The URL can be used to link to this page

09-25-07 BZA Agenda . e e Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, September 25,2007 7pm 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers I. Approval of Minutes - August 28, 2007 II. The Petitions are: 2936 Kyle Avenue North (07-09-28) Carol Barry, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 1 O(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements . 14 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 21 ft. at its closest. point to the front yard (west) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of an addition onto the front of the home. 603 Parkview Terrace (07-09-29) Houston White, Applicant Request: Interpretation of Chapter 11.03, Definition Number 12 regarding building height for the property at 603 Parkview Terrace. III. Other Business IV. Adjournment . . . Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August28,2007 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Boudreau-Landis called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Members, Boudreau-Landis, Hughes, Morrissey, S Commission Representative McCarty. Also present were Director of Development Mark Grimes, Planning Intern Joe Hogeboom and A Lisa Wittman. Member Nederveld was absent. istant I. Approval of Minutes - July 24, 2007 MOVED by Sell, seconded by Morrissey and motion July 24, 2007 minutes as submitted. II. The Petitions are: 5111 Olson Memorial High Robert & Janice McCab Request: n 11.21, Subd.10(A)(1) Front Yard Setback e required 35 ft. to a distance of 23 ft. at its closest e front yard (north) property line. w for the construction of a front entry addition rvey of the property and stated that the applicant is proposing try a ition that would encroach into the front setback area. He stated oted by the applicant are that is it difficult for his elderly parents to get house and due to the reconstruction of the Highway 100 and Highway 55 ortion of the applicant's front yard was taken by MnDOT for the frontage ge sound wall. McCarty asked if the current house meets setback requirements. Hogeboom said yes. Grimes asked about the location of the previous front yard property line. Hogeboom said he didn't know the location of the previous front yard property line. McCarty said he didn't think the property line would have mov~d, but thatthe location of the street moved. Sell said he thought that MnDOT did take some of the applicant's property for the frontage road. Grimes noted that even after the taking, there was still a full 35 foot front setback in the front yard. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 28, 2007 Page 2 . Bob McCabe, Applicant, explained that the front property line used to go all the way to Highway 100, and that MnDOT did take part of his property to construct the frontage road. He stated that their front steps were crumbling and dangerous so he took them out. He then realized that there were no footings under the steps. He stated that instead of having steps on the outside of the house he wants them on the inside, away from the weather. He added that his proposed new front entry/stairs will not protrude into the front yard as much as the old stairs did. Sell stated that it would be diffi said he is in favor of the pro smaller than the steps th t yard property line. nd the proposed new McCarty asked if the applicant would need a variance to replace his exis . same location. Grimes said that he would be allowed to build 25 squar: and/or landings into a setback area. He added that the Zoning Code to replace or maintain existing non-conformities in the same loca . Boudreau-Landis asked the applicant if he would be oppos rather than enclosed steps, back in the same location. McC be enclosed for safety and it would allow them wheelc ir ac Hughes asked how far the existing stairs were 10 Sell noted that the existing stairs went 17 feet 0 addition would go 12 feet out from the house. . Boudreau-Landis opened the public h comment, Bourdreau-Landis closed th aring no one wishing to even see the entry being proposed. He e it wi make the home accessible and it will be viously. McCarty said that the nei addition. Sell said t house directly t the this one. own the street would be able to see the proposed of isolated. Boudreau-Landis said it appears that the rtion of their house closer to the front property line than Hughes s sal is a sensible solution. It is not an intrusion and it would be safer t . McCarty said he's not sure that not having exposed stairs is tr a ha asked the applicant if the stairs had not been deteriorating if he would sti prop s same entry addition. McCabe said yes. He said his parents are 87 year knows they are going to be living with them. He said there is no way he can get ents up those stairs. He discussed the various requirements in the IRC and the IBC building codes regarding the height of steps. He added that the proposed addition will look nice and will fit in with the existing house and the neighborhood and it will bring the house into compliance with the building code. He said he could build the steps on the outside and punch a hole in the wall to get access but he would still have the exposed . stairs and the safety issues. ;1. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 28, 2007 Page 3 . MOVED by Sell, seconded by Hughes and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve the following variance request. McCarty voted no. . 12 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 23 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (north) property line 1801 Independence Avenue North (07-08-24) Sandra Gunderson, Applicant Hogeboom referred to a to construct a main or c encroach into the si applicant is th would allow m Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd.10(A)(3)(c Requirements . 2 ft. off the required 6 ft. to a distan the side yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of . Request: Waiver from Section Requirements )(3)(c) Side Yard Setback 'stance of 4 ft. at its closest point to erty line. Purpose: truction of a second story addition erty and stated that the applicant is proposing dition and a second story addition both of which would setback area. He stated that the hardship noted by the is a small 2-bedroom home and adding this addition Iving space. received variances in 2002 to bring the existing house into sk about the need to grant side yard setback variances again. d that the variances granted in 2002 were for the existing conditions at y new construction has to meet setback requirements. Todd Kn , Bruce Knutson Architects, Architect for the project, stated that the first variance request would allow an existing closet to be extended in order to create a more usable closet space and the second story addition will use the existing footprint of house. . Grimes stated that eaves and overhangs are allowed to go 30 inches into a setback area. He asked if the eaves on the proposed second story addition would meet thes.e setback requirements. Knutson said yes. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 28, 2007 Page 4 Hughes asked about the square footage of the existing house. Knutson said he didn't calculate the existing square footage but it is probably less than 1,000 square feet. Boudreau-Landis opened the public hearing. Eric Johnson, 1720 Independence Ave. N., asked if neighboring properties are affected when variances are approved. Boudreau-Landis explained that a variance affects only the property receiving the variance. Hearing and seeing no one else wishing to comment, Boudreau-Landi hearing. Boudreau-Landis said he doesn't see a hardship in this case, issues with the proposed additions because the footprint of same. Hughes said he thinks a 900 square foot home is a h property and for livability. He added that the prop support granting the variance requests. selling the ot intrusive so he would McCarty said it is also a small lot and a . variances. probably wouldn't need MOVED by Morrissey, seconded following variance requests: arried unanimously to approve the . 2 ft. off the required (north) property tin e of 4 ft. at its closest point to the side yard onstruction of a main floor closet addition distance of 4 ft. at its closest point to the side yard r the construction of a second story addition Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements . 17.62 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 17.38 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage addition Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and stated that the applicant is proposing to construct a garage addition on to the front of his existing garage. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 28, 2007 Page 5 He stated that the hardship noted by the applicant is the fact that his existing garage is only a one-stall garage. Hughes asked about the plans for the existing garage. Grimes stated that the applicant is proposing to keep the existing garage and construct another garage stall in front of it, creating a tandem garage. David Zinn, Applicant, explained that he is proposing to build a 16 foot deep by 12 foot wide tandem garage addition in front of his existing one stall garage. He d that there has been an increase in vandalism in the area and he wants to be abl oth of his cars in a garage. He referred to several houses in his neighborhooq ived variances in order to build in the front yard setback area and sho d' es of the houses he referred to. He explained that the hardship with s approximately 10 feet from the front yard to the back yard. g an additional garage stall to the side of the existing garage, or i ather than the front as he is proposing, would not be keeping withl9.,the ighborhood and he doesn't think that his neighbor to the north woul'l!;' dri so close to their house. He showed pictures of his house and reit p-off in the back yard is a hardship. McCarty asked the applicant if he would existing home. Zinn said he didn't thin close to their property in order to get t in the back yard would also caus plow snow in the winter time. arage to the rear of the want him driving his car so back yard. He added that building very steep and it would be difficult to Sell agreed that the back to do a lot of stabilizatio most of the back yard. H would be a good al and wet. He said that the applicant would have b a garage in the back yard and it would take up didn't hink that building a garage in the back yard e proposed deck shown on the survey. Zinn stated that along the front of his house a few years ago and that the City it, so he stopped. He said he does want to finish building the uld be added to his requested variances. Boudreau-Landis en front porch/deck could be built to within 30 feet of the front yard the need for a variance. Zinn referred to pictures of the unfinished it would be a floating deck and would go approximately 10 feet into the front ya ck area. Sell said he thought the Board should just address the proposed garage at this meeting. Boudreau-Landis opened the public hearing. Donald Roehl, 3333 Kyle Avenue North,stated that he does not want this proposed garage to be built because it would block his view to the south. He stated that all of the houses on their side of the street line up. The pictures the applicant was referring to earlier that showed houses with front yard additions were on the other side of the street where . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 28,2007 Page 6 they have a steeper slope in their back yards. He said he is also concerned about how the value of his property will be affected if the proposed new garage is blocking his view to the south. He stated that he is also concerned about completion of work done on the applicant's property. He showed the Board pictures of the applicant's property and stated that the applicant has had a green snow fence and a ladder sitting outside on his property for two years. He stated that the applicant had a cement driveway installed and then removed so now it is just a dirt driveway and that a brick planter on the front of the house was taken out and never replaced. He said that the neighborhood has higher expectations for this property and he hopes the Board does not allow this proposed g addition to protrude into the front yard. McCarty asked Roehl if he would be opposed to the applicant bu' garage addition next to his existing garage or in his back yard. because he doesn't know how close the garage would be t that Mr. Roehl's garage is currently 4.6 feet away from the p could build a garage addition that would be located 5 fi~t aw line. Roehl said he would not want the applicant to bui'la,t' and he doesn't think the grade would be conduci 't sure s noted pplicant me property to bedroom window rage in the back yard. Dave Nesbitt, 3325 Kyle Avenue North, stated t presented. He said that he just finished a toward the front, but was told by the Ci the pictures the applicant referred to e so they had to build toward the fr and this is why the City has set t his house with the setbacks me which he wanted to build e stated that the properties in ch steeper slope in their back yards bors want nice, open front yards Pat Nesbitt, 3325 Kyle Av the block. She reiterate proposed garage addition her main concerns ted, that currently she can see all the way down en ~n increase in crime in the area and that this lock her ability to see clearly down the street. She said aesthetics. orth, stated that he received a variance to build an tback area because of a 25-foot drop in his backyard. He said n't affect him as much as it does some of the other neighbors estroyed, but he is concerned about his property value being he is also concerned about some of the applicant's projects that have ve not been finished. Morriss this proposal is challenging because the Board has considered a single stall garage to be a hardship and what the applicant is proposing might be one of his best options. McCarty said he is having a hard time supporting this proposal because there are two or three other options available that would allow the applicant to build a second garage stall. Grimes stated that there are some cases where a two stall garage just won't . physically fit on a property. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of ?oning Appeals August 28,2007 Page 7 Zinn reiterated that there are several homes in the area with garages that protrude into the front yard and that he is not proposing anything new, just something that hasn't been done in awhile. Pat Nesbitt, 3325 Kyle Avenue North, said that she can not imagine another stall on the applicant's lot and that some people just have to live with a one stall garage. Sell said he thinks a car is more attractive to crime when it is left outside. Nesbitt disagreed and said they keep their cars outside so people know that they are home. Carol Sanchez, 3338 Kyle Avenue North, said that she doesn't have property at all so she doesn't feel the applicant has any hardship. Sh the proposed garage to protrude forward will block the view and going on in the neighborhood. Boudreau-Landis closed the public hearing. Zinn noted that there are properties that have large tr Boudreau-Landis said the Board is there to add not to come up with alternative options for appli does have a hardship because he has on applicant would probably have to com request if he were to build an addition garage as well. yar ariance.request and the applicant in this case McCarty noted that the ith a side yard variance the north side of his existing Hughes stated that there se can't focus on those issue imosi In the neighborhood and that the Board uldn't be a factor in their decision. MOVED by Morrisse ,se requested variance. garage. y Sell and motion carried unanimously to deny the are other locations on this lot to build a two-stall Iicant ~. , Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements . 7 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 28 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a deck addition Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 28, 2007 Page 8 . Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 1 O(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements . 10ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 25 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new front entry/stoop addition . Hughes asked about the legal basis of placin allow for future variances. Grimes said th subdivision, did approve a condition th He said the Council did not want to s variance request in the future be the Board that when the home applicants that they conside a subdivision that do not at the time of the original r future variances on this lot. rs have to come back with a Iized is was a difficult lot. He reminded e e them in 2006, they suggested to the r a de k that would require a lesser variance. Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and stated that the appli to build a deck on the northwest side of the existing home and to repl entry/stoop. He stated that the hardship noted by the applicant is t corner lot with three front yard setbacks. He noted that no varian for this property in the past, however there was a variance pe . 2006. He added that as a part of the original plat of this pro stated no future variances would granted. Grimes explained future variances was added because the City knew thO oul He added that today, the City would do a deed restric future variances instead of placing conditions of Hughes asked if 1-394 w subdivided. Grimes. aid urrent location when this property was his lot was a remnant lot. ,'itect representing the homeowner, explained that the nstruct a deck and re-build the existing entryway because this lot is extremely steep and they have shrunk the size of the possible. He noted that the proposed deck addition would be the neighbors' views and the neighborhood won't be impacted d deck. if the proposed new front entry/stoop would be the same size as the ntry/stoop. Strand said it will be very similar and will stay within the same Morrissey asked at what point this entry/stoop area becomes something other than a sidewalk. Grimes stated that the entry/stoop is connected to the house so it is part of the structure. . McCarty asked if the existing entry/stoop is considered non-conforming. Grimes said yes and noted that it was not shown on the original plans. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 28, 2007 Page 9 McCarty asked if the existing entry/stoop would also require a variance. Strand stated that the proposed new entry area will actually be smaller than the existing entry area. Sell asked Strand if he is planning to build footings underneath the proposed new entry area. Strand said yes and they will follow construction guidelines. Boudreau-Landis opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to comment, Boudreau-Landis closed the,public hearing. Sell stated that he would support these variance requests because th entry additions don't affect any neighboring properties and because t applicants to consider other options which they have done. deck and the Boudreau-Landis agreed and commended the applicant for McCarty said he thinks the Board's directions were so was to have the homeowners think of options to build variances. He said he would support replacing th inks the intent uldn't require any MOVED by Hughes, seconded by Sell and moti variance requests. McCarty voted no. o 1 to approve the following . 7 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a d' (north) property line to allow 'tA,~i#jt its closest point to the front yard tiorf of a deck addition . 10ft. off the required 3 (north) property line nce 0 25 ft. at its closest point to the front yard construction of a new front entry/stoop addition r from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(1) Front Yard Setback ements . 3.2 ft. off the required 25 ft. to a distance of 21.8 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (north) property line. To bring the existing home into conformance in order to allow for the construction of a deck Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 1 O(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 28, 2007 Page 10 . . 2.5 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 32.5 ft. at .its closest point to the front yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a deck Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and stated that the applicant is proposing to construct a deck on the back of his home. He stated that both the proposed deck and the existing house need variances. He stated that the hardships noted by the applicant are that it is a corner lot and the home was placed oddly on the lot. MOVED by Sel following varia not Sell asked if there is a need to address the existing garage on the lot located 35 feet away from the north property line. Grimes stated considered to be conforming because it was built prior to 198 John Wilson, Applicant, stated that the house was built in 19 build a deck on the back of their home and don't really nder through this process. McCarty questioned the hardship. Grimes expla' northern portion of the right-of-way on Elmdale space on the north side of this property. further south on the property the home. stre is located in the e is actually a lot of green house was located just a little uldn't need any variances. . Morrissey said she has no issue added that the applicant could wouldn't look right to do that should read 13.2 ft. off th front yard (north) prope requirement for homes b he eXisting home into conformance. She \. of the deck by a couple of feet but that it if the irFst variance request listed on the agenda . to a distance of 21.8 ft. at its closest point to the jd no because the front yard setback o 1982 is 25 feet not 35 feet. issey and rrotion carried unanimously to approve the 25 ft. to a distance of 21.8 ft. at its closest point to the front line to bring the existing home into conformance equired 35 ft. to a distance of 32.5 ft. at its closest point to the front ) property line to allow for the construction of a deck III. Other Business No other business was discussed. . IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 pm. . Hey Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) From: September 14, 2007 Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals Joe Hogeboom, Planning Intern 2936 Kyle Avenue North Carol Barry, Applicant Date: To: Subject: Carol Barry is the owner of the property located at 2936 Kyle Avenue North. Ms. Barry is proposing to construct an addition to the front of her home. The proposed addition would encroach into the front yard setback of the property. The variance request is to allow for the construction of an addition onto the front of the home. I have viewed this property and have attached photos of the site. . As detailed in Ms. Barry's Zoning Code Variance Application, the hardship with this property is that the home is located steep sloping lot, which does not permit reasonable development area in the back of the home. Ms. Barry's elderly, disabled mother also lives in the home. As such, an addition to the front of the home would allow more living space on the main level. Additionally, the interior layout of the home would more appropriately accommodate a front addition. It should also be noted that the proposed front addition will not encroach any further to the front yard (west) setback than the existing garage does. The proposed project requires variances from the following section of City Code: Section 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements. The City's Zoning Code states that front yard setbacks in the R-1 Zoning District shall be at least 35 feet from any front property line along a street right-of-way line. The proposed addition requires a variance request of 14 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 21 feet at its closest point to the front yard (west) property line. City records indicate a prior variance to the Zoning Code for this property was approved July 8, 1980. The petition was for waiver of (then) Section 3.07(1) of the Zoning Code for 14 feet off the required 35 foot front yard (west) setback to a distance of 21 feet for the construction of a two- stall garage. The variance request was gfanted and the garage was constructed. . 3048 3049 31)36 3037 )814 3DOO 302S )815 31101 2936 Kyle Avenue North 2937 2936 2936 21137 Z !f;! C( 2924 2925 2924 2925 ~ 2925 2924 2912 2913 2912 2913 2912 2913 4521 Cl) 4S01l 29lIII 2llO1 4320 43IlO CULVER RD 4421 2835 4321 4317 2825 z !It < IIil ~ 2815 2820 2805 2810 M..~__S" ~!CltOOSGlS2005 2816 . 2811 283!i i '" ~ :z :ltllft 1 ~o II I I W I ~ , ~ Ir I II I I ! , I 'I I: I' I' " Ii LlJ i: I. " i' ~ ~ 16 ~O o Denotes Iron Monument , I I I~~ I~~ I~~ i tt ~ i I , I, 'i \ ~/3.5 :1 I ./ /G -- 15- /29 .30 z~.~ - --53.7__2.>, -- --U.4-_-"I- "'1.8 ~ I ~, 0#' WeD&> I!1OAJIC&> FEIYCE- ~/ '" ENC~t:HMENT "'lI"', ';' ~I \ ~ t< I " fJ. tct i 6- ~I(; \ ttj ~ 3.3-:: ~:1.1J I. It <;l IU~ ~ ~:'f '" to aQ;: :'-: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ )J o it. 'f~ ';) ~~ ~ .,. J' .z, .3 ~ I ~ " II J:l ~I ~I 4' CYCLONE n:wCE. - ~ ;1 _2~3.... ....,,-- ~HCRCACHMENi -:.. - I'" . '...1 } - 43.4- - "/&.3-- f /32./5 f - 11 I . I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of: Lot 8, Block 3, NOBLE-GROVE, Hennepin County, Minnesota. And of the location of all buildings. thereon. and all visible encroachments. if any. from or on said land. As surveyed by me this 19th clay of June :8 0.., .' ;t . .. (! -;7 , r-- . . ~71~.. '<;/ ~ \f~t~~ . Thomas S. Bergquist ;{:.; , Land Surveyor. Minn. Reg, No. 7725 . . ~ . . ." McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. t .).~?))). CDIISUlf'" (IGIIIUIlS . LAID JUIlVlYDIlS . sm 'lAIII(IlS 11\ ..,.. .~.I\ MINNEAPOLIS. HUTCHINSON..... -RS~LL. MlNHUOTA SCALE II/=~ lOOK 'AGE 150 72 FILENO. 5603 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY for Lloyd 50ndeen . ,--- -------- ---------- I I t I I I ..... -..... I <Xl I . . = I II C ..... I 6(1) I I ="'" CD I ~ I I - ~ I ![ . I I S" I 0 I 0 I :J a. ::+ I ('5' I I :J (Jj I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 35'-0" r---v----- I I I I I I r- _____..J ------ i . ^ ~ ____________t___________ ------------- .. N. OJ ... ~ . I I I I I I I II I II I +j"i ~ I . I I I o I o I I I J I I I 1--------- l_________________________________J I I L - --- - - - -- - - - - - -- - - -- -- . Iota / 3504 twenty-fIIIh avenue south / mlnneapolls / mn 55406/612.721.1741/ www.1n1andoffloe.com ~ barry residence /2006-051/ schematic design [J o ~ ::> '" Dll Dll <T ~ ii' i !l. ~ :e 5' S' ~K .", ~~ I D ____L ------- -------- -------- 20 feb 2007 ICTR Inland offtce for lomorrow's architecture City of Golden'Valley Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Zoning Code Variance Application 1. Street address of property involved in this application: 2936 Kyle Ave. North, Golden Valley, MN 55422 2. Applicant: Carol F. Barry Name 2936 Kyle Ave. North. Golden Valley. MN 55422 Address ' (763) 514-4673 Business Phone (763)205-2171 Home Phone City/State/Zip (313)505-2079 Cell Phone cfbarrv486@msn.com Email Address Detailed description of building(s), addition(s), and alteration(s) involved in this petition. The site plans and drawings submitted with this petition will be the basis of any variance that may be approved and cannot be changed before or after the building permit is issued. A front-setback variance is requested. The addition would extend about flush with the QaraQe as shown by the red-line on the attached schematic drawinQ. 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. A hardship exists with the property located on 2936 Kyle Ave. North based upon several circumstances. For example. the back of the house has an unusually steep slope to the east. Anotherfactor is that an 82 year old handicapped woman lives in the home. To establish reasonable access to the bathroom. kitchen. and ease enterinQ and/or exitinQ the home. the house should be expanded in the front. Additionally. we effectively have a one car garaQe because of needinQ to build into the QaraQe'in order to provide access to every day livinQ requirements for my mother. Moreover. numerous houses built on Kyle Ave. already exceed the front set-back. ' 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 0 Applicant If the applicant is not the owner of all property involved in this application, owner of this property: Carol F. Barrv Print Name of owner Signature of owner Variance Application Submittal: The following information must be submitted by the application deadline to make a complete application. If an application is incomplete, it will not be accepted: Completed application form, including signatures of surrounding property owners. A current or usable survey of the property must be attached. See the handout on survey requirements. A brief statement of the hardship which provide grounds for the granting of this variance (see Frequently Asked Questions for an explanation of a "hardship"). Attach letter, photographs, or other evidence, if appropriate. You may submit detailed description of building{s), addition{s), and alteration{s) involved in this project. The site plans and drawings submitted with this application will be the basis of any variance that may be approved and cannot be changed before or after the building permit is issued. .C """\ Variance application fee, as fOIlOdingle family residential; $225 . other Signatures of Surrounding Property Owners Note to the variance applicant: As part of the variance application process, you will need to attempt to obtain the signatures of all surrounding property owners. This includes all properties abutting the applicant's property and directly across the street. If on a corner, this means across both streets. To obtain these signatures, you will need to personally visit each of these property owners, tell them about your project (we encourage you to bring along a copy of your building plans) and have them sign the area, below. The signature is meant only to verify that you have told them about your project and gives them opportunity to comment. If you have attempted to contact a property owner on two separate occasions and not found them at home, you may simply write something to the effect "made two attempts, owner not home" and then write their address. City staff will also send a written notice informing these property owners of the "me and place of the BZA meeting. ote 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 ceiving a written notice informing you of the time and place of the variance meeting. By signing this form, you are only verifying that you have been told about the project, not that you necessarily agree or object to the project. If you wish, you may comment on the project. Comments can contain language of agreeing with the project, objecting to the project or other statements regarding the project. Print Name ~fsU' Q, f~Uil.. Comment ~ Address JqJ~ P1~~ Signature Print Name --S1A~\~ ~L. '\t-- Comment Signature ~~ PrintName VsO\.y..~ \~~ omment fJtff;t. Signature . -- . - AddressJtl~ 1<.'-J(E- A%- ~ Address 77VJo ~.LL ~ Print Name ~ ft~ .,. [g; ",haaJ. f-I U fyt I VI Comment ~ Signature ~ ~ (U--f ~~drass Print Name Jtq b ..Jf c:.l..(...~~ -u-~__~ ;)-9dK ~ CLuI} Comment Signature ~<<~ Print Name mO~'~ Arcrns Comment Ct>>..o~ k4A ~ 0." . W ~.IL. ~ A /I tJ:;"'6 "!~ Signature ~ Address ~ J 1 ~ I.iANt.JJV . Print Name . . . I have reviewed the proposed attached plan that Carol Barry presented to me regarding an addition to her house. I understand that she would like to extend the front of her house to be about flush with her garage. I have no objection to her planned renovation. ~8~Ylr Q. j::(~L~~ ~~ ~-)8-07 Printed Name Date Signature JIIIJ I'VU lWl:-1.J ~LfJeN V/tUf:f1 S~V~~ Residential Address Jh."lc\ ~(]h~~ . ~~- r~~ Printed Name Date Signature JflJ~ KYL-G A '{E- N Residential Address Date ~ tzq)01 ~.~ lh~ Printed Name ~b~ss~ \-.. . -.lY\or\'\ClL. J.tr-onS Printed Name 9- J. ~ ~D'7 ~ Signature Date Printed Name Gt,~:lLtLl~ i1JJJ a. ~ Signatur(!" , A~ A/ ~rol.e., U~ t!1JJ S SY?-2 #-0[;1'1 J<~k tfv. Residential Addres (lJiJttel J Qtfe\Jsot0 ~) Date :2-1/] ! ~y Ie Residential Address ~ } ! :. ~ . . ::, .I . .-. '" ';. ~ #j 1 ., f :~ I"".... ., of i ~ ~ .'1 #~~ - . If "}::-:~;- -- ~ "'l-r~f> /.;' ~, ~ ... ~.... "'~l -, . .. ~' ~ . .;."1\:.' '{WL · ~q l~ \ ~ .. \.:" " ,,~ .'# "\:' ~'i.J .~ ~, :y:' 'V: ~ . .., ~-i- ~ .. .:" ..... '''; ,. -J..w.1( \ i5~ " . :-- '1".1;., "-.f-' ;: "0 ,,,0:. \" _ :'t' ~_' ~,,, 1 t -k'?" .~'fl rt.. ....... ~. .~ ''t..(:;.. ~;~... ' .:... 1; ~~~~ .. 4 ; > ",If , ,,~ J~ \:,"~,:}, f I... , i ~~~:-,' !" ,'~~.,:-"/7 ,{.'. T~. "c- " l"";>lt1.:tJ, · ;..t~t.\\,- . ..~'\~ .': <~~?! 0 ~~ ~'. ~ ~ 't , - fI",' ~,~.,r,:: ),..~~~ .~ ..~;~l i .... '.1 A' . I I t.' " . .. .. '~',~:.~. t ..~ '., ..J . t..... ~'''\...?' '''' .~~ ~ :~. I~'\' ~-~ ',' "~~ ,~ .i."(~ " .c. ~ ...:~t~ ~ ".--"'!~' ~... ~ \ ;Jt,... ~,'-~r ~~~~:~- """'.. J~' -~~-;. ~-!l iJ" :),:<' .. \' .,. ,.0 .-;;~ f~ :""~ . i: ." '~:!l. ." '1-' 4:1:. f:,J. "1 t, .,: .~\"., c:l!' ..~~.I...;~ ",~,,; ,,:r J .,. f . 'r."- ii' ,,( ~~ 'f" .'.C, '-S ~ ..~. , l:'~~~ . ~\ r' ,'" 'w ~ "~.;'~, ~r ~ - ~~~ ~'A,: ?,~9.''''~' ~ J~ ~~tI. ;;..'.....,..P.~.-..,. ~ . .... ;. f_ ~":";.'~i~I~: ~. , - ',.:t ,,:_" ..\ jJ'i': -,' :{ ,~~ ,;. r ,. '! ,~..- t '~~.r.c: .' ';';\;,:,,::~r- ;,;~';-""J/. , :f~ l~~ 't }. .'.~'" ~~ ',';;' , ~.,~; r 'i, "!'.~r '1", ~ 'I~ 'i:~Y..l. ~...At;', (....7 _ ~.~~..-~.:> 'i~5 .-.:; ~' r;ll'<'--" 1:1\,[ .~ 1: " '\ ')oJ" ~),' , ;f.' <'. ,~,r '~. '.' ~-.I." . ,.-;"~'r." tl~ :~ "t, '1 i''' ff~. ri1~ 1'JC':. ;,r t".H. ,~~.. ,,. ;.;M::...~...... I~. ..,~<.,. 't.~ ..I' , vA;.?'- ~'J }..... ..~, ~ .' .1'_ ~ ~.~. .4"- ,~; ~. ~1~ .~t "1, ..,: ,,},;~":'f~''';'" .~. . ~~.'1':f2 '.. 1,"" ,'.11 . W'... :E, tJ" ~,,'" J..,~,. ._~....~ l1 ~~ i;,.:4( , . JI-r J!.,A ...~, ' rA i i:t,~~' ". .. off 'oJ" ~ t, i-:' 'f:".r. ,:" lJ 4Jf;''{l _ ... /' It '~.M rn ,; , " I ~ i 1 .: .. . i' ~ J.o ~1 ,~ '4> ,. , ... .2l._ ~ . . , \' j' -., !: ~ ~ 'l.~"!'J t > 1 ~ " ~~ t. .;....... .;J.. ".-" .. t' , t, ~ .. -~ ~ ::. . lIey Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Subject: September 14,2007 Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals Joe Hogeboom, Planning Intern 603 Parkview Terrance Houston White, Jr., Applicant Date: To: From: Houston White Jr. is the owner of the property located at 603 Parkview Terrace. Mr. White has recently constructed a home on the property that has been determined by the City of Golden Valley to be 32 feet in height. This is in violation of Section 11.21, Subdivision 10(B) (Height Limitations) of the Zoning Code, which states that no principal structure shall be erected in the R-1 Zoning District to exceed a height of two and a half stories or 30 feet, whichever is less. . Mr. White has petitioned the Board of Zoning Appeals to interpret Chapter 11.03, Definition Number 12 of City Code regarding building height. The abovementioned section of the City Code states: "Building, Height of' - The vertical distance above "grade" as defined herein to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof, or to the deck line of a mansard roof or to the average height of the highest gable of a pitched roof or hipped roof. The measurement may be taken from the highest adjoining sidewalk or ground surface within a five (5) foot horizontal distance of the exterior wall of the building, when such sidewalk or ground surface is not more than ten (10) feet above grade. Chapter 11.90, Subdivision B(1) of the City Code grants the Board of Zoning the ability to interpret language and intent of the Zoning Code. In his petition, Mr. White alleges that his home was originally measured using an improper standard. When measured from a different point of elevation, the height of Mr. White's home has now been surveyed at 29.7 feet, thereby under the 30 foot requirement as set forth by City Code. City staff opposes Mr. White's assertion that his home now meets building height requirements. Staff interprets Mr. White's home to be improperly measured. The City does not accept Mr. White's argument that his current point of height measurement shall be considered a sidewalk, as set forth by Chapter 11.03, Definition Number 12 of City Code. Instead, the City considers Mr. White's current height measurement to have been taken from the front porch/stoop, thus . invalidating its accuracy. According to Mr. White's most recent land survey, the top of the sidewalk on his property is measured to be 921.3 feet and the highest roof of the home is measured to be 951.0 feet. By definition, the City considers the abovementioned sidewalk to in fact be a porch. A porch is . . . defined by Webster's Dictionary as a "covered approach to a doorway." The area from which height was measured in Mr. White's most recent survey is covered by a canopy which is supported by concrete pillars. Therefore, by definition, this entryway to the structure is a porch. Mr. White does not agree with this interpretation and insists this area is a sidewalk. (Webster's Dictionary defines a sidewalk as "a paved path for foot traffic beside a street.") Mr. White had unsuccessfully petitioned the Board of Zoning Appeals fora variance of Section 11.21, Subdivision 10(B) on July 24,2007. At that time, Mr. White produced a survey of his land which showed the elevation of his home to be 32 feet. This survey measured elevation from 919.5 feet, the height of the sidewalk below the front porch. This survey also indicated the roof top elevation of the building to be 951.5 feet, as opposed to the current survey's elevation reading of 951.0 feet. This matter is concerning to staff, as the rooftop measurement of the structure has decreased by six inches between surveys. The missing six inches of structure have not been accounted for by Mr. White. If the Board approves Mr. White's interpretation of City Code, thereby allowing his current survey to be accepted by the City, the structure can be issued a certificate of occupancy when construction is complete. If the Board rejects Mr. White's interpretation of City Code, Mr. White may appeal the decision to the City Council. If the City Council affirms City staff interpretation of the City Code, the house would have to b,e brought to a reduced height before a certificate of occupancy can be issued. Failure to bring the structure into conformance to City Code is a misdemeanor, as it violates of the Zoning Code and the Building Code. No previous variances petitions have been granted for this property. , :ws Jl)4 1:011 212 108 111 2111 204 213 2119 20.5 2Ol1 212 :ws 301 310 4212: 4116 4108 4100 m GLENCREST RD 4201 ~ j;i ~ :E ... III ;l:i 4115 41:01 416 529 ns 541 510 JANALYNCtR 516 528 532 536 ~ I / - -, -t'-'=~GIS;'.:.l5 M~lc:~'t",ji:)'(I'>\~:::IA:'dMS~ :-:""(I?',.-r.g.,li~_, _ . 920 1000 10211 1030 . 106 11:3 201 209 301 315 401 415 SIll 1015 1'01 121 861 001 009 1001 1101 1109 ! t :t ,.. $ .!' 1l.I 8 8 ~ , 603 Parkview Terrace , o ;J-2',;1' City of Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Zoning Code Variance Application 1. Street address of property involved in this application: 603 Parkview Terrace. Golden Valley. MN 55416 2. Applicant: Houston White Name 200 Nathan Lane North, Apt. 326 Address Plymouth, MN 55441 City/State/Zip (612) 501-5351 Business Phone (763) 746-1552 Home Phone (612) 501-5351 Cell Phone hwhitecustomhomes@hotmail.com Email Address 3. Detailed description of building(s), addition(s), and alteration(s) involved in this petition. The site plans and drawings submitted with this petition will be the basis of any variance that may be approved and cannot be changed before or after the building permit is issued. See attached. 4. A brief statement of the hardship which provides legal grounds for the granting of this variance (see Frequently Asked Questions for an explanation of a "hardship"). Attach letter, photographs, or other evidence, if appropriate. My home measures 29'7" below the 30' maximum heiaht reauirement. when measured accordina to the proper standard. I had a measurement done usina an improper standard, and therefore, myself and members of the zonina commission have had several miscommunications as to whether my house meets the maximum heiaht reauirement. I would like an interpretation from the BZA confirmina that my house meets the reauirements as is. 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. ~c)J~()~ W~:\~ '0' (J) <D ro to to r-. > c ~ N I ()) N I o I") ....... r-. o Esta blished in 1962 INVOICE F.B.NO. SCALE: NO. 76419 1033-19 1" = 30' LOT SURVEYS COMP ANY, INC. LAND SURVEYORS REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA 7601 73rd Avenue North (763) 560-3093 Fax No. 560-3522 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428 g,UiO yy OiS ffiritifirntr GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN o Denotes Iron Monument H. WHITE Property Address: 601 Park view Terrace as follows: Top of sidewalk lower roof Highest roof Building height from sidewalk to highest r6of= 29.7 feet. 921.3 942.8 951.0 As-Built Survey To verify height and setback distances to front porch ....- c....- o Q) -o~ >. oCtO ~ .;.i'O<D 5.....~ E ::J -5 c II co..> QJoQ) CDI-W ~drant osanitary manhore top=911.39 inv=B99.93 w o ~ 0:: w I- I I , fJ.r,sf //~;lVg/:./HOQ'~, .' .- '/ ,[1-601"/ //j7~// ..... 9157//,/'.7/ //"// . ' ~ .' ,; / " -.;. ~ Q:;: C) C) :i~ 0-,..... Ii{\O \0 {\ -."toll ---- 215.03 o l("j -.- <...l ~ roof overhan N o (J) o @ 36.1 920.4 917:4 , , ' , , , ' , , ' , , , " " , , " , , , " , " " ' " , , 926.2 , " , " " , " " " """,'" ",,,,,,'''' "",," """," """," """,' """,," "",,,,,,,,," , " , " " , " " ~~~~-~~~ " , '}..., "" "" "I' ", " " " , , , " , , , , 1 ' , , ~ " " , " illars " "I " " , " " " " , , ~ " " " ~ , , " , , 'l" " ",I' , , " " " 1 " ," """" 9 1 909. 8 o ()) ~ 0 -.- ~ s w > ~ cr:: <( a.. bituminous driveway ~ ~li9~ - 0 O'l ter servo N o (J) o ~ ~ ~ ~ f.;; ~ ~ -- storm i manhol~ r im=914. 54 V inv=910. 18 873.7 wet orea --J I-.. V) " L;s " ; '-./ sanitary n manhole'"' 916.00 : f/c kf power pole wire Oil /; ~1It9 Ii{\O \0 {\ (ii' 873.2 ....... ............................................................. .....~..~ 215.03 \ 916.[1 .4 Proposed finished (/,/ /~//.:/,/ : /// / grade elevation A,df/~ ',/67/\/9 eJ).c..~' < \ $1-7,( 1-./ . / .' , .,/ /fU/ .' ~. . .- I. OUTH L /NE OF THE NE 1/4, NE 1/4 \ OF SEC. 30 PER FOUND MONUMENTA TlON I The South 109 feet of the East 215 feet of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 30, Township 29, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The only easements shown are from plats of record or information provided by client. We hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the 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 14th day of June, 2007. revised 6-25-G 7 QQ&40y- Signed Charles F. Anderson, Minn. Reg. No.21753 0 Gregory R. Prasch, Minn Reg No. 24992 . . . . . Hey Planning 763-593-8095 /763-593-8109 (fax) Date: July 18, 2007 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: 603 Parkview Terrace Houston White, Jr., Applicant Houston White Jr. is the owner of the property located at 603 Parkview Terrace in the North Tyrol neighborhood. Within the last year, Mr. White purchased the lot and demolished the home that was located on it. He is now in the process of constructing a new home on the lot. The home is nearly completed and he hopes to occupy the home in August 2007. As of this date, a certificate of occupancy has not been issued by the Inspections Department for the house. It recently came to the attention of City staff that the house was constructed to 32 ft. in height. The zoning code allows houses to be 30 ft. or less in height. Therefore, Mr. White must resolve this height issue prior to occupancy of the building. He has chosen to apply for a variance to allow the building to remain at 32 ft. in height. According to the applicant's submittal, the hardship with this property is that the new house was nearly complete when the height problem was discovered by City staff. The applicant stated that the cost to tear of a portion of the building would be tremendous. The cause of the height problem was a miscommunication between the masonry contractor and the architect. According to Mr. White the foundation wall was constructed 2 ft. taller than what the approved plan shows. As part of the original submittal for a building permit, Mr. White's building plans showed a house that was 32 ft. high. He was told that the plans would have to be changed to show a house with a maximum height of 30 ft. A new plan was submitted that showed a 30 ft~ high hOlJse. About three weeks ago, the City staff was inspecting the house and there was a concern about the height of one of the floors. Mr. White was asked to verify the height of the house. His surveyor measured the height and determined that it was 32 ft. high. The issue of hardship has to be considered by the Board when considering the request. Staff is concerned about this variance request meeting the true test of a hardship because it was due to a mistake in the construction of the building. Also, the applicant was well aware of the height requirement of 30 ft. If the BZA approves the variance, the house can be issued a certificate of occupancy when the house is complete. If the BZA denies the variance request, the applicant may appeal to the City Councilor bring the house into conformity by reducing the height. If the Council approves the variance, a certificate of occupancy would be issued when the house is complete. . . . If the City Council denies the variance, the house would have to be reduced in height prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. If he refuses to bring the building into conformance, this is a violation of the zoning code and the building code. These violations are misdemeanors. The City Attorney and City Council would have to decide about how these violations would be add ressed. The newly constructed house requires the following variance from City Code in order to remain at the current height of 32 ft.: Section 11.21, Subd. 10(S} Height Limitations. The City's Zoning Code states that the maximum height of a principle structure in the R-1 Zoning District shall be 30 ft. The variance request is for 2 ft. higher than the allowed 30 ft. to a height of 32 ft. There is no record of a previous variance request at this address. City of Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Zoning Code Variance Application 1. Street address of property involved in this application: . &03 ?{;JrK, I/I.eLLJ UrY~-<- 11:1' ~ Applicant: ~Vs-r-If!)h Name .. 2, ~h'/ ~ Jy- z.-o I Address I?A~ t-n A/ eqhN!1;~ J.;1JJ ~~~'11 f City/State/Zip UI 2,.. -S-tJl -..j3S / Cell Phone -ZlL3 - 71-fC, "I r~.3 Business Phone y/..+ Home Phone ~ . r'1AA-a,k aus-l-n-. fJ~J t:f) 1Irs-r- n-u." / . LoA..1 Email Address " .' 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. " kIJ/ b~ ?'( ,/~ -h., , r; ';'r/~'-""'-f'L--- I...-4A-( -r-vVI't- €)Oloov ~ ~p{ A.,; A/L:-IAJ -fh..-. · ~ I1IJ1J b~_ lou, 1-1-: 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. ~ ~ pYl)J~vE- IA.J~S A/"V' f fTh1ple+rrh. wJ.e. ~~,/ P"~'~ t14h -f/) Uf . -+,/!AI't...t!"..-(..""...r ~~tlr-. 7'h/..r ~ . ~ -f~4~ I I- ~~ fI\.,~' d b-e, A.... " .... ' . cor.,......c.A It:H:c..JrVu, D I- .::t ^"", 'l:.b......#....,.~~, P<~ ~. Mt.4.IoVl- ~ ~.~c.,", 'Pl~ """"\MC"" "" l~ (..r' S"'-le~ .l~ IW~ pviu~' lu c.v" ~",~ ..~ ~ t ,..(:A.'~ 'VVc.. 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. .. By sfgning 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 .tements regarding the project. Print Name MAtX '7""kA::> A-+l-~ A/t) t?-L ~ Comment Signature Address "5 I S- Print Name rhact/'/ ~c? ~b,h , J./o €>Jtlh~1_h_#";r I ~~ Comment Signature Address nrr.. Print Name /'I"'vLd1'/ . ~ ~~~ (/1'1 ~__ ~ Comment Signature Address erint Name Comment Signature Address Print Name Comment Signature Address Print Name Comment Signature Address rint Name Comment Signature Address . -it LOT SURVEYS COMP ANY, Iij"C. 'I LAND SURVEYORS REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF ST ATE OF MINNESOTA 7601 73rd Avenue North (763) 560-3093 Fax No. 560-3522 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428 g,urUl"ljorz Q'Lrrtifiratr GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN o Denotes Iron Monument .-, (J rJ) m co to to I"- > C ~ N I O'l N I o n "- I"- o Established in 1962 INVOICE NO. 76419 F.B.NO. 1033-19 SCALE: 1" - 30' H. WHITE finished floor elev. = 921.3 roof deck elev. = 942.5 top railing roof deck elev. = 945.8 roof top elevation = 951.5 Property Address: 601 Parkview Terrace As-Built Survey To verify height and setback distances to front porch ..... c..... OQ) -52 >. .t:tO ~ ..\.f- . -"'otO b~cr; E:J {3 C II ai g-~ rol-W ~drant osanitary manhole top=91'.39 inv=899.93 w () <( C) (\0 C) 0::: ~~ fOUl' 0::: 0)..... W I:- ,>fI~~,t, ,.' / ' .'" ,/JJ)~.-/r3" HO;Q.s-e., /' 9 15. 7 .: i>::,r,l'?~~:></</:<// , . -.}toll 911. 0 ---- --- I "l- C\i I:l::: 0; <"\f 215.03 I ~o ~ \0'\ '$7. 3 ~- ~ Vi <::> to .,... storm I manno e... r im=9 14. 54 v inv=910. 18 catch baosin84' Inv=91 . C\I o CJ') o lc)~ -u ." ~..... 0) @ 36.1 920.4 " " " " , , " , , ' "" ,,' , " , " " " '- '. '. '.... , " , , , , ' , , , " ' , , ,,,,,'" "","'" " , " " " , " " " " , , " , , ' , , " " " " " " ' , "",,,,,' , " " " " " " " ", , " , " , " " , , " , , , , , , ~~~~-~~~ " "'\.~.' " , I ' , I' , , , , , , , , " " , , 1 " " , ~ , " " " iIIars ' ,I " " " " " " '" " ~. 1 ' " , ~ , " , , , 'l' , '.1' " , " , " , , " ''','' 917. <::> ICi .,... 917.4 s w ~ 0:: <( a.. bituminous driveway ~ ~ ~ lig(;t "I- - 0 0) ---'--\ 926. 2 " " , ~ ter serv. C\l o 0) o ~ ~ ~ h: ~ ~ -- sanitary n manhole" 916.00 ; t/c id power pole 873.7 wet area .... "- V) L5 , , " I ..../ roof overhan 909.8 O'l c:i ......................................................................... ....~..'.. wire 01] /; 11]e U(\o 10 (I ~ 873.2 215.03 \ Proposed fini~~ .<,</:;f:;,//(<<../".><<>" . 4 grade elevation Api:,~/K~~/j/9<~.rJ'9'~' \ .!Y?tr1:> // ,//" / / ,.-/"..." .,..... OUTH LINE OF THE NE 1/4, NE 1/4 I OF SEC. 30 PER FOUND MONUMENTATlON I The South 109 feet of the East 215 feet of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 3D, Township 29, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The only easements shown are from plats of record or information provided by cHen t. We hereby certify that this is a true and, correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the above described land and the location of all buildings and visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. 1 /..\ Y /r- / \ .. ell_ Surveyed by us this 14th day of June, 2007. revised 6-25-07 Signed Charles F. Anderson, Minn. Reg. No.21753 0 Gregory R. Prasch, Minn Reg No. 24992 . . . . -- LOT SURVEYS CaMP ANY, IijC. 'I LAND SURVEYORS REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA 73rd Avenue North (763) 560-3093 Fax No. 560-3522 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428 %JUillt>1jOrZ Ql~rtifiratr GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN 7601 o Denotes Iron Monument .~ u U! \0 co \0 U) r-- > c :of N I 01 N I o n ........ r-- o Established in 1962 INVOICE NO. 76419 F.B.NO. 1033-19 SCALE: 1" = 30' H. WHITE ~~S\AA.-V~-' finished floor elev. = 921.3 roof deck elev. = 942.5 top roiling roof deck elev. = 945.8 roof top elevation = 951.5 Property Address: 601 Parkview Terrace As-Built Survey To verify height and setback distances to front porch ...., C...., OOl '-Ol -0.... >. ..cU) Qsanitary manhore top=911.39 inv=899.93 .. '+- . ':'::0\0 '- ~ 0""'01 E::J -5 c " co..> OlO~ CDI-W wdrant w () ~ Cl rO Cl ~~ {Ollr 0:: Ol~ W l- ".: fils t ">;B)VEf3' -'HoOse" / ./, 9 15. 7:>.<r,f~.~~.:'~.'<:."~:':::;:<:)~:::~~~ .};toll . , ' 9 11 . 0 ............... --- ~ I:'\i Cl::: 215.03 o lli "" storm I manho e... rim=914.54 U inv=910.18 catch basin inv=910.84 N o 0') o \t)-r- -I.> ." ';!2~ Ol @ 36.1 920.4 , , ' , , , "- , , ' , , , ' , , , , , , '. '" '- " \ ' ' , , , 926.2 , ' , , , , ' , , "",,"" , " , " , " ' , " , , " " " " " " , " , " , " " ' , """"," '" "'''' ,,' , , , , " " " " '" " " , " , " " , , , , " , , " " ~~-'>....---::._~~~ , "'I' " " I " , I' " , , , " , " , , " " , 1 ' , , ~ " , , , iIIars , ,", , , " , , '" "h " ~, " " , 'l' " ',I' , " , , , , , ,,' """" 917. o Ici "" 917.4 s w > ~ 0:: <( D- bituminous driveway ~ ~ ~ lig(;f "I' - 0 :; 916.00 : t/c kf power pole N o (j) o -r- ~ ~ h:: ~ ~ -- Q) ter serv. 873.7 wet area -..J '- V) L5 , 0 " I ......./ roof overhan 909.8 overhang o ';t "" (J) o sanitory n manhole"" wire 01] /; ~I]e rO loll (fill' 873.2 .. ~...................................................................... ........t..:..' 215.03 \ 916.9- .4 /' / ,. ,.' " / ,/ /' /~ / .. or //' ;/ " Proposed finished /<.~,,~f,,/'.' /.,/ .. ./ ,.'/ . //> grade elevation A~t:>I\:~~1/9:~1q~.>>> \ ?~-tf!!> //'.~:' '.'<:/~// ,'..' ." . / .,/ / OUTH LINE OF THE NE 1/4, NE 1/4 I OF SEC. 30 PER FOUND MONUMENTA TlON I The South 109 feet of the East 215 feet of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 30, Township 29, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The only easements shown are from plats of record or information provided by client. We hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the above described land and the location of all buildings and visible encroachments, if any. from or on said land. II /~\ () i UiJ,L-. Surveyed by us this 14th day of June, 2007. revised 6-25-07 Signed Charles F. Anderson. Minn. Reg. No.21753 0 Gregory R. Prasch, Minn Reg No. 24992 . . . f, .;.. , I . , - -:~~ ~:","~'~':...: ~; :~:~:;:-: ~-~~.. ,: "" . . II \ t'.." ~- .~; ,~ l~.~ "C.. \}'P~ ."",...~-. -. , :',,~~~~~;~~Jl)~jjp~liit?~~W..l,;;' I l' -~H'f;4 ...lt~.t~.~....... J.r3'r~\~'v'~t.~o;.~4 r.';r.".t J,I ~ . ~ ""~ r" ~'r,"" .. , t'f"'t".'.II". " ...' . . ... . .. .. .. . ,I y t' ,f .f( , r ~ i, r4 , '" i ~ i~. \ , ft ~ ~ ---. J J 1 J j j . . . . t \ \ \ \ \ . ~~~;t