04-24-07 BZA Agenda
e
e
e
Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
7pm
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chambers
I.
Approval of Minutes - March 27,2007
II.
The Petitions are:
2936 Noble Avenue North (07-04-07)
Verica & Naser Sarailic, Applicants
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(3)(b) Sjde Yard
Setback Requirements
. 7.5 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 5 ft. at its closest
point to the side yard (north) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage addition.
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(1) Front Yard Setback
Requirements
. 8 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 27 ft. at its closest
point to the front yard (west) property line.
Purpose: To bring the existing front yard deck into conformance.
1800 Spring Valley Circle (07-04-08)
David & Katherine Gooley, Applicants
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(1) Front Yard Setback
Requirements
. 4 ft. off the required 30 ft. to a distance of 26 ft. at its closest
point to the front yard (north) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new open front porch addition.
e
e
e
1613 Independence Avenue North (07-04-09)
Thomas Menard, Applicant
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(3)(c) Side Yard
Setbacks
. 2.1 ft. off the required 6.1 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 second story addition.
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(0) Cornices and Eaves
. .5 ft. off the required 3.6 ft. to a distance of 3 ft. at its closest
point to the rear yard (west) property line.
Purpose:
To allow for the construction of a second story addition.
Request:
Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(2) Rear Yard Setbacks
. 18.46 ft. off the required 27.46 ft. to a distance of 9 ft. at its
closest point to the rear yard (west) property line.
Purpose:
To allow for the construction of a second story addition.
III. Other Business
Election of Officers
IV. Adjournment
2
.
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
March 27, 2007
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday,
March 27, 2007 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota.
Chair Boudreau-Landis called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
II. The Petitions are:
4223 Glencrest (07-03-04)
Robert & Brid et Burke A
Those present were Members, Boudreau-Landis, Morrissey, Nederve
Planning Commission Representative McCarty. Also present were DI
and Development Mark Grimes and Administrative Assistant Lis it
I. Approval of Minutes - March 15, 2007
MOVED by Nederveld, seconded by Sell and motion
the March 15,2007 minutes as submitted.
.
Request:
. Subd. 10(A)(3)(a) Side Yard
.
ired 15 ft. to a distance of 11.5 ft. at its closest
rd (east) property line.
e construction of a garage addition.
Section 11.21, Subd.10(A)(1) Front Yard Setback
. ements
. 1.3 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 33.7 ft. at its closest
point to the front yard (north) property line
To allow for the construction of a garage addition
Grimes referred to a survey of the property and explained that the applicants are
proposing several additions to their home but the only one that requires a variance is
the proposed garage addition. He stated that the existing garage if fairly small and
shallow and that the requested variances would allow them to build a larger two stall
garage. He referred to the requested front yard variance and explained that the original
home was built 33 feet to the front property line and the applicants would like to follow
. that same front plane with the proposed garage addition.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
March 27, 2007
Page 2
.
Boudreau-Landis asked about the typical size of a two stall garage. Grimes stated that
there is nothing written in the Zoning Code about the standard size of a two stall
garage. He stated that the Board has discussed the issue in the past and decided that a
22 foot by 22 foot is a minimum size for a two stall garage and a more typical two stall
garage is 24 feet by 24 feet garage.
Maureen Steele Bellows, Architect for the project, stated that another reason the
proposed footprint seems to be large is because they want to keep the roof line of the
addition at the same height of the roof line of the existing house. She t the
applicants would like to increase their garage space, enlarge a sub- h, re-
do the existing kitchen and add a first floor bedroom.
ellows
'nplace.
nd there is
Boudreau-Landis asked Bellows about the hardships in reg
stated that the house was built in 1941, before the existing
She said the garage is substandard and difficult to use beca
no door inside the garage leading into the house.
Boudreau-Landis opened the public hearing. Se
comment, Boudreau-Landis closed the public h
one wishing to
-.
McCarty said he is having a hard time fi
already has a two stall garage and he
entrance they are looking for in th
is case. He said the home
p Icants could get the depth and
uiring a variance.
Boudreau-Landis asked about
the garage shown on the R
width of the garage is 21
h isting garage. Grimes said the width of
imately 22 feet. Bellows stated that the outside
. side width is 20.5 feet which is very tight.
Morrissey asked a
garage has a 16 foo
f the existing garage door. Bellows said the existing
roposal is slightly different from proposals they've seen in
ants do have a two stall garage already. He added that
e isn't 22 feet wide and because 22 feet is the standard
considered in the past, he'd be willing to support this proposal.
Sell
would
lot origina
since the existing garage is currently less than 22 feet in width, he
ort this proposal. He added that the way the house was placed on the
also adding to the circumstances.
McCarty said he thinks that a single stall garage is clearly a hardship but since the City
does not have a standard size for a two stall garage and technically the applicants
already have a two stall garage he is having trouble defining the hardship in this case.
.
Bellows stated that the existing garage is actually not a two stall garage because it is
less than 22 feet in width.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
March 27, 2007
Page 3
.
Nederveld suggested granting half the amount of the applicant's request. Morrissey
said she didn't think that it would make sense for the applicants to do all of the
construction required just to move the existing garage wall 6 inches.
She added that she feels that a 24 foot wide garage is relatively established as a
comfortable two stall garage. Sell agreed.
MOVED by Sell, seconded by Morrissey and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve the
following variance requests. McCarty voted no.
property located at the northeast corner of Glenwood
. property was recently subdivided and one of the City
ion approval was that the existing garage must be
t er a lot in the new subdivision. He stated that the
ont yard setback requirements. However Glenwood is a
f the subdivision approval process the County requested 7
ay making the placement of the new garage difficult. He
survey and noted that if the proposed new garage were to be
on the lot it would probably encroach into the new rear and/or side
a and he felt that would be worse than allowing it to encroach into the
line up with the front of the existing house.
Sell stated that because of the County requirements the house and proposed new
garage will be within the front setback area. He noted that if the applicants built the new
garage before the County took the 7 feet of additional right of way the City would have
to grant a variance.
. 3.5 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 11.5 ft. at its closes
yard (east) property linejo allow for the construction of a gar e
. 1.3 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 33.7 ft. at i
yard (north) property line to allow for the construction 0
4736 Glenwood Ave. (07-03-05)
Ben Vogel & Barb Busick, Applicants
-.
Request: Waiver from Sectio
Requirements
)(1) Front Yard Setback
. to distance of 29 ft. at its closest
uth) property line.
Purpose:
truction of a new garage.
.
Morrissey asked if the applicants knew about the County's decision to take the
additional 7 feet of right of way when they applied for their subdivision. Grimes said it is
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
March 27, 2007
Page 4
.
standard for the County to request an additional 7 feet of right of way and typically it is
used for sidewalk or trail purposes. Morrissey said it seems like the applicants didn't
intentionally seek this variance.
Ben Vogel, Applicant, stated that the preliminary plat was approved by the City Council
on August 2, 2006. He stated that the County was supposed to respond within 30 days
and they didn't so he was not aware that they were going to take the additional 7 feet of
right of way.
Morrissey asked about the proposed 10
garage. Vogel said it is an entryway a
applicants could build an adequat
variance.
om
I a
cerns
e moved
ogel said the County
f plans for the new
Boudreau~Landis asked the applicant why the garage needs to be 2 .
size. Vogel said that their existing garage is not a 2 stall garage, . . . a
He said that the house was built in 1905 and it does not have erne
would like to build a basement under the proposed new gar u
for their children. He said he is not sure why the size of the
concern in regard to this variance request. Boudreau-Landis
about the size of the proposed garage because if it w
further back on the lot and be closer to conforma
was 60 days late in their request for additional ri
garage were already drawn.
.
. between the house and
ad I n. McCarty said he thinks the
~garage without requiring a
Nederveld said he doesn't
response but he does th'
constitutes a hardship in t
garngeaddffionar fui
garage addition me
proposed gara .
are other optio
d can consider the timing of the County's
ty taking the addition 7 feet of right of way
tion. added that the size and aesthetics of the
Board can not consider in this case because the
uirements. McCarty said he thought the size of the
Board could take into consideration because there
not require a variance.
nts if they would have changed their garage plans if they had
rding the county right of way sooner. Vogel said that if they'd known
equest sooner they would have changed their plans.
d that the City's ordinances allow the County to take additional right of
way and a atically grant variances for existing conditions. He noted that the
proposed garage isn't an existing condition but the City Council is requiring them to
move it and the design of the proposed garage makes sense.
.
Sell stated that he'd be willing to support the variance request as long as the garage
doesn't protrude more toward Glenwood Avenue.
Boudreau-Landis opened the public hearing.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
March 27, 2007
Page 5
Burk Nelson, 18 Ottawa Avenue North, stated that Glenwood Avenue is a main road
going west out of Golden Valley and there is a lot of traffic on Glenwood Avenue and
Ottaw~ Avenue. He said that all of the houses on Glenwood and Ottawa are set back
35 feet so this variance should not be allowed. He said he was concerned that it will be
a traffic hazard and people won't be able to see cars coming on Glenwood if the garage
is moved forward.
Grimes explained that the proposed garage would be located 80 feet away from Ottawa
and set back the same distance as the existing house. Sell clarified th se
wouldn't be any closer to the street, the property line would just be
lic
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to speak, Boudreau-L
hearing.
Nederveld reiterated that he thinks the County taking 7 feet 0
constitutes a hardship and the Board should support t ri
that if the 7 feet weren't an issue there wouldn't b
t of way
. He added
riance.
applicant's choice and that
ke some additional right of
IS enough room on the
sal she thinks it is a timing issue
arage addition within what they
id once the applicants knew about the
v hanged their plans. Morrissey said that
at they believed the setbacks to be and had
rlier it would have changed where they drew
McCarty said he disagrees. He said the subdivi
there was a reasonable expectation that t
way. He added that with some redesign
property to make a garage addition wo
with the County and that the appli
thought were the correct param
additional 7 feet of right of wa
the original subdivision wa
they known about the a
the new lot lines.
Boudreau-Landis sa
County's resp
addition to acc
ith Morrissey that it is an issue of the timing of the
o agrees that there is still time to redesign the garage
ditional 7 feet of right of way.
think the size of the garage is relevant in this case. It really is
perty line and it's consistent with other homes in the area. He added
ere has been a taking it has historically been considered a
MOVED b ederveld, seconded by Morrissey and motion carried 3 to 2 to approve the
following variance request. Boudreau-Landis and McCarty voted no.
. 6 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 29 ft. at its closest point to the front yard
(south) property line to allow for the construction of a new garage
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
March 27,2007
Page 6
.
1430 June Ave. S. (07-03-06)
Dennis & Gloria. Dvlona, Applicants
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(B) Height Limitations
. 1.5 ft. off the allowed 30 ft. to a distance of 31.5 ft. at its highest
point.
Grimes reminded the Board that at their January meeting they di
interpreted the height requirements in regard to the home bein
June Avenue South. It was determined that staff did make
ordinance was interpreted and that the home is actually 31.
feet as intended. He referred to a drawing of the hous and
the height measurement should have been taken. He
in regard to this property as follows:
o
Purpose: To bring the existing home into conformance.
not 30
oint where
of the hardships
.
. The property's location in a natural depres
. The property contains a unique, na
flood waters in times of high wate
. To preserve the natural low a
any home built on the prop
above the finished ground
. Placing a home on s
height restrictions i
permit a home to be
circumstances
the property;
is to be used for ponding of
II@, the City Engineer required that
" n an 8 to 10ft. high pedestal to raise it
nd'1I,.y potential flood waters.
creates a hardship in the application of the
it:;ii~ubd. 10(B) of the City Code, Therefore, to
eet above finished grade is appropriate under the
s a precedent for granting a variance based on staff
tated that the City Attorney has said that each variance case
\}1~S of precedent.
,,<,y
5 Sussex Road, stated that the house that was built at 1430 June
e house he was shown when the original subdivision was approved. He
said that t subject property may be located in a depression but it is not in a flood
zone. He stated that he has been talking to the City about this house for a year and he
does not approve of this variance because the house does not meet code.
.
Ella Ramsey, 4335 Sussex Road, asked about the height of the platform the home is
built on. Grimes said the platform is 10 feet high. Ramsey said the property was
deliberately split in order to allow the biggest house possible to be built. She said the
home is nasty to look at and she wouldn't be satisfied to see the homeowners fined.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
March 27, 2007
Page 7
.
Boudreau-Landis asked Grimes if people have to stick to the house plans they show
when they subdivide a property. Grimes explained that sometimes people going
through the subdivision process show plans of what they are planning to build but there
is no requirement that the plans shown during the subdivision process is what has to be
built. The subdivision process splits the property; it does not approve the design of the
proposed new house. He added that the City doesn't have any architectural controls to
hold an applicant to the plans they originally show.
Susan Yeager, 4335 Sussex Ro
setting itself up for a big pr
is not within the code an
in having a code if the Ci
celled
erred to a
d that it
at there is just going
untable.
Mr. Yeager said he thinks it is interesting that the homeowners are not
meeting. Morrissey explained that the homeowners didn't intentionall
They have been defaulted into this unfortunate situation.
Mr. Yeager referred to a cancelled Board of Zoning Appeals
February of 2006 and stated that he was told by staff that th
because the builder and the homeowner worked out the heig
DVD he had of a television program regarding a simil .
would show precedent. He added that he doesn't
to be a fine for the homeowner. He wants some
.
McCarty said he was confused as to how
would have been required back in Febr
time that he and the Building Official d
height requirements.
move forward if a variance
d that it was during that
proposed house did meet the
t iis variance is approved the City is
id she doesn't care whose fault it is, the house
ponsible for this. She asked what the point is
make people comply with it.
Amir Bronstein, 432
construction b
a variance is g
ad, expressed concern about the same type of
eowners other property at 1440 June Ave. He said if
430 June Ave. the same could be done to 1440 June Ave.
Ink the house at 1430 June Ave. is out of line with the other
he doesn't think the city making a mistake is a reason to grant a
d he hasn't heard any proof of hardship.
David Runkle, 4340 Sussex Road, referred to the previous agenda items regarding
takings. He said he thinks the whole reason for the 30-foot height regulation to prevent
takings from neighborhoods. He said regardless of who is responsible for the error in
measuring the height of this house it is not a defense against the loss to the
neig hborhood.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
March 27, 2007
Page 8
.
Grimes reiterated that one of the hardships in this case is the fact that this home is in a
low area. The reason the home is as high as it is, is because it was required to be built
on the pedestal per FEMA requirements.
Ron Hongell, 4345 Sussex Road, said he disagrees that the depression area on the
property is a hardship. He stated that the house design would not have dramatically
changed if it was 1 % feet shorter.
Morrissey said that
before them asking
homeowner h co
proceeded wit
ors would love the
ing a line in the sand.
y over how the height of
entally opposed to the size
regl er their complaints. She said
corhood would not like the house
Morrissey explained that if the homeowners would have come to the C'
a plan to build a house that required a variance it would be a differe
said he agreed.
Mrs. Yeager reiterated that she brought this case to the City'
February 2006. Mr. Yeager added that the homeowners dre
destroy the dreams of others and this house is destroying th
neig hborhood.
.
Morrissey asked if the home were built 1 % feet
house. Mr. Yeager said yes because the City w
Morrissey said she is concerned that beca
this house was interpreted originally ev
and height of this house is given the 0
she feels that if this house were 2 '
any better.
Mr. Yeager asked the Boa
Grimes said the tallest it
sition would be if the house were 40 feet tall.
been is 31.5 feet.
o her is that the Board doesn't have a homeowner
xceed the allowable height. The builder and
erything the City has asked them to do and they
thinking that everything was ok.
is "over code" and asked who is responsible for the
pen and what the consequences are going to be. Grimes reiterated
. take in how the height was measured. Mr. Yeager noted that the
ates that it is the homeowner that has petitioned the Board for this
s explained that the homeowner in this case is being represented by
.
Luke Maholo, 1410 June Avenue South, stated that there was concern about the height
of this house back in February of 2006 and not only the City made a mistake, the
builder did also by not following the Code. He stated that he thinks it is the City's
responsibility to pay for, and correct the mistakes made.
Nederveld explained that the Board has no say in what the appropriate remedy should
be or whose fault it is. He said he understands the issues that are concerning the
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
March 27, 2007
Page 9
.
neighbors but the homeowners went ahead with this project believing they were in
conformance with the City's codes.
Mr. Yeager stated that he is looking at a 40 foot house and it would be tragic for the
Board to say that nobody is accountable. He said that a solution would be for the
homeowners to provide landscaping on his property.
Nederveld said he thinks one of the concerns is that if this variance is granted that the
issue stops here. If it is not granted then it can go onto the City Counci er
discussion. McCarty said that the neighbors can go to the City Coun. s
their concerns.
MOVED by M
following varian
asked
t it depends
aking the
Maholo asked what would happen if a house were built to 3
Morrissey said she can't promise that no one will ever make
about the consequences for not following the Code. Morrisse
on what caused the non-conformance. She said she
homeowner in this case responsible for the mista
.
Grimes stated that there have been numerous
has made a mistake and variances have
that from happening. He asked at what
the roof. McCarty explained that there
required the builder to lower the ro
the plans met all of the City's re
codes.
ere a builder or surveyor
10 asked what will stop
require the builder to lower
e w n the City would have
was working in good faith that
10 asked why the City even has
Boudreau-Landis close
to step on anyone's drea
approve or deny th i
. g. He explained that the Board does not want
I e a one's viewpoints but the Board has to
est that is before them.
y McCarty and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve the
Id voted no.
30 ft. to a distance of 31.5 ft. at the home's highest point in
he existing home into conformance with zoning requirements.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 pm.
.
.
.
.
.
07 -04-07
2936 Noble Avenue North
Verica & Naser Sarajlic, Applicants
4815
,/ '-
~
TltlTONDR
3U2S
3(U6
3OZ5
3M3
llO16
3011
3OOi.
3000
3OOi.
2945 21146 294!1
:It
2943 ! 1941 1943
i
1941 i 2ll4l') 1941
~
m1 m1 :;
i
293!1 :It
192& D2!I
2913 2911 2913
2901 2900 ;t901
4801
4741
4115
2841
(1)
4800
4760
4150
4100
Mo;>""".."I>""'",,,<&IS ~iti'<'C! I.OGlSGlS200S
.
3tl26
3In5
llO16
.7
3OllO
4800
'ELMotU.e fl.O^"
Z944
<HOt.
2942
Z94S
J 2936 Noble Ave. N. I
Ii,
! 4521 282!1
:It
i !
~ Il.I
:It ~
2810 280S
201ft
2940
2938 m1
2914 29%5 21)14 D2!I
21)11 2913 21/12 2lJ13
2900
2lJOl
2900
. CULVI!R ItO
W6
2a3S
2$20
2811
o
4SOD
.
Planning
763-593-8095/ 763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
April 9, 2007
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
Teresa Murphy, Planning Intern
2936 Noble Ave North
Verica & Naser Sarajlic
To:
From:
Subject:
Verica and Naser Sarajlic are the owners of the property located at 2936 Noble Ave North. The
owners are proposing a 20 ft. by 10ft. addition on the north side of the existing one car
garage.
Upon review of the file for 2936 Noble Ave North, it was discovered that a front deck had been
constructed without a permit. This deck is located within the required setback of 35 feet from
the front yard property line. A variance request is required to bring the existing front deck into
conformance.
.
.
According to the applicant's submittal, the hardship with this property is that increased storage
is needed for the family's three cars and maintenance items, and tools. No outside storage
other than the existing garage exists for storing maintenance items and tools. They must store
these items in the garage along with the vehicle. Damage has been caused to the vehicles
because more space is needed to store both the tools and car. The owner states that they
must always move one of the cars out of the driveway and onto the sometimes busy street in
order to get the car out of the garage. The variance request is to allow for the construction of a
garage addition.
The proposed project requires the following variances from City Code:
Section 11.21, Subd.10(A)(3)(b) Side Yard Setback Requirements. The Zoning Code
states that side yard setbacks in the R-1 Zoning District for lots having a width greater than 65
feet and less than 100 feet, shall be 12.5 feet. The variance request is for 7.5 ft. off the
required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 5 ft. at its closest point to the side (north) property line to allow
for the construction of a garage addition.
Section 11.21, Subd. 1 O(A)(1) and 10(E). The Zoning Code states that the required minimum
front setback in the R-1 Zoning District shall be 35 feet from any front property line along a
street right-of-way line. Decks over eight inches from ground level shall meet the same
setbacks as the principal structure. The Variance request is for 8 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a
distance of 27 ft. at its closes point to the front (west) property line to bring the existing front
deck into compliance.
No previous zoning variance requests were found for this property.
City of Golden Valley
Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
Zoning Code Variance Application
1. Street address of property involved in this application:
:f/30 Af06L~ A1/eNue AI
2. Applicant: VG;elCll 4 AJA.~el!- 5ARP;?.L-JC-
Name
19:3G IV tJ!JJ.. €- 11 VeAli.,J e N
Address
Got()OJ VAtL.€ ~ Jf AJ 5511.'
City/State/Zip I
G/2-?J?JO '~0299
Business Phone
'?0B- 6n~015~
Home Phone
Cell Phone
v S.4iA:1.i-1 C. ~ !YS/(). GO It
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.
U\.OV\ g..~.f AJd~"" ,
v
5' -IV N ' p"t~~. LA Y\e..
, I
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.
Our household has three cars. We have the one car garage and we live on main
road that sometimes can be busy. To be able to pull out vehicle from the
garage, we always need to pull out one car from the driveway to
street. Because we don't have any outdoor storage for yard utilities and
tools, we keep everything in the garage (couple time we damaged our cars) so
we need more storage space in garage as well.
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.
1 J
/ l,
.
~y 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 regard~i \he project i ~.
Print Name __ LIC 1-fAU
Comment ~ ~ V\Y '(olaAlR\..S - -:[. ~W,^l i S a. {; e~ ;
Signature Address 2.131 OSOY /we",,,,,- .uAk
Print Name
Comment 6,~ 1-<. t.0 ~ \NU-
Signature ~ I-n .-P~ Address .l- {if 1 k j we a",...... ,
PrintNamef)IILo('~" ~rvlky __
Comment J2f wd?<p ~ /fA :U-~ r..srr..J'
Signature ~.L.. ~ Address ~7+'O A!~
r1nt Name (j aVch0/f4i! /1Igr
Comment Of... rU',.th ~
Signature C1flar~/( ~ Address 2Cft f tV~ e'tVE- tJ
Print Name
Comment
1uUj ClI'Ot u,o--t aJ LUhMe
Signature
Address ,l..9'2.6' ~ul{)/ At; IV.
I
Print Name cK't{ f'A f e t' /1 B e C{ ('" d s Ie y
Comment 0 K
Signature 'iict-~'YV ~
Address ;).. 1 :3 7 77 ~
Print Name f2R..1 CPr SlOOr::::e
omment
(OIL
~/~
Address )!}3J- f}@fOLe;. !}Je-- tV
Signature
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Note: Bearmgs are assumed.
~
~ ~
a Ii
~ ~
Co
<1
~
~
~
"C
lLJ
-.I
~
<:
.d
Established in 1962
LOT SURVEYSCOMPANY~ INC.
LAND SURVEYORS
REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA
INVOICE NO.
F.B.NO.
SCALE: 1" =
75977
1029-72
20'
7601 73rd Avenue Nor1h
Minneapolis. Minnesota 55428
(763) 560-3ll93
Fax No. (763)560-3522
. Denotes Found Iron Monument
o Denotes Iron Monument
o Denotes Wood Hub Set for
exeavatlonOli1y
xOOO.O DenotesExistingElevation
~.V Denotes Prpposed Elevation
.."", Denotes. Surface Diainl!ge
NOTE: Prop()~dgra~8$~..e ~~ults()fSOtltests.
Pf()polllllibliilaif\9 mUstbe
witllapprove(i . .. d~velO . .. or
g~~ingp. >>..~~dconstriJClion.
P~dgtfld~~l>~()n tI'Ii~sUl\ley ~
interpolatlon;6fpr()~dcontOursfr()m p,e
drajnage,gtil<il~g.ahd'()r development plans.
NOTE: The relatiOnShip'be~enpr()PtlS8d floor
elevations to ~ verified bY builder.
~uru-pYllrz
Qt -rrtifirat-r
VERICA SARAJLIC
Property located in Section
7, Township 29; Range 24,
Hennepin County, Minnesota
34.7
---
,
I
I
34.0
Prpposed Top of Block
proposed Gal'flge Floor
Proposed LOVVElstFloor
Type of Building
HSi!:. No. 2940
I-St-Fr
I
5 "9"42'(}()".E 13~,G7 .
_.IlO'. .
--l(--l('--1(--l(--l(--l(--l(~--l(--l(1
K11l!t Fence J
4c* S:
- ~ J I
s
I
r
I
. :... ,'. B1tIJm1f7OlJ5. " :.:
'. ",' .' 0f7veway -,' "3b1 ..
, .." .:.
. . ..' .
. . '". -., "" ....
J.7
<1
IS
:B
~
~
<!:
.d
<1
I
I
\
f
r
r
"----w "----w<< f
W"----Wqkf1.;, r
"----W"'eos f ' ,
Wood Wan ~ "----w,,---- .. /
~ . w"---- r ~ /" IfJ
K1re fence ~J'
--l(--l(--l(--l(--l(--l( --l(--l(--l(--l(--l(--l(-ll--l(. ... ~If' r/,,~
N89"42WWU5.(X) ~~-11!;~5
I tp
i ~
s ~
I
S:
I
Lot 11, Block 12, NOBLE G.ROVE
The only easements Shown are from plats of record or infOrmation provided by ClIent
We herebY certify that this is a true and cortett representation Of a suiv8y Of P1e
boundaries of the above described land and the location of all buildings and visible
encroachments. if any. from or on said land.
Surveyed by us this 20th day of March 2007.
Rev
r-...
cMl4
Signed
Drawn By
SJ. X~
Charles F. Andel$()n, Minn. Reg. No. 21753 or
GregO!)' R. Prasch. Minn. Reg. No. 24992
File Name
0g-11- t?fb1 02972inv75977.dwg
.
.
.
07-04-08
.
1800 Spring Valley Circle
David & Katherine Gooley,
Applicants
.
.
.
.
Planning
763-593-8095/ 763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
April 10, 2007
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
Teresa Murphy, Planning Intern
1800 Spring Valley Circle
David & Katherine Gooley, Applicants
To:
From:
Subject:
David and Katherine Gooley are the owners of the property located at 1800 Spring Valley
Circle. The owners are proposing an 8ft. by 10ft. open front entry porch addition on the north
side of the existing house. The Zoning Code allows for open front porches to encroach into the
front setback to within 30 ft. of the property line. This new addition would encroach 4 ft. into the
setback for open front porches.
According to the applicant's submittal, the hardship with this property is that there is a problem
with water entering the basement through the front steps which are located over an old well. A
new front entry porch combined with adjusted landscaping would eliminate this problem. The
variance request is to allow for the construction of a new front entry porch.
The proposed project requires the following variances from City Code:
Section 11.21, Subd. 1 0(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements. The Zoning Code states
that front yard setbacks in the R-1 Zoning District have a required minimum front setback of 35
feet from any front property line along a street right-of-way line. However, open front porches,
with no screens, may be built to within 30 feet of a front property line along a street right-of-
way line. The variance request is for 4 ft. off the required 30 ft. setback for open front porches
to a distance of 26 ft. at its closest point to the front (north) property line to allow for the
construction of a new front entry porch.
No previous zoning variance requests were found for this property.
t8U
III
I
~
~
~
185S
18:a IBM
III
I
~
1itl.9 S 1820
~
:um
181S 1itl.6
1801
1itl.1
1au
1830
1itl.1
1itl.6
1800
1800 Spring Valley Circle I
1B15
1190
1801S
1804
1itl.1
I
;;
i
1101
1640
1801
1644
1601
:!.8
, 14"
j.Nf cttO~ ",ve.
SJI< "
, s.uNT~ C1R
28
~
1659
1649
28
16M
M~(::1~'A~&IA,'(.<t4S' t:~\ttt::C~ ~GiS~
(!
~~1
.
DA'TE ::>. z ~. c,'7
o = I RON MONUMENT fblJ/'IO
-a-. "'Ob\> ~''''~~ V~-.lc.lt.
~: CKk...( 1..'''(", ~~(.1G
(~)... \1~\ t>\~,AN~
(~1"'" MeP\?\J~lSo ",
~ t;)O' "J:../ W 1
0\.t1 '1-(' R~ ~ '" ,..I(.E Jl
/"
.Lo~ \.0 I C:{c.l~~"- )))>,"'1'" c.""', '. 'li:;.:.L-:..J>G~'~ c..()U....L~;l1 ~,...!'"'C!.~~~.
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEt
(MEASUREMENTS SHOWN IN FEET AND DECIMALS, OF A FOOTJ
C:z. 0 C:1 L...I::: ~ .
c::l KURTH SURVEYING. INC.
HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY. PLAN OR REPORT 4002 JEFfERSON ST. N.r.
WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT UPERVISION COLUMBIA h[~TS, MN 55421
AND THAT I AM A DULY L1CENS lAND SU EYOR UNDER PHONE (763) 788-9769 FAX (763) 788-7602
WS OF THE STAr OF NNE . E-MAIL: KURTHSURVEYOAOL.COM
Randy L. Kurth. L.L.S. No. 2027
Russel I J. Kurth. L.L.S. No. 16113
S V~J >J.Q
YA....Ll.1(.~
C \~c..k~
eD ,0 --
<I Q.. - y-
o!> a: V-- '"
1'.,. ,. '\i,'",-"'"
~ ~\;
,
. I
f""'l
J
......
}J.
.
~'//.._.
-// /. " "
:;;//\1
,,,:~~ - ... / / ""-0
.3 \(I.
.;...
>'i-)~CO
. . ~
~l-..\:~ .S,.o~...('~'C..~
JJ
1-
l?lbJ
tJ.'r
~j)
<J,tJ
U
~
?)
,I
\\
",
Y'
'(J
"
vN
I
!t
~
o
IG
N
I
I
({J
~
r-'
(f'
;
i
~.
""'jT1,
1J
.J
~
>
&;,C:'"'5 .
d
'1.
)2
)-
'"
90"
:hI) 38 I
I'S'~1
~/
-o,.p 'III I~ FE:r<<.E
q..
(r,P'
",\.i
,P
.(
.'
(),; --
--
\00,00- -
~I A... .-:) r::a 7 "".1
o
I
eo
I
.
.
SCALE IN FEET
....._~
-
f
1
\~.C>
r;;,&
~..::::..J
~~
~""
'" (j::)
cO-
--
-
.
I \
'-- ,
"
\
fr:.<I-o
I. o~
1,,~ ,.~..J.
o. c:. v
..-: /, ,,,",,
"7 ~
I
)I
/1 \...
\... /
'''1
\~'''5
I
<::...'-~
~"7-~;\ ~l(.Wlt:ol6o'tli.!t
City of Golden Valley
Soard of Zoning Appeals (SZA)
Zoning Code Variance Application
1. Street address of property involved in this application:
/JJ)O )(JR(tJCr-
Address
KI\ TIfe.gJJJ [ GOo ( _t.(
'IALlt;f CllCCLt:
2.
Applicant: l!AvJ-o ~
Name
Business Phone
7/'-1
orne Phone
toLOFAI VA('(~ "'flv 55l./22
City/State ip
~ 52
C I Phone
-
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.
f&!l{f EAlfI\Y PDRTACO "" <f I){ 1~, EAlC~.r)A.LH 4" /Iff(} F/(()Ilf(
YARD ~T&A(It')"
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.
f/4&Lllll'.? ~ )/~.P FA/{~ IfJf.r -rHt- RASl?M€JIf Thtl){)IrJ.! FRIJ.Arr 'Sft:"JD 0 II~ IL T#C
6LD WELL ( IF "VE RUll.O 4, FR/Hrr pOP"TA(O ~ND AD"J"lJJf" t1'V()SV1fIN6-
ro .R/:;.~tDY (HIS p!?()Rtt;M,
5. To the best of my knowledge the statements found in this application are true and correct. I also
understand that unless construction of the action applicable to this variance request, if granted,
is not taken within one year, the variance expires.
6. If the applicant is not the owner of all property involved in this application, please name the
owner of this property:
Variance Application Submi
DAvlO M Q-oo (f:(
Print Name of owner
The following information must be submitted by the application d to make a complete
application. If an application is incomplete, it will not be accepted:
Completed application form, including signatures of surrounding property owners.
A current or usable survey of the property must be attached. See the handout on survey
requirements.
A brief statement of the hardship which provide grounds for the granting of this variance (see
Frequently Asked Questions for an explanation of a "hardship"). Attach letter, photographs, or
other evidence, if appropriate.
You may submit detailed description of building(s), addition(s), and alteration(s) involved in this
project. The site plans and drawings submitted with this application will be the basis of any
variance that may be approved and cannot be changed before or after the building permit is
issued.
Variance application fee, as follows: $125 - single family residential; $225 - other
Signatures of Surrounding Property Owners
Note to the variance applicant:
As part of the varignce application process, you will need to attempt to obtain the signatures of all
surrounding property owners. This includes all properties abutting the applicant's property and directly
across the street. If on a corner, this means across both streets.
To obtain these signatures, you will need to personally visit each of these property owners, tell them
about your project (we encourage you to bring along a copy of your building plans) and have them
sign the area, below. The signature is meant only to verify that you have told them about your
project and gives them opportunity to comment.
If you have attempted to contact a property owner on two separate occasions and not found them at
home, you may simply write something to the effect "made two attempts, owner not home" and then
write their address. City staff will also send a written notice informing these property owners of the
time and place of the BZA meeting.
Note to surrounding property owners:
This is an application by your neighbor for a variance from the City Zoning Code. Please be aware of
any possible effect the granting of this variance could have on your property. You will also be
receiving a written notice informing you of the time and place of the variance meeting.
I ~~
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
tatements regarding the project.
Print Name b<6-~\J ~9-l ~~ e. ~~
Comment ~ \.~--
Signature ~/.-..L ~4 Addresslli s:.OQ..\"'~ d,,\\lOy ~
Print Name -~D f~L ~~\'~
:::::: -W)~~ Address~ ~/P-O)&~<LE't Crt.,
Print Name ?e(jR.J~E""" W~5S-'N
Comment
",'
Signature
(KfJ:iINer;S 'R.IP')
rintName TE^'.MIr:~R t ~-R.I( LEMPU~
'-/1>11 6-ot()&N' V4~
Address MAtJ 'SP/2'
Comment
,
I
Address 5PP\N~ \MtLCl...c.\~Cl ~
Signature
(V,..CAiIO "i,
Print Name JOJ./A' f+AtAJ!jA/\1
Comment
Signature
( "'ar AI/IrIl..A.f1OC)
Address
sfRyJ.) VM1f:-1 ~"\1L
Print Name
Comment
Signature
Address
Print Name
Comment
Signature
Address
\", i
t
, ~
\\
'''r-- '/'
f !
4'
c:'
t'~
~'~
t
I
!
\
\
1 :~
\ ' ..
~-
~"-""~-r . .~[-
"...,.""~,..t..'4 i
-, I
0' l
r' ':.!
0.
~~
rM
"'';'.
5
"l\ _
~
~
-....~;...;..,~. -"~'--;'.
\ ..r.
\\\ i?
\
\
,
\
----
"""-.... .".",..... li' ,__.,.,,_._.._,.___... : ': '.._.'''_
~,~..~.~-J'-r-' ~
I ~..
l t<.: ~
I r.:jlf
1
~
I
I
A
I
i
i
f
I
1
l
!
\
\
I
.J
I ,
---:t I
,.
I
Ql)
"t".)
f>
iI\,
~.lr
\'"
; i
)' i
. ...". :
/
'\
\
'\ ;i
I;
Ii
\ t
\~.!,i."
,I;
I'
i
i
.
,
I
\.
->/
{
J
I
!
j
\
-',. .... ~,.
1
1
~ _.j~ ~
~
I
;
ii
t
(
I
~
11
~
)
'f.
"
j
!
~ .
-i- -
~
'0
~
~
I
~
;
~.
~
I c.r;'-
VI.:..
o
'F\
~-_.~ 0.. '--"
~--- .:-~~::;;;;;-~~.~
.'
C
\ ! . ...-
<II!. .J.,.I~.,..._~
~'l'~ t
,
oCl---.
~
1+.
V,:_
I';'.,
j' .
if
i
I
M.
>.
\.L
!
~
\
i
I
~
--'- '\. .
"
""\..
.....
"
.,"-,
"
",
'\'\
-""![
. ~',
i
\..~
",
\
~,
'\,
\.!
......t
..__.._-.-~,. .
..J;;.
~
.'
/
."
f '\
I
I '~
If-;
I r'
>< .
. ~1-.- / /
_ J::'",0'::'","""'=/
I I,
_''l',,_~Ji'!IP._
/
,/
/
l
/
/
\ "'......,.....
".
""\ /
"'..1'/.
*
#
"
~('
,/
.
.
.
.
.
.
07 -04-09
1613 Independence Ave. N.
.
Thomas Menard, Applicant
.
W" 1)111 A lff! t(
1716 1717
17U
1713
1109
U04 11l)$
17Ol'1 1101
,,, f4APEtt S1'
:::
l'tl
I 1628
i 1&4
~ 1m
:2
i
I
11613 Independence Ave.N. Ii
jO
Ii
:2
<1)
M~~w:ftNeUS"~tC,t.OO'lSOO~ (
.
1616
HUll',
1604
94SO
d'
.~' I
1629
1621
1621 i
i1
11117 8
i
..
UI09
16llS
1601
1532 9405
1628
tQO
1516
1512
1524
1529
1S21
1517
1513
im
W2
1628
1&4
1QU
1616
1612
1_
NAPErt Sf
Dl$
1&4
106
1m
1630
1m
ttI2S
1621
I
~
z
1616
1620
1617
ItW:
16U
UI09
9200
lflOS
1604
1a
1604
1600
1601
Ot. YMPIA $I'
1532
1524
1S2D
1516
1512
I / ,
L-~ 7-"' / 2.
--
/' .....I-'-~
-.<., I /
II F/?.4n-> e-
~A;t!4<::4E
20
, '
'1c7,i )( "
kP,/I>/7
I-.s-r-
#t?~5G
2.'1
~
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
FOR: Tom Menard
1613 Independence Ave. N
Golden Valley, MN 55527
X9CJ#.Z.
-:---
. . ".. '~'''''''''' .
": :, $n,l-~/7;'/4P 4--..$'
'-II! - IllZ'! -586"ZP'tP'IC!
I ~
v
K'1P5:7-
." T'_"
/d)f/~'':E!2
.4 !:: ::,r/.
I J
LO r /2
., \ .
\~J
\
\.JJ'~
\,1 C.
/,.7 AiD
'J,
"""
,,~,
/ ,. J
/,.- ,
-'.' //
"
I
L$
/0:), / ~ " ~
~/V-= 5'n:JJt!:.y \q
. ,
F.Qr.;th"..ai, #.fI'~.$~
3~
\
~
~
~
1
~
'"
'"
,~;r
.. ,
~.r:.'2:
".3
f}()~sr1.; .....L..-;:..
lido', TV;',
IL () t 5' (
_ARe"; ;:~, ~S~,pFI"
x. <ipc. r.
~~V~k(;./";:'~_ _
7/~9G.#.. R.rzr.4,,v,,;./t;. ~'?.!./_
x '\,
7",.. a '~'... l' '.
'.....l.t r;IT:;.....,..../ n:::-~;;
.....
......
'\
~rJ I",/~ t.<)~J..'C-1 .
,
~1f)J: C!.:;.~ ~~7:''''..::':1/ 0.-- ~-~:.....t
24 .
I~ - ~~
. I ~ -=-
i . i -/37..22- '0 ~
rr -;- 8M"",, PF"'"",,,..--/ - ~.c' ~~?P' <'9"0 =-r 9'/, ,
, -' ,,-L / f ~
'-_ , . I. _ ..
" c. -:: ~. 7 ~ 9~<".o
1- 5 -,c
/o.Iv~ ,j,.-:: ./'
#O,/bOJ" ,
Legal Description:
Lot 5, Block 13, "LAKEVIEWHEIGHTS"
HENNEPIN'COUNTY MINNESOTA
including adjacent one half of vacated alley.
Scale: 1" = 20'
o Denotes iron monument
xooO.o = Existing elevation
Bearings are assumed
I
~
i\:.
-...:
\J
I ,
9~i. 7" k'1.5>_-'
-/1
I
-I
=-- "
~e-s-.~S'
"
I
y~o7~ /7
.::.7;
).
~
'S..
~..
-...
'.
l'..)
~, ~
",::~,d'p 7-&,
"
~
~
~\
'S
1.:'
~I
~.'~
~
....
.~l
~
x
.,,,t.,tJ(.
,
-....
'"
~
jl
II
,I
:;
~
:'r)
\.
::)'
.t:0
\..-)
<i:> 'i 'S;:
CIJ.e.~
J.,;-H;
:-
25
Benchmark: TNH, SW, Olympia St. @ Independence Ave. K
N.G.V.D. 1929 adjusted elevation::;:: 901.95 feet.
I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under
my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land
Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
Surveyed by me thisi' day of August, 2005,
.
d~ a,L~
Herb F. Lemire RLS
Minnesota Reg. No. 13349
4416 Abbott Ave. N
Robb~e.~422
Phone: 763.537_7
.
.
.
Planning
763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
April 10, 2007
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
Teresa Murphy, Planning Intern
1613 Independence Ave N
Thomas Menard, Applicant
To:
From:
Subject:
Thomas Menard is the owner of the property located at 1613 I ndependence Ave N. He is
proposing a second story addition on the existing house. This new addition would encroach 2.1
ft. into the side yard setback on the north side, .5 ft into the rear yard setback for cornices and
eaves, and 18.46 ft. into the rear yard setback on the west side.
According to the applicant's submittal, the hardship with this property is that a variance was
granted in September, 2005 to expand the house 4 ft. by 36 ft. on the south side and 4 ft. by 8
ft. on the north side. The owners would now like to add a second story addition on top of the
previously approved, expanded house.
The proposed project requires the following variances from City Code:
Section 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(3) Side Yard Setback Requirements. The Zoning Code states
that front yard setbacks in the R-1 Zoning District in the case of lots having a width of 65 feet
or less, the North or West side yard setback shall be 10 percent of the lot width, and the South
or East side yard setback shall be 20 percent of the lot width (up to 12.5 feet). This property
has a lot width of 61 ft. The variance request is for 2.1 ft. off the required 6.1 ft. setback to a
distance of 4 ft. at its closest point to the side (north) property line to allow for the construction
of a second story addition.
Section 11.21, Subd. 10(0) Cornices and Eaves. The Zoning Code states that cornices and
eaves in the R-1 Zoning District may not project more than 30 inches into a required setback.
The variance request is for .5 ft. (6 inches) off the required 3.6 ft. to a distance of 3 ft. at its
closest point to the rear yard (west) property line to allow for the construction of a second story
addition.
Section 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(2) Rear Yard Setback Requirements. The Zoning Code states
that rear yard setbacks in the R-1 Zoning District must be 20 percent of the lot depth. The
depth of this property is 137.23 ft. The variance request is for 18.46 ft. off the required 27.46 ft.
to a distance of 9 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard (west) property line to allow for the
construction of a second story addition.
.
.
.
P\ previous zoning variance request was granted for this property to allow for the expansion
of the house to its current dimensions and to allow for the construction of a new garage. The
following six variance requests were granted on September 27, 2005:
Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(1) Accessory Structure Location. City Code states a
detached accessory structure shall be located completely to the rear of the principal
structure, unless it is built with frost footings. In that case, an accessory structure may be
built no closer to the front setback as the principal structure. If an addition is built on to an
existing principal structure that would create a situation where an existing garage or
accessory structure would not be completely to the rear of the addition to the principal
structure, the addition to the principal structure may be built and the existing garage or
accessory structure may remain and be considered conforming as long as there is at least 10
feet of separation between the existing principal structure with the addition and the existing
garage or accessory structure. Additions may be made to the existing garage or accessory
structure as long as the 10 feet of separation can be met. The requested variance is because
the proposed garage would not be located wholly to the rear of the principal structure as
required.
Section 11.21, Subd. 10 (A)(3)(c) Side Yard Setback. City Code states that in the case of
lots having a width of 65 feet or less, the North or West side yard setback shall be 10 percent
of the lot width, and the South or East side yard setback shall be 20 percent of the lot width
(up to 12.5 feet). The requested variance is for 2.1 ft. off the required 6.1 ft. to a distance of 4
ft. at its closest point to the north yard side property line.
Section 11.21, Subd. 10 (0) Cornices and Eaves. City Code states that cornices and
eaves may not project more than 30 inches into a required setback. The requested variance
is for .5 ft. off the required 3.6 ft. to a distance of 3 ft. at its closest point to the side property
line.
Section 11.21, Subd. 10 (A)(2) Rear Yard Setback. City Code states the required rear yard
setback shall be 20 percent ofthe lot depth. The requested variance is for 17.46 ft. off the
required 27.46 ft. to a distance of 10ft. at its closest point to the west yard (rear) property
line.
Section 11.21, Subd. 10 (A)(3)(c) Rear Yard Setback. City Code states the required rear
setback shall be 20 percent of the lot depth. The requested variance is for 18.46 ft. off the
required 27.46 ft. to a distance of 9 ft. at its closest point to the west yard (rear) property line.
Section 11.21, Subd. 10(C) Structure Width Requirements. City Code states No principal
structure shall be less than 22 feet in width as measured from the exterior of the exterior
walls. The requested variance is for 2 ft. off the required 22 ft. to a width of 20 ft. to bring the
existing home into conformance.
A building permit was issued for footings for future additions on the north side (4 ft. by 8 ft.)
and south side (4 ft. by 36 ft.) of the house.
City of Golden Valley
Board of Zoning Appeals {BZA}
Zoning Code Variance Application
1.
Street address of property involved in this application:
I t.n 13 TN !YffPGIJ ()E'Ai c&;-'.
Applicant: - J HO MI) S M eN I+Il.. [)
Name
/Jv
AI
2.
/0 J ?J
Address
, &V
-CiJ DerPGtJ f)/ZAJ Ce: 4v AI 55'1 za
City/State/Zip
Business Phone
7"'~ ~4~- J83~
Home Phone
<prz,)418-/53t-/
Cell Phone
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.
f} D J) oJ (P II 2 f\!P ::::ffO R-'( /) D D f 77 0 ,J
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.
If V A I'Ll It tJ (JS Wits, 6t2t) Ai 775t:J I,.J 5(/Yr' '6 5
-ro iE.xPIrND HOUS.6 Lf' II 3C,' OIJ S StO~ 4Nf) '-1''1 8 I
o V N 5 I (D~. ~-E: /J D DI T IOkJ WILl.. 1315 01J "70 P of --rrt I ~
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.
~~
Signature of Applicant
. 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
tatements regarding the project.
rilltName ~~ A~{ K lA /VdO
Comment 1"/ '.s ~()L t0~ ^~ _~ H~dL r
Signature 91~f6Qn..~2 Address l~lllMjf>flk}pflJ I
Print Name -==v 0 Y <T- !<o-l, .J11 oY'U.. V
Comment
Signature JI;. ~ f11 ~dress lG (jrT~-v<J>tfJQvo..[jfA{~lif,
~-'
Print Name
Comment
Signature
rint Name
Comment
Signature
Print Name
Comment
Signature
\
Address
/)/
/<~~r-l-
,
C' ,I
'j r ec.--f- r;)~ Ct .
/?r-e v/~
'"
M.
'l- Oef\lt/~ ~
~. l-
t- v e.
I
;. f- c;t~- .
I to e)l( L-/ve.~h-~'f?
/-4.[1"'/ t.{~
f
ktJ- //}1, (?-n
f
;;1 l. iJ fu tIr.. '"'
LoOk) 600J
~./ --"
r-
Address
Address /6b8 fl1'I1Je/;J.,L~ /J.l v--1,u
Print Name -1 t ur (}a..,.-fe-r
Comment
Signature ~,tJ~
Print Name
omment
Signature
Address It I L n~rcLdss ([-Ill s a'-L
.
"....~ .
L i.-Tjo.J~ IA L :f"
: ~ ~ 6\J( 0 "
Address \,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
.
~
!~
if
7"-0"
36' -o~ VF'f,
2F-O'"
ElCIstI<C 12".,6" ..L.LJ... PROPOSED FlOOR NJ1JVE~ EXlSIING 12"x16" .
CONCRElEPIER r-;t"":"t-r" _ _,-, " _ ._.CONCRErE PIERi- - ... ,
r~~~--+~~-----~~._--------~----~----- .M----~--r ~----------l
I - I~I ',_ I I
I 1.._.____..1.._ 1..-- __.I I
, '
I NEW WINDOWS I
l lNEXISTlNo I
I OPENINGS I
,
~
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
'--.;.....:....;....._--
EXlSIING 12" FOUNDA1IOIl
= FOO11NGS AU.
EXlSIING 12"x12"
CONCREIE PIER
f'llOI1N(l SEE
S11WCI'URAI: ,.____,
---------4=tm~
'-_+_.J
~.....'
~
EXST.
PtlOI'OSED FlOOR
AIlDVE
NEW WAU.S IZiZ!ZIa
8'-0'
(D" ~~. LOWER u:vEL FLOOR PLAN
HARDY SHAKE
..,.t-
HARDY HORIZONTAL
SIDING
. FUTURE CEDAR DECK
W/2x4 TREATED POSTS
AND 24)(24)(42
FOOTINGS
"';, ~ ::''::>.+?>' '
, " MARVIN, 3'-0. FULL
r4l ~FRONTELEVATION GLASS FRONT DOOR
6' -SS"
(iJ ~~ MAIN LEVa FLOOR ~ _. 0 ~ ROOF PLAN
-I.. 12'-1 ~ FUTUR1! DECK NOTE: '
AU. FRAIlING lIA1ERIAL 10
BE 1R(AlED USE 2Xl0
AND _ POSIS,
APPROIIED HANGERS, SI&"
CEDAR DECK BOARDS, 1.S' fO"
RAlUNG SPINDLES 4' OR
LESS,.._ AND r----
~:':"~ 10
J
~
?
~I i;
~
, NEW WALLS IZiZ!ZIa
ASPHALT SHINGLE
HIP SET TO RETURN
TOP OF DECK
"COND I.&C
~
....
-'
en
TOP OF DECK
MAIN lEVEl.
. 4'-4' r
32"
:ilt
BEDROOM
6'-"""
2,_,^,,J;;iH-
cpt """ .
2'-616"t1i
'12
11
,
,
I
,
9'-9"
I ,
, ,
!REF J
i I
, I
-
II
I
,
,
I
,
,
*
j
;..
~----~
:r;T;'l1
~
PELlA ~ PELlA
2147 CASEIlENT _, FIXED 2147 CASEIIENT
3-5x9 . L\\. 9'-1"
8'-0' ADDIIION
;....,...,
DOUBLC2icl0 RIll
/
i.
,
~
--""
2xl0 .,2' D.C.
DECK
i ,Ia.
1m,
I ~ ~~-
I' 'JJL.'
I III
I 1111
I III
I III
II 1110
In _ ---=:lro.
III .II 2xl0 .,2" 0.0.
IIlQ
III~
IIIR
III
III
III
I: ,....Wt..,
r.7~ ;
Ii ....~~" OOUSLE 2x10 AtM
~
?
'"
lr
".
:~,,*I=-==
~
@:
~~ l!IRiNGals
; "
-
-\fl
Nv
I.
~
j
(5)5 MAIN LEVEL RTfURE DECK
.. 1/4-.. 1'-0-
SHOWER
;--rDROP CElUNG
I I AT 8AlliROOU
I
,
I
:i
, ,
,;..
,
I
I
"
I
o INTERIc;>R ELEVATION
1IlRD1III1_111lL
if
~;..
~'~
,1IlRD1III1_11_U/lIllllll'
UNE OF I/AIN LEVEL WALLS
=========~~------
,
,
c
115
.. iI
~8
~1i
~1!
.. :s
~
HAND FA
HIP 10
17
~
I!
l:!.
;
lil
!
I
]
, i I
: : i ~J'~
: I : ';;;- iE
I Q I ~
: ! : i
, I
1 I
I : :: :
I -~-O!~~I!~-,!.~,.!t--- - --- -..- --r-----'~-- - - - ---- - - - t -.- --- -- - - ---
I I I I
-~~-~L---i------------t-----~-----------~+--------
I I I I
I I I I
~!
.. I '
~Ji
'"
9'-llli"
.j
c,
.~
,
'"
,'I
, ,
, ,
------.---------------(" :
, I I
" ,
" ,
" ,
II I
" ,
" ,
" ,
" I
I' ,
".
'I
"
"
II
I': :"
, I
I ,
I' ,
, I
, ,
, 1
" ,
I ( I
II I
I.I~ I
II..... I
'fI I
I lio I
" ,
" ,
" ,
" ,
" ,
II I
,
~ ~~: ~:~~:~ ~:::::::;;;::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::: ~ j!J :
AND KNEE WALLS AT' ~ ' ,
I SECOND FlOOR . :
L---c-------------------------------------------------___~__~~~"_______~_______J
(6J ~ SECOND LEVB. PLAN
r1::::::::::::::::!t"
r -,-- --.-;;:;...:=.........""'r-'
J ,'r--., r--..,It II
L_.J~____u.._ J :L_.J:
I I ~ I I
I I .', I I
'~ "'__11 I
I . I I
, "
: MASTER : :
, SUITE ' ,
t I L_______._
c=========
HALL
BEDROOM
-:::.
7'-m"
'-7-._ '3'-0.
l
..
fa
i
~========:::a
, '
I QUEEN I
, '
, '
, '
1It--, I
I' t I
: r'.\o-l... :
r-'j I Tr.,.--rt_
I ItL_-.:.JL~~.Jf 1
I
,
,
I
,
,
,
,
,
iB
I
".
3'1-0'
-
JAClJ2ZI
lUB
DN
'5R'
..------
I
J
--
, ...
~ CONSTRucnON DOOJMENTS FLOR IW4S, ROOF
Cl COMII, NO. PLAN,'EXTERlORAND
6 '
~ . .' SCALE AS SHOWN INTERIOR ELEVATION!
. DAlE APRIL 2. 2007 '
.."",....'I'^... U'l'~"V_"I"LIT~ ~el:'l" 'DRAWN MATT RAIN ~
TOM MENARD RESIDENCE
1613 IN DEPENDANCE AVE
GOLDEN VALLEY MINNESOTA