would not be 10 feet separation between the balcony, which is tached to the house, and the steps of th wimming pool. MOV by Shaffer, seconded by Lang and motion carried unanimo to approve the v ance as requested. Golden Valley Board oF Zoning Appeals Wednesday, Apri118, 2012 Re: Hearing concerning the Waiver of Zoning Restrictions By Robert and Denise King with property located at 4224 Golden Valley Road. Are House is located at 4221 Legend Lane witch is directly behind the Kings Home. Our objection to the Variance are two fold. 1. The Loss of any privacy, Which would be caused by the deck floor being even with the top my privacy fence exposing my total back Yard. And the window into the Master Bedroom. 2. Water Drainage. How would the proposed deck drainage flow. As You can see by information that my neighbor to the West also is against the Variance. His reason being the same as mine PRIVACY. In Your packet you will also find the information that presented was at the meeting in 1999 against the proposal for the same Variance Nothing has changed from thend. Thank You for Your consideration and review of this matterd R.E. Stanton, 4221 Legend Lane Golden Valley, MN 55422 � r � �� " ' �# � _ '. . < a.� �`� � ^��. .�, � . . �� . _ � . �-3 Su�b� .� � � � . �. , �� e . � � y� ��//j\�\� i �� t �w. ��l� V ��.. � � �- ��.��':�_� �^�` � � _ n_ti� ��.:� _ � �-�e� �r� i a°►°t Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals Hearing concerni.ng Petition for Waiver of Zoning Restrictions by Robert and Denise King with property located at 4224 Golden Valley Rd. Robert and Darothy Stanton with property located at 4221 Legend Lane (directly to the north of the King's property), have two major concerns regarding the proposed waiver of City Code, Section 11.21, Subd. 7(B) Rear Setback. T'hey are as follows: 1. Water runoff! drainage 2. Privacy The Kings home is a 3 story home including a walk out basement. The home is located very close to the rear property line (21.7 feet). The lowest level of the King's home is (because of elevation of the ground level) higher than our home. When we purchased the 4221 Legend Lane home in 1997 we did recognize the drainage and privacy problem concerning this situation (our bedroom is placed at the rear of our home). Denise King operates a commercial business at the lower level rear of her home. My husband and i felt a a partial solution to this situation would be a privacy fence and proper Iandscaping (terracing with a 'swale', etc.). We spent over $10,000.00 to this end. This did provide a certain amount o#privacy but did not solve the drainage problem caused by the close proximity of the King's home to the rear of a steep sloping lat {roofs, flat roof sur#aces, and the direction and placement of their downspouts). We then dug a small trench on the backside of the fence (please refer to diagram) to prevent the flow from their drainage from undermining the £enceposts and causing water to flow directly into our basement. The runo€f from their gutters literally gushed through the fence boards of the new fence. We continued the trench on the sides of our property to prevent `passing on' the water to our neighbors on either side of us. T'his remedy seems to have solved the drainage problem as long as the trench is not filled in with soil, etc. I did invite the King's to our home last summer to discuss our concerns but Denise said that Rob was too busy with work (out of town a lot}, the Natianal Guard on weekends, and bowling weeknights to attend and she did no# feel comfortable discussing this without him. At that time she did assure me the deck would only be 4 feefi deep, more of a balcony I concluded than a deck. I respect her feelings and did not mention it again to her. My questions concerning the additional encroachment into the rear setback allowance are: Has the architect of the proposed 10 foot deck designed in a drainage solution as the additional flat surface will add additional runoff in the direction of our home (too much for the existing trench)? Has the architect of the proposed 10 foot deck taken into consideration that the deck would be within 15 feet of the rear of the property line and at an elevation higher than the fence and would eliminate the remaining privacy to our yard and bedroom we now have? Have any steps been taken to prevent this from happening? I hope the Board will take into consideration our concerns as you make your decision regarding the proposed waiver. Sincerely, Dorothy and Rober# Stanton i ... . . .. i� ... . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . .... . . . � . . . .. . . ... .. . .... .. ., , . .. . . ... . . I /r . . � .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . .. . . ..... .. . .. . .' { .. .. . . . . . , . . . ._.. .. . . i. , . .. . . .. . . `. / . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . � _ o�.��. v��.�� . y ,, � i� �-.t,.,. ; _ ,._ .. , � � � , : � .S�� c?F' (..�3T" �.. . _ . k1�l.G,� I�t3l�£. +�� . . „ ; _ � . . ,,d,�?�1'Y� M.Qf"�t�> . ' 1 i - - ; � , _ i � I . ...,.r..-e i . . .. _ _.... _ . . _. . �E�'�-! D�� ; . . w_ . +---, , ; , �,.1 hS�F� �-C�V .� � �c��` tAT . . , .. i��n�.� ��P�r�,r� �� t�c' �_ �z�.�1 G��t��.r� �£�� r�w�rrii .e- ;... � � ' �---.—�--i.��4.1'� c�CSc.�tV:S Ql�� ; V� � . _ . .. _ ,. ; .. � ,�_ : ... . _ ._ . _ _ ._ (2,.��-"' � �'''� � . � . , � .. :. ; ; . . � . ! ' ' �t o ; . _ .; R.�'�l.C...� . . ; �'t �, , . � w.. �'+�I`�J C� �IV�:��. _ . � �T�tT`�(� �fSUs�- _ ; ��..t L .�� 1..� i. . . _ , , _ _ � L.,��NQ, ��,�lC i. . _.. ... ... . ..... . .. . �Y" . . . _... . ... ...._ .._. . , , - ..... . . . . . . ... ... ... +_ . * ..,i . _i. .. .. . . . . . . . . .. . i. . � . . . . . .. . . . � - . �'� . . -. ...... _...._......_.. � S � a . < � ; . C . � � I . _ . _ � ��...� �' ' � _ _ . �U �I � � f � � . � _ � _ . � � � . _ . 2 � �..� _ `� � � � ; . � �,, � � � � I � �� ; � . .�' �- � �. � _ � °� 2 - . -� 4 .� � , , . � � ! _ � . � � � � - � rl. � . i. 0 � � . � � ��' � ; _ a.►.� r.. � _ _ S�. � ; . 0 � _ . � � ; ; . . _ _. � . . ' � , , _ _.. , . . _ � _ ;. , _ , ; _ � � . ; .ra � . ; . , _ � W . � . , � ; ; _ �. M , . � AOL Mail(1) 4/16/12 623 PM Hi Bob Rhonda and I will be out of the country and unable to personaliy attend the April 24 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Had we been available we would have indicated that we would not support the variance. Had it been an issue of inches ar even a couple of feet, we could have been supportive, but a variance of over 22 feet is an intrusion and the very reason zoning laws are enacted in the first place. Feel free to share this with the ciry. Timothy&Rhonda Ogren 4231 Legend Lane http:JJmail.aol.com/35964-111/aol-6/en-us(Suite.aspx Page 1 of 1