Loading...
10-23-07 BZA Agenda e Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, October 23,2007 7pm 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers I. Approval of Minutes - September 25, 2007 II. The Petitions are: 675 Rhode Island Avenue South (07-10-29) General Labet- Michael Baskfield, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.36, Subd. 6C(3) Rear Yard Setback Requirements . 18 ft. off the required 20 ft. to a distance of 2 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard (south) property line. e Purpose: To bring the existing building into conformance with rear yard setback requirements. Request: Waiver from Section 11.36, Subd. 6C(3) Rear Yard Setback Requirements . 2 ft. off the required 20 ft. to a distance of 18 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of an electrical/mechanical room addition. 6466 Westchester Circle (07-10-30) Fred Bruning, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd.10(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements . 2 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 13 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (east) property line. e Purpose: To allow for a second-story addition above the existing garage e III. Other Business Reschedule the December 25,2007 BZA meeting. IV. Adjournment e e , ... . Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 25, 2007 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, September 25, 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, Nederveld, Sell, Wei Commission Representative McCarty. Also present were Director of a Development Mark Grimes, Planning Intern Joe Hogeboom and Inis r Lisa Wittman. Member Morrissey was absent. I. Approval of Minutes - August 28, 2007 MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Sell and motion August 28, 2007 minutes as submitted. II. The Petitions are: . 2936 Kyle Avenue North (07-09 Carol Barrv. Applicant Request: ubd. 10(A)(1) Front Yard Setback r 35 ft. to a distance of 21 ft. at its closest front yard (west) property line. construction of an addition onto the front of the home. ey of the property and stated that the applicant is proposing ont of her home that would encroach into the front setback ips noted by the applicant are the steep slope in the rear yard elderly, disabled mother lives with her in the house. He noted that this ariance from front yard setback requirements in 1980 to allow for the all garage. He stated that the proposed new addition would be in e existing house that received the variance in 1980. Nederveld asked if the original single car garage was aligned with the house. Hogeboom said yes the original garage was flush with the existing house and it is now a living room . Carol Barry, Applicant, said the reason she is applying for this variance is necessitated by her mother moving in with her. She explained that her mother is 82 years old and is disabled so she is trying to make her house ADA compliant by having better access in to the entry, bathroom and kitchen. She added that since her mother can't go downstairs she is trying to maintain the living space on the upper level of the house. . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals September 25, 2007 Page 2 Boudreau-Landis asked the applicant to address the hardship with the property. Barry stated the rear yard has a significant slope where construction of an addition would be difficult. Also, adding to the rear of the home would not be amenable to the way she wants the home to be. Sell asked the applicant how long she has owned the home. Barry said she's owned the home since 2005. Grimes asked the applicant if there wou.lp be any garage space on the were to build the proposed addition. Barry said that she has built into t but there is currently room for one car in the garage. Grimes aske into the home from the garage. Barry said no. Boudreau-Landis asked if the existing tree in the front yard wo this proposal. Barry said that she has been told that tha tree h removed regardless. Grimes told the applicant to call t and talk to him about the tree. s a part of d should be al Coordinator Nederveld asked for clarification on whether the proposed addition is built. Barry said if the because she would move the laundry ro noted that the City Code requires prope build a two stall garage. Nederveld variances in the future to build a addition is built she would ultima ve one stall or two if this ill have two garage stalls garage space. Grimes o stall garage or at least room to about the property requiring tall. Barry reiterated that if the proposed II garage. Sell stated that the east . at the time of the first vari variance" for the pr ies ue has a significant slope and remembered that s In 80 there was discussion of granting a "blanket east;:~lde of Kyle Avenue. hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to d the public hearing. Boudreau-Lan . comment, Bou . etic to the situation but he is having a hard time finding a o the property. s the existing garage on this property already projects further into the hers in the area so an addition to the house would make that even more noticeab dded that he does not think that the slope in the rear yard is any more severe than others he has seen and an addition could easily work in the back yard. He said he is not comfortable with this proposal because there are other options that would work without the need for a variance. Barry stated that she would not be able to build in the back yard without going into the slope. She noted that Kyle Avenue has quite a few homes that project as far forward as hers. She stated that there are no objecti,ons from the people living around her and she Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals September 25,2007 Page 3 . thinks her proposed addition will be a benefit to the neighborhood because it will raise the property value. Nederveld noted that the proposed addition does not encroach any further into the setback area than the existing home already does. He stated that that he thinks consistency is important in the Board's decisions and noted that the Board has granted variances in the past based on the rationale that the addition wouldn't encroach further into a setback area than the existing structure. Boudreau-Landis said he thinks last month is the fact that al alignment after the propo agenda would have proje nsi ion and they are not ir decision. He reminded onth and that proposal , that property had a at he thinks there are other a variance. Boudreau-Landis said after looking at the slope it is not as severe as h but he thinks there is justification to allow the applicant to build tow t since it has been done in the past. Grimes added that variance al to allow homes to be made accessible. Nederveld stated that if the variance request is approveqi\,he w that the end result of the construction will allow for a 2_s1c. . McCarty said the Board can not take a person's supposed to look at previous variance requests a the Board that they denied a variance on th' encroached less into the front yard setb steeper slope in the backyard than this options for this proposed addition t this proposal and the one they denied on the east side of the street would still be in built. The proposed addition on last month's the street than the homes around it. Nederveld agreed a further than th isti proposed addition in this case projected out any uld feel differently. the survey and nbted that part of the existing home is in the d if that also. requires a variance. Grimes stated that since the lor to 1982 the:front yard setback requirement is 25 feet so it riance. thinks that language should be added to the Zoning Code that allows ADA compliant to be a hardship. MOVED by Sell, seconded by Weisberg and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve the following variance request. McCarty voted no. . . 14 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 21 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (west) property line to allow for the construction of an addition onto the front of the horne with the condition that there will be a two stall garage when construction is complete. Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals September 25, 2007 Page 4 . 603 Parkview Terrace (07-09-29) Houston White, Applicant i,,~.. , Request: Interpretation of Chapter 11.03, Definition Number 12 regarding building height for the property at 603 Parkview Terrace. John Jeske, Faegre & Benson, representing the applicant, said he believes there has been some misunderstandings and miscommunication regarding the heig at 603 Parkview Terrace. He stated that the City's statute regarding hei is defined as the highest point of the coping on a flat roof down to th H sidewalk or ground surface. He said they have a certified survey s n house in tHis case to be less than 30 feet so the question is wh the measuring from would be considered a sidewalk or not. He said he thinks th house that wa f then he built it from what there i ief is that the eca e Webster's reas a sidewalk is USI hat definition of a " in the height of the building m, so it can't be something r wall as the City Code rface" and "sidewalk" in the different things. He said it is his "sidewalk" not a "porch". He said to him t e house which is raised a few feet off urface adjoining the front of the house that which wouldn't be called a porch by anyone's . He referred to Planning Intern Joe Hogeboom's memo t point at which the applicant's house was measured fro Dictionary defines a porch as a covered approach defined as a paved path for foot traffic beside a s sidewalk doesn't work with the City Code becaus provisions is included as what a person ca that is alongside a street and still be wit states. He added that the statute uses definition which is an acknowledge position that they are measuring the definition of a porch is somet the ground and in this case allows people to walk rig sense of the word. misunderstanding that Mr. White originally designed a was told by City staff to build it to 30 feet in height and elg . This is not the case. He built his house 30 feet in height a sidewalk and he has a certified survey showing that and ontrary. H City's statute says that measurement may be taken from the highest r ground surface within a 5 foot horizontal distance of the exterior wall the staff memo says that a'sidewalk has to be a paved path for foot traffic be street which would mean a measurement from a sidewalk could never be used making the statute null. He stated that he would like the Board to verify that his interpretation of the statute is correct atid where they are starting the height measurement from should be considered a sidewalk. ' . Boudreau-Landis referred to a photo and said he has trouble calling the area in question a sidewalk. He said it would be like him calling the front stoop of his house a sidewalk. Jeske referred to the same photo and stated that the area he is referring to as a sidewalk " . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals September 25, 2007 Page 5 is level with the foundation of the house and they are not trying to manipulate the height requirement by measuring from a raised surface. Nederveld asked from what point the City is measuring the height. Grimes referred to the surveys submitted by Mr. White and explained that the measurement was taken from the proposed finished grade elevation of 919.5 feet as listed on the submitted surveys. Nederveld asked what would prevent sO!TIeone from manipulating the cod more dirt in order to raise the elevation, Grimes stated that the Plannin been working on how to better define how the height of a home is mea that approximately 3 feet of fill was brought onto this site which is a house. Jeske stated that when the height issue was first discovered t Johnson told his associate to have Mr. White to build up the gr order to bring into conformance and Mr. Grimes told M . instead. He said the house is finished being built a applicant doesn't want build up the grade with IlI1 I, Gary home in pi a variance is done so the McCarty noted that at the July Board of Zo with the height occurred because two e . error. Nothing about the grade of the pr hite stated that the issue dded to the foundation in ed at the previous meeting. . Mr. White, Applicant, explained height but in order to be able to a sidewalk there needed to bearing trusses. He said meeting was his understa' way it was just to m it tal before the final gradl basement was going to be 14 feet in ,0 from the area they are referring to as of Goncrete block to allow for the top cord e gave at the July Board of Zoning Appeals e Sl ion at that time but the house was not built the added that the' original survey was done in haste aping were finished. el erated that from the very top of the house down to the idewalk is less than 30 feet in height. Boudrea compared the original survey submitted by the applicant in July wi the on d for this meeting and asked if the 926.2 elevation shown on the su coul d to measure the height from. Grimes stated that he doesn't think the 926.2 written correctly on the surveys because the corner of the garage is at the sam f the house. The Board agreed that the 926.2 elevation written on the survey must be incorrect. Jeske said he is not sure about the 926.2 elevation figure but in reading the statute fairly it doesn't say that a sidewalk is along a street. Grimes referred to the surveys and noted that on the original survey the highest roof elevation was 951.5 and on the new survey the highest roof elevation is 951.0 so that shows the height was not measured to the top of the roof coping. '. . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals September 25, 2007 Page 6 Boudreau-Landis opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Boudreau-Landis closed the public hearing. Boudreau-Landis said what this discussion comes down to is if the area the applicant is referring to is a sidewalk or not. He said he would consider it to be a front stoop. Weisberg agreed that the area the applicant is referring to is not a sidewalk. Grimes noted that a stoop is defined as being a porch, platform, entrance small veranda at a house door. He referred to the City's statute regardi height and explained that the statute applies to all of the other zonin residential and that a lot of times there is a sidewalk parallel to the building in a commercial or industrial building., Jeske noted that "grade" is defined as the lowest point of elev height is measured from the highest adjoining ground s ace s measurement can start at the highest point. He said th of being 30 feet in height and it is the coping on th height limit. pr rty and clear that the h the intention g it over the 30-foot ated that when the issues ssions with the City on how code requirements. He said that n question could not be enclosed. 1I0w the City Code and to follow what he ffort to try to circumvent the provisions the lowest measuring height so that the 's front area in question is clearly the highest ure ts have been made from. He said he has d he knows him to be of the highest ethical and moral anyone in this regard. Dan Connolly, Faegre & Benson, represen . arose regarding the height of the home to remedy this house so it would compl to him a porch connotes an enclos He stated that the applicant was was told to do by city staff and t in the Code. They took the measurement would wor ground surface and where known the applican 18 y stature and would n Nederveld said still believ agreed grade. . White didn't intentionally arrive at this situation, but he tion should not be considered a sidewalk. Boudreau-Landis eople would"s,ee that area as a front stoop, not sidewalk or they have a sworn survey by a licensed surveyor showing the house o feet in height and there is no evidence showing the house is over 30 feet in h the notion that this house does not satisfy the requirements of the Zoning Code would be contrary to any evidence. Grimes referred to a letter from the surveyor addressing the discrepancy between the two surveys. In the letter it states that two different parts of the roof structure were used to measure the roof elevation in each survey. In the original survey the measurement was not taken to the coping of the roof as required, it was taken to the actual flat roof. Connolly stated that he had not received that letter and asked to read it. . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals September 25, 2007 Page 7 Nederveld .stated that the numbers on th~ survey aren't relevant for the purpose of this discussion. The question is whether or ,not the area from which the height was measured is to be considered a stoop or sidewalk and it is clearly not a sidewalk. Connolly urged the Board to take into consideration the representations made by the City that were completely followed by the applicant. The City can not just back away from those representations without recourse and then inform the applicant that he needs to take two inches of the top of his house. Gary Johnson, Building Official, clarified that in the phone conversation White the discussion included ways of solving the issue. He said he a consider on how he could bring the property into conformance and suggested were taken. He explained that one option he discuss to raise the grade which was not done. He clarified that the el lower than the first floor of the house. He stated that in regard being referred to as a stoop or a sidewalk, he believes it's a st structure with a foundation and frost footings underneat foundations. d he thought the house was nly inches too tall. He said ue has been at least vanance application in July. \1tonsiders the area they measured 2 feet too tall. Jeske clarified that the t is;taken from grade, or the lowest point t point, so at most the home is 8 inches too tall. Weisberg stated that when the variance first cam 2 feet higher than what was allowed and n he is persuaded that some remedy has; " partially mitigated since the Board initia' McCarty stated that it is only inches from to be a sidewalk. Otherwise statute makes it clear that the m on the property, it is taken f Connolly said that even if inches too tall and t ha Board last discusse the applicants f disp s their sidewalk theory, at most the house. is 8 significant changes made to the property since the that this situation would qualify as a variance given that the Board. is not looking at a variance request they, are of where the measurement should be taken from and if the considered a stoop or a sidewalk. t a variance request is for another meeting and asked what is oard at this meeting. McCarty stated that the Board needs to qecide that if where the applicant is measuring from should be considered a sidewalk Or'the highest adjoining ground level or not. Connolly stated that there is no definition in the Golden Valley City Code of a "stoop" or "porch" and it is clear that the highest adjoining ground surface or sidewalk can be used. Johnson explained that if a definition is not in the City Code it refers to Building Code definitions and if the Building Code doesn't define something then it is common practice to refer to the Webster's dictionary. Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals September 25, 2007 Page 8 . MOVED by Nederveld, seconded by Weisberg and motion carried unanimously to support staff's interpretation of Chapter 11.03, Definition Number 12 regarding building height and that the area the applicant has defined as a.sidewalk is not interpreted by the Board to be a sidewalk. ' Boudreau-Landis explained that the applicant has the right to appeal the Board's decision to the City Council. '.' III. Other Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 pm. . . . . . .. 07 -10-29 675 Rhode Island Ave. S. General Label - Michael Baskfield, Applicant See Large Size Plans and/or Survey in Planning Department -~ . Hey Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: October 11, 2007 Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals Joe Hogeboom, Planning Intern 675 Rhode Island Avenue South Michael Baskfield, Applicant To: From: Subject: . Michael Baskfield, representative for General Label (675 Rhode Island Avenue South,) is proposing to construct an addition onto the existing building. The proposed addition will be an 8' x 16' electrical room on the east side of the building (see attached survey.) This proposed addition would encroach into the rear yard setback. Mr. Baskfield is requesting a variance for the proposed addition, as well as to bring his existing building (which encroaches into the rear setback as well) into conformity. As detailed in Mr. Baskfield's Zoning Code Variance Application, the hardship with this property is that the building is located, in part, within the rear setback area. Also, building the addition of the electrical room into an area within setback boundaries would reduce on-site parking of the facility. The proposed project requires the following variances from City Code: Section 11.36, Subd. 6(C)(3) Rear Yard Setback Requirements. The City's Zoning Code states that rear yard setbacks in the Industrial Zoning District shall not be less than 20 feet in depth. The first variance request is for 2 feet off the required 20 feet to a distance of 18 feet at its closest point to the rear yard (south) property line for the construction of an electrical! mechanical room addition. The second variance request is for 18 feet off the required 20 feet to a distance of 2 feet at its closest point to the rear yard (south) property line to bring the existing building into conformity to City Code. A prior variance to City Code was obtained for this property on July 10, 1990. This variance was for Section 11.36, Subd. 6(B) of City Code, which allowed a parking lot to be constructed into the front (north) yard setback area. A copy of that variance request, as well as minutes from the July 10, 1990 meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting have been attached to this memo. . 100 -, 216 521 $10 70Il 7SO 825 II! ~ 'I{ :s z ~ ~ , 840 911 o o jt.illll 1023 1600 o "'4"q1: (1) ., 6:( It) o c . 34S 1400 1400 City of Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Zoning Code Variance Application 1. Street address of property involved in this application: \0 ~ -(" Q~O~E \ ~ 1.hN rJ ~~E: ~ Applicant: t'L\~~~L ~"'~\tlh ame 2. ~"\ <;. [~~~~ Address ~L ~ \\.t-J. <;:~~d.~ City/State/Zip "l," 4'\ ~-l,0~'3 ~ \'1- 'i.~'\ ~~\ () Home Phone Cell Phone G E ~E: ~L -~~c;.L Ie C ~ '" \ ~ '-.ON ~ ~ '\Jc . ~ '\\O~ ... 'S: 4 \- \<6~ \ Business Phone "'~~~~~\c:~ Q.. 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 chang d before or after the building permit is issued. <1..LtC ~ ~ 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. '- C'-~,,\ ON 5. LL fl '(:..,~\.... (.\ C \J<:::'~ \. ""~ r ~~~ ~ 0 ~ ,\:J Q~~\n2:""'\ \'~L. <:;'\ flE€ '\ 0\-.1 ~~~ \.'\~,.,..,~ To the best of my knowledge the statements found in this application are true anp correct. I also understand that unless construction of the action applicable to this variance request, if granted, is not taken within one year, the varia e ex ires. By signing this form, you are only verifying that you have been told about tlie 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 ~ \-.S. ~ ~ Comment Signature Print Name ~e\~ S"c",'{'dl..."- Comment No\Coos... feo - Signature ~~ - Address ~Z~ 1:.~ :4.k:w:( I\ve.- s Print Name Comment Signature Address G d D ~lA ~GlVlvt~ ~VLOv0L f Comment Address '5 z{ ~~! </ Signature ' Print Name Comment (\ R,-~ f) L t\. '\t' e ') - ~..;:) 01'-<." t\.a ~ t Signature Address ~ "- ~ ~\.).oP ~ l \~fJ Print Name Comment Signature Address Print Name Comment Signature Address By sig'ning 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 regar.~the pro.jeclf{ . Print Name N. f) 'If e.J Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature ~...~ eN. [j fJ/,.~e.,) ~J Address '1 (){) ~~~~ J",$, Address 1/0 Irso ~w~~ O~~. I . Address Address Address Address Address . . . Hennepin County Oblique Aerials Page I of 1 :-=- -,"-", ~-=--==- o~=-::~-'==---:::;::..~~=';=~-. ====-::;::~ -'- =-J-: 11 2006 ~ Print: j~ Show I Hide: _ _ .M_ __ .__. ___ ____ .r} .~ . ./~~-- . J . http://gis.co.hennepin.mn.us/HCPropertyMaplBirdseye.aspx?PID=0511721230002 10/03/2007 . CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY Board of Zoning Appeals Notice of Final Order Number: 90-7-14 Date: July, 1990 Petitioner: Harold Lyman - John Eastman Address: 675 Rhode Island Avenue South . At a regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals held on July 10, 1990 your petition for a waiver of Section (s) 11.36 Subd. 6(B) of the City Zoning Code was acted upon. Attached you will find an unofficial copy of the minutes of the Board. Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals If waivers are not acted upon within one year from date of approval in accordance with current statutes. the waivers have expired. . . . . . Board of Zoning Appeals Page 3 July 10, 1990 90-7-13 (Map 9) Residential 217 Natchez Avenue South Stan and Sallie Skinner The Petition is for waiver of Section: 11.21 Subd. 7 (B) rear setback, for 28.6 feet off the required 59.4 feet to a distance of 30.8 feet from the rear lot line to the house as it now exists. Purpose of the waiver is to correct an existing non-conforming status to allow for a fully conforming addition to be constructed. The peti tion was in order and consent obtained from all adjacent properties. Mrs. Skinner was present. No others were in attendance. Mrs. Skinner described their situation. The lot is very deep with the house set near the rear of the lot. The home was built in 1937. While the large front yard has the appearance of a large estate, Mrs. Skinner said she has no history of why the home was placed where it is. Other adjacent homes are setback somewhat more than the required 35 feet. Their proposed construction is a room addition over an existing one-story flat roof area. This does not expand the existing footprint but a variance is required because the home in its exi sting non-conforming status cannot be altered, expanded or substan- tially changed according to the Zoning Code. The Board reviewed the construction plans and commented in general about the unusual large front yard and the beautiful appearance it provided. Art Flannagan said this request is typical of other non-conforming properties~ the Board has addressed and he noted the unusual lot configuration~ the placement of the home at the rear of the property and the topography of the lot. Art Flannagan moved to approve the waiver as on the agenda. Larry Smith seconded the motion and upon vote carried unanimously. 90-7-14 (Map 18) Industrial ). 75 Rhode Island Avenue South aro1d Lyman - John Eastman The Petition is for waiver of Section: 11.36 Subd. 6(B) front setback for 75 feet off the required 75 feet of landscape area along the north lot line for the width of the existing building, and for 65 feet off the required 75 feet of 1 andscape a rea to a 1 andscape width of 10 feet at its closest point along north lot line in an area beginning at the east side of the existing building and extending to the east lot line. Purpose of the waiver is to provide for parking on the site. . . . . Boar'd of Zoni ng Appeals . Page 4 July 10, 1990 The peti ti on was in order. Consent had not been obtai ned from a 11 properties as one party was never available though 9 attempts were made to contact them One other party was undecided. Mr. Harold Lyman and Mr. John Eastman were present. They are the owners of the property. With them was Tom Junilla of Thorpe Realty. Jerry and Jean Baskfield, the proposed new owners, were present with Ms. Kay Harris. Mr. Baskfie1d noted their purchase of this property was contingent upon Board approval of the waivers in some form acceptable to them. Mr. Dennis Gustner 520 Quebec, was present and noted he lives directly across from this property. Mr. Lyman and. Mr. Eastman provided a history of their property. It was built in the early 1960's by Volp Construction. The original occupants were there for many years and required very little parking because of few employees. Although constructed with residential zoning across the street. on two sides the impact was minima 1. The residentia 1 area is now deve loped, a change of occupants is occurring and the Zoning Code has changed substan- tiallyfrom requirements at the time the building was built. The Board reviewed the proposed new parking lot on the east side of the building. The spaces proposed meet the present requirements for the pro- perty in its current configuration. It the 75 foot setback is applied, it would result in loss of over 50 percent of the proposed parking. Art Flannagan asked if there is any adjacent land available for purchase. Mr. Lyman said he had approached Possis Corporation about that, but, they do' not care to sell any excess property because they want options for their own future needs. Joan Russell asked if landscape screening in front is possible. This would benefit properties facing this proposal. Mr. Lyman said they would consider tha t. Mr. Dennis Gustner, the neighbor directly across the street, said he has had discussion with the owners and he is not opposed overall to the proposed parking lot but would like consideration to berming and landscape screening. Mr. Gustner also asked if the driveway could be narrowed down from 44 feet so you don't look down the full expanse of the parking lot. The existing parking in front of the building along Laurel Avenue is not objectionable to him as it was there when he came to the area and he is used to it. The Board began a lengthy exchange of views on the various possibilities and configurations on site. Mahlon Swedberg said there are two ways to address this proposal. Tell the proponent "no" and buy more land or work out some agreement that preserves and adds additional green area especially along Laurel Avenue. Swedberg suggested elimination of most or all of the existing parking in front and establishing landscape. Three or four spaces could be built on the Rhode Island side which would provide for customers and or employees in the office a rea. . . . Board of Zoning Appeals Page 5 July 10, 1990 Joan Russell suggested leaving six or seven spaces on the Laurel Avenue side, add some landscape to the remainder and also landscape around the new parking lot and narrow the driveway. Larry Smith noted that notice to property owners did not include any spaces being built on Rhode Island. . Art Flannagan suggested that the existing parking spaces remain and landscape be provided on the entrance to the new lot. Mahlon Swedberg said that whatever is done now will have a lasting effect to this property because no other options will remain. Swedberg noted the landscape sight-line down Laurel Avenue that exists. Swedberg said now is the opportunity to remove the existing parking in front and establish land- scape and continuity to the site line. Swedberg said he could not support the other a 1 terna ti ves. Discussion among the Board, the property owners, the proposed new owners and also the adjacent neighbor continued and a consensus developed which consisted of consi derati on of narrowi ng the wi dth of the new dri veway, cons tructi on of a berm and landscape along the front of the proposed parking lot and allow the existing parking to remain. Chairman Sell discussed item by item the proposed resolution of parking spaces and landscape after which Joan Russell moved to approve waivers - of setbacks, sUbject to a parking lot installed on the east side of the existing building with a driveway entrance not to exceed 24 feet in width. The parking surface to begin 15 feet back from the north lot line with landscape established in the 15 feet south of the north lot line, said landscape to provide screening to an initial height of 7 feet. The motion was seconded by Art Flannagan. Chairman Sell called for any discussion on the motion. Mahlon Swedberg said he will vote against the motion as he does not like giving up the opportunity for green space along Laurel Avenue and now it could be gone forever. The lack of landscape just to provide 44 parking spaces, he objects to strenuously. During further discussion, the question of upgrading the existing parking surface along Laurel Avenue was raised. The proposed new. owner said he had already considered that and would provide for seal coating and a surface of rock chips and new striping to make it consistent with the new lot. Joan Russell amended her motion to include that, Art Flannagan his second. Art Flannagan called the question and upon vote the motion for approval with all conditions noted carried, four yeas, one nay (Swedberg). There being no further business to come before the Board, it was upon motion, second and vote to adjourn at 9:20 P.M. Mike Sell, Chairman . -- -t . -- -- ~ ~~~~ \ ~1III'1 ~~\ ~'~~~~ I -. -- -. -. :h_L HH. -- . .. t. - , 07 -10-30 6466 Westchester Circle Fred Bruning, Applicant . .. a. Hey Planning 763-593-8095/ 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: October 11, 2007 Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals Joe Hogeboom, Planning Intern To: From: Subject: 6466 Westchester Circle Fred Bruning, Applicant Fred Bruning, Sawhorse Design, has applied for a variance for the property located at 6466 Westchester Circle. Mr. Bruning is acting on behalf of the property owners, Marcel and Lisa Gyswyt. Mr. Bruning is proposing to construct a second story addition above the existing garage. The proposed addition would encroach into the side yard setback. The variance request is to allow for the construction of a second story addition. I have viewed this property and have attached photos of the site. According to Mr. Bruning's application, there are several hardships that contribute for the need for this addition. First, the lot is irregularly shaped (see attached survey.) This irregularity makes it difficult to adequately position the structure. The second hardship is that there is no basement underneath the home, creating a shortage of living and storage space. Finally, the existing home has been built (prior to 1982) partially within the east side yard setback. Also, the living space in the proposed addition will not encroach into the setback area. Rather, support trusses will encroach two feet into the setback area above the existing garage, as evidenced by the attached survey. The proposed project requires the following variance from City Code: Section 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements. The City's Zoning Code states that side yard setbacks for lots greater than 100 feet in width in the R-1 Zoning District shall be at least 15 feet from the property line. The variance request is for 2 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 13 feet at its closest point to the side yard (east) property line. No prior variances from City Code were found for this property. 540 \1ItGlf'Il"''f 55 54,5 6701 ll681 .... t1l ~ "' -< :: m Z o 0 530510 _.Aol"''lSS l\'tlS"'- 6401 :ul 28 6407 28 6415 28 28 6141 330 32lI no 320 319 316 310 240 30ll 300 235 I 230 ~ 301 240 225 c Z20 )0 231 ;4i Z30 :ill 205 210 0 221 220 0 2m 215 jMft 240 68119 220 ( M_\? ~:l'~ W"~'l kc~MS ~ C(l;r.t~\'g'J; 1C\ LOOiSGIS:m5 -. . ,-<Jl,l\, lIS' 1'-^- Ln. X.H' o\JJ.~" n, J.. 6~~~e~c~~s~~~~e, (~) Golden Valley, Mn. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 9,Block 2, WESTCHESTER (Certificate of Title No. 1089J97Yj LEGEND: Scale: J inch = 30 feet Bearirigs as shown are assumed . Denotes Iron Monument Found o Denotes Iron Monument Set (14" xl/2" Iron Pipe. Capped by R.L.S. No. J 0948) "Q,P.P. - Power Pole Note: Distances as measured are in feet, tenths & hundredths of a foot. \ ,\ i 0.00 - " E;. , to \ 0 . 0, '2. 'l, tIb'D ...-- ~\) --- II ~(' 0'~ Q \; -'Y" , <: S ?t:' -f ~ = ~ - lS' v Q 0 r- Z \)' 0 CO 1- ..: ~ 0 c:-' 1-- ...!l () .. ;;;;-' S--- ~ ~~ '-.... " ,~>- -...:< C'" .... ~~ " \.~ ~ "- ~o "'" '~ "- <:> ",cf>'" , oS'. "" .. " I J' ....- 0 '__ .1 " G"'i, ~~ ri\ I '" ~ ,;~ J ~' ~ ( , -J '/" S)l"'C' ~ (~+~ 00 "'') ";.> i" c/~ . Ct..~ ~ ~. I here by certify that this survey was prepared by me and.!bat I am a duty Registered Land Surveyor under the laws .~~\~s oft State of Minnesota: As surveyed by me this ~ay of \O(\{Cf\ .-JD~ Df\''{ C'\'" 6 '/. 2003. tttu lS !SUIv/ L( tI~ - I 35 ~:tu-{ c (' "./' \'1t6~T '\~, ";)lot ~ \(t;~f\..- c./V'; . tJi!/l:l ~. er, Land Surveyor i6ense Number 10948. City of Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Zoning Code Variance Application For Office Use Only: . Application. No. Date Received BZA Meeting Date . AmountReceived . 1 . Street address of property involved in this application: G~<;;c' We~~c~e~~("" C~~c(e~) Go~V(!)..~'t'\ Mn. 2. Applicant: ~-eot brl 'U""\ \Y1C\ ) ~i~\r'ef'" }~ ~\~\r'\ Name 'J . Lf 7l-\ 0 '-\ 2 Y'\d A~. .D. Rolo\;)~O~t);\0 55".l.f Address City/StatelZip -7c;~... S3~'-06b2 Business Phone '1 ~3 -SJf"-10C,G, Home Phone (" l2-~ .- to,~ Cell Phone Yrea\ Bru,i,incJe ~~~'"'CO\s~ Email Address \ Detailed description of building(s), addition(s), and alteration(s) involved in this petition. The site plans and drawings submitted with thi~ petition will be the basis of any variance that may be approved and cannot be changed before or after the building permit is issued. J ~ -/-1'--- I ) ~ 0\12",&:::\("\. . \.~\I" cL.~eot 4. A brief statement of the hardship which provides legal grounds for the granting of this variance (see Frequently Asked Questions for an expl~nation of a "hardship"). Attach letter, photographs, or other evidence, if appropriate. See ~~~~;\0 o....~ eel a 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. ~~~nt ;/. \~rEd l~un'~~ I ~l~II'\e.~"2 < /' f\ ~ ,. "ll"V'>'''''''::::'o ~___. .,_~.._~ Q ,,--c-l tJ:....)...I...P. e.v-::) 1Il4/{1.'1 Jl. /.-:.5W~r . Print Name of own r If the applicant is not the owner of all property involved in this application, please name the owner of this property: .4 :;{. /~ ~nature 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. V 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 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 comer, this means across both streets. To obtain these signatures, you will need to persor)ally 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: his 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. y signing this form, you are only verifying that you have been told about the project, npt that ou 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 C ItA 1 D ~ lev~c< V\1t\ Comment Lll<...e.~o )(iI\OW VVtt:rfe ~~O~ , \ Print Name ~ )r,"___'D\ \"-:5 PYl Signature Address t. r C;TJ tJ t"s{htu (},. r Comment Signature ~:.. ~ -",::. ,r.....J q 7'\ . i./ I I.. ) frV0 1'.~ctBcz c te. Address ~. L-/ r; '6 \;,) t? 5 {cLJ~ f [1) Print Name Comment ignature Address it:, C( (9 ( /L~'5 77IfeS'T~ ~ Print Name Comment Signature Address Print Name Comment Signature Address Print Name Comment ~ Signature Address Print Name Comment Signature Address . .. ~. Neighbors ofGyswyt's 55427 6466 Westchester Circle Golden Valley, MN Jeremy C. Hagen /6478 Westchester Circle Unlisted Phone Number Clay Ohlemann v6458 Westchester Circle 763-591-0263 Larry D'Amico 6484 Westchester Circle Unlisted Phone Number Mo.J.e- '2- o-ti..:eVY' fJ-LE:. i 0 u..;:.~,", e\J' \0c::~:>f ~~\fY'\ e. . Mark Flaten/LisaNovotny A ^ . J 2- o-ft-eVV\(>-C<:::' J Ou..)\n-e~ ~o-b ~VY\e. . 6469 Westchester Circle jV'-O..O'e. 763-525-5953 Daniel Rybeck/Kathleen Searls V 6461 Westchester Circle 763-544-2987 Charles & Amy Segelbaum 6473 Westchester Circle 763-544-2373 +1.L .r ........-b ~ VY" e .. ;A.o.ol.e.. 2.. ~LLevV\~~~) ou...)\ile\i V'- ~ . !55'~!.:.:" " ,:1) ,'l3€i ck'rL-e-<:;. ~ kv-y"..C\.::c...; "'Se.O<~~n U1tY"'\ -..; U'j;...,.;l 64i.:~?- 3S0 20 , Page 1. 6GY} C,'tz...." . (),~t.2 " , " ~~J 'r ~:ht f"iffl9 ";'132 Q.,'1iE 7~ ("eD -~.. 6,1.'lt~ ~,'~/,6 ..tZD .>e Y'-C vv-.. ,( UCUS"-v--. M",-V"c.e.( '\- , ^ "^ '" l":\-::,=. / " ';~"'., c.. '" >C.....c'-::;f.... . ~ 't~"....'r '-.) . . "Ot.~'(~~... C\ '"'' ~j-,~._t) 61;.-t.'," ".4\',~ \Lc<-bL-,(~", S~r&;, '1;(i: Cl M 00 ~ ~ ~':j';-O 2~2S ~ -: '" z ~:;9 ~..~ L' .,.......;, 32[1 ;;:::.9 1W ,Jl.U htto:/ll.~is.co.henneoin.mn.us/outout/HC PROPERTY MAP2 www84932486083826.ioQ: 1 0/8/2007 . HARDSHIP Because of the elevation of their lot, the Gyswyt's do not have the basement that many of their neighbors enjoy. Their lot is also an atypical triangular shape, which limits the buildable area for expansion. Consequently the Gyswyt's would like to pursue the option of creating their family room over their existing garage. Sawhorse has proposed a family room addition that would be approximately eighteen feet from the east side yard lot line, however, some of the structural components designed to support the room bear on the existing east garage wall. Unfortunately, an approximate four square foot comer of the existing garage is approximately thirteen feet from the east lot line and two feet into the fifteen foot setback. Sawhorse, on behalf of tl1e Gyswyt family, would like to request a two foot variance to the east side yard setback. .. We believe that the proposed family room is a reasonable use of the property. Granting this variance should be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the City of Golden Valley's zoning laws and should not substantially change the character of Golden Valley or the Gyswyt's neighborhood. ~. . .. ~. DESCRIPTION The Gyswyt's currently own a two-story home built over a crawlspace with an attached three-car garage. They would like to create a family-room over their current garage. The proposed family-room has been designed to be entirely under a new 12/12 pitch roof replacing the existing garage roof with windows to just the street and rear yard. (See attached floor plans, elevations, survey and photo for additional information). .. / "'~ 1\ = '" ~~ ~~ ~~ '" ~ ~ "'~ * ~ ~- """, ~ ~ " I-' >-l h "" ~~ " f- f- ,,'" ~- """, ~ : ~ '" '" f- ~ '" f-- ~ "'", ~ : - ~ '" 1- I- """, ~ ':= :: ~ "'" h ~ i~~~ II ~~t ~ . ~. d~ // ~~ / -~ // I- ~ / f- / -f-- // -: I- I- ~ f-- l- l- f--, --. f- f- ~/ ~& /1 / / / / / t--i-=-- I r ~/ 1>>~iP'1 ~I / ~r ~m I I t --1 T I II " T T II h l l n t r If j if ~ ~ )-~ I I r .... - \; ~ .( ~ I D ~ rr D ~ O A" b! ~ ODD T T I o 0 DDD ODD DDD o D o D 'H I I Il I -L. .... . I i"~1I : I~I I 1 I I I I I I I I I - I I I I I I I I _I I I I I I I I I 1>- I :zl 10 lOl- I ....J I <( I I I CO I I I I I I I I I I I ! I III J[] I: I I I IZ 10 I I Q.. o 0~~~~ ~ '-- oo~~ ~~~~~ 0 I ~~ I~~~ ~ II II II II II II II II II II II II II II - --1-1- - -- - - - - - - - --- II CJ [~]R~LU _D - -- -0- -00--..... -- I I I-I I II I I I !I I II I I I II- I II I I I II : J/----------~--------- [,/1_____________________________ ~. 1- -I n I~ I~ I- I \l :1 I I I I ~1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . / ..# / ~. .... - 1\ ~ ,:r' .J, ~ \f) [QiJ b:~ 0CJl tCJJI~ . ~. \ - U .-:: ~ - ] . .. ~. 'I~~I . .. I. , . .. - " - .... .......t"' - j .. I. / I / I I / I ..... - "---l I / I n ---"" I / ~ . I "" I I~ I I "" I I / 1 - I 1 "" ""I I / ij . / I I i I / I I I"" I / I I I """" I / I I I "" I / I I I I "" 1 / I "" I I I "" I / 1 1 I J "" I / I \ I 1 \ I / / I I I \[; I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I ------i I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I ~ I Ie I ---1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I J I I I I I I I I I 1____ le . .. Ie \\ III .... - U ::t" ........~ - i t{l . Ie Ie " , - u ~ ~ i V\ _, :er . .. ~ .., ~ Y:, \. J , . .'-, j'~I' ~ ,: ~r" ! 1'~' '. ;,0.4" ' W ~" ~~' ~ I ;.' , r'~J 1ft "I" , '1" ,i 'J \" . ' , ' ".",' !'1~~ I ,:: " ,. ;. l ~ . '\' ~ ' :t'7" , ',,~t :}J I }i~1 S"i ,,'; 'l,:~' ,r : 't' : :,+:-' ,'I,', ," :1 '6 ~,; i ..' ,f ,,' ; "l~ " , .oJ.. , < i t~' 'f' ", ' '\ ~r ,fff ~'" :\; . j' I ;'~ I 1 I"~ . t -. 1 (1' r I j 4 \ \ I I !:r " .. ,~ , 'i I I ., . ..' " . . . Page 1 of 1 Hogeboom, Joe From: Clay Ohlemann [cohlemann@gmaiLcom] Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 9:02 AM To: Hogeboom, Joe Cc: Carol Denson-Ohlemann Subject: Re: proposed addition to house at 6466 Westchester Circle Good morning, I live next door to the address in the Subject line. My wife, Carol Denson, asked me to email you. I think you talked with her yesterday. When the employee of Sawhorse (I don't recall his name) came to our door, with the paper to sign, about the proposed addition, he assured me that by signing I was not giving my consent or agreeing to anything. He told me that by signing I was just acknowledging that he talked to me about it. I did sign the form, and wrote the comment that I would like to see more information about the project. To cleaify, I was not signing to say "I was in favor of', or "agreeing to" , or "giving my consent to the plan" in anyway. Thank you for your time, Clay Ohlemann 6458 Westchester Circle 763 591 0263 (home) 651 628 7170 (work) 10/2312007 . . . Page 1 of 1 Hogeboom, Joe From: Carol Denson-Ohlemann [carol_denson@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 23,20072:47 PM To: Hogeboom, Joe Subject: Proposed Addition at 6466 Westchester Cir To the Zoning Board, My name is Carol Denson, I live at 6458 Westchester Circle. Recently a representative of Sawhorse Remodeling came to my door to inform me of a proposed addition to 6466 Westchester Circle. During this discussion, he informed my husband and myself that the back corner of the garage was 2 feet into the setback toward our home. Their proposal was to put a room on the top of the garage only, and the roof line would be raised by 6 feet. He showed us a drawing of the plan where the proposed room did not connect to the existin second story of the home. At this discussion I did not "agree or consent" that this proposed plan was a non-issue to me. Upon further follow-up with City Hall, I was shown a plan for a project that included building a second story room over the garage and the mudroom, with the room connecting to the existing second story of their home. The roof line was being raised to be level with the existing house roof line, much more than the 6 feet that was told to us. This plan was not remotely the same plan that Sawhorse showed to us at our home. In either case, any additional height added to their garage and home will directly reduce the amount of sunlight that will be available to us on both our new backyard patio and the western rooms of our home. This will infringe upon the ability for us to enjoy our home, sitting in the shadow of the addition. I urge you to consider this in your decision, and to vote to disallow the variance. Thank you for your consideration, Carol Denson-Ohlemann 6458 Westchester Circle 763-591-0263 Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 10/2312007 -. r::::I ~1 .....:;~;