06-27-06 BZA Agenda
.
e
e
Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, June 27,2006
7pm
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chambers
I.
Approval of Minutes - May 23, 2006
II.
The Petitions are:
540 Cloverleaf Drive (06-06-10)
Sharon Arndt, Applicant
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(3)(b) Side Yard Setback
Requirements
. 7.5 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 5 ft. at its closest
point to the side (west) yard property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a second garage stall
817 Westwood Drive South (06-06-11)
Scott & Cyndi Barrinaton, Applicants
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(3)(a) Side Yard Setback
Requirements
. 10ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 5 ft. at its closest point
to the side yard (north) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new tuck under garage with living
space above.
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (E) Accessory Structure
Requirements
. 361 sq. ft. more than the allowed 1,000 sq. ft. of accessory
structure space
e
e
e
319 Hanley Road (06-06-12)
Bruce Fraser & Michelle Bigelow, Applicants
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 1 0(A)(1) Front Yard
Requirements
. 7.8 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 27.2ft. at its closest
point to the front yard property line along Hanley Road.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of an addition to the home
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 1 0(A)(1) Front Yard
Requirements
. 11 ft. off the required 30 ft. to a distance of 19 ft. at its closest
point to the front yard property line along Hanley Road.
Purpose:
To allow for the construction of an open front porch
Request:
Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(3) Requirements
. 2.5 ft. off the required 5 ft. to a distance of 2.5 ft. at its closest
point to the side (south) yard property line.
Purpose:
To bring the existing shed into conformance with setback
requirements
III. Other Business
IV. Adjournment
2
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
.
May 23, 2006
.
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday,
May 23,2006 in the Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley,
Minnesota. McCarty called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Members Landis, McCarty, Nederveld and Sell and
Commission Representative Waldhauser. Also present were Director
Development Mark Grimes and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittma
I. Approval of Minutes - April 25, 2006
MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Sell and motion carrie
the April 25, 2006 minutes as submitted.
II. The Petitions are:
2091 Ordway (06-05-07)
Donna Godeiohn. ADDlicant
Request:
d. 10(A)(1) Front Yard Setback
uired 35 ft. to a distance of 24.9 ft. at its closest
.ard property line along Noble Ave. N.
Purpose:
e construction of a laundry/mud room and second
of the property and stated that the applicant currently has a
at she is proposing to add a second garage stall and convert
ng g ge space into a laundry room and entry area. The total width of
uld be 29 ft. He noted that this is a corner lot and therefore has two
and that the setback from the Ordway side of the property is ok
se was built before 1982 so the front setback requirement is 25 ft. He
added th other option would be to put a new garage and driveway on the Noble
side of the property, but the City would prefer not to have an additional driveway on
Noble Ave. because it is a busy street and a new street.
Sell agreed that a driveway on to Noble Ave. might be difficult to exit at times and the
logical place for the driveway is as it currently exists on Ordway.
.
McCarty asked about the setback requirement from the north property line. Grimes said
that the setback requirement would be 12.5 ft. for an attached garage and 5 ft. for a
detached garage.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
May 23, 2006
Page 2
.
Nederveld asked what the size of a new garage would be if the applicant were to expand
it right to the 35 ft. setback line. Grimes stated that would only allow the applicant to have
a 19 ft. wide garage.
Waldhauser noted that it was the laundry room addition that was driving the need to go
so far into the setback area and that a standard two-stall garage could be built with only a
slight variance.
.
Donna Godejohn, Applicant, stated that she feels the lack of storag
She said that as long as she is doing the proposed addition she
home and make it more valuable because she intends to live i
added that she does not want to expand to the west becaus
neighboring property.
Waldhauser asked the applicant if she had thought 0
room addition. Godejohn said she hadn't thought
room because the plumbing is in the right spot t
it.
r the laundry
tions for the laundry
ere she is proposing
Nederveld said that he thinks the hards
but in this case the applicant could bui
room. He said he would feel more
. nt has a single stall garage
e ou Ie garage without the laundry
a 22 ft. wide garage.
Godejohn said she would have
home she intends to stay i
away her advantage in t
o options. She stated that this is the
g a main floor laundry room would be taking
McCarty asked the
north instead of to t
had considered bumping out the laundry room to the
the laundry room onto the north side of her home it would
which would be a lot less desirable for the neighborhood
a shed addition attached to the house. He said in today's
laundry is important and that the City needs to look at what can be
itive with surrounding communities.
agreed that this is a nice plan but they have to look at the hardship and
ce or future use.
Godejohn said her only option would be to bump out the laundry room behind the
proposed new garage or decide if she wants to put the money she was going to use for
the addition into a new home.
.
Grimes explained several options to the applicant. He said she could ask to have the
request tabled and come back with a different plan, she could have the Board vote on a
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
May 23, 2006
Page 3
. lesser variance request or she could have them vote on this plan and appeal the Board's
decision to the City Council. Godejohn said she would have to think about it.
She clarified that one option would be to deny the current plan but allow her to build a 22
ft. wide garage. Grimes said that was correct.
Nederveld asked the applicant when she was planning to start construction. Godejohn
said she was hoping to start in a couple of weeks.
Landis opened the publi
Landis closed the public
hen it
ce or it
ving a
her
Waldhauser asked the applicant if Noble Ave was made wider or mov
was reconstructed. Godejohn said Noble Ave. was reconstructed in t
might have been made slightly narrower. She said she does not t
driveway on Noble Ave. because of the traffic and shrubs and ~ eon t
property.
Godejohn referred to the survey and stated that if she built t
she wouldn't have an entrance from the laundry roo
through the garage.
to the north,
d have to go
.
McCarty reiterated to the applicant that she cou
garage with a lesser variance. He added t
the main floor laundry room. He asked
between having an upstairs laundry ro
are important to her because she
she would like to ask the Board
think about if she wants to go t
e wants a 22 ft. wide
arage is the hardship not
e felt was more important
rage stall. Godejohn said both
ouse another 30 years. She said
ild a 22 ft. wide garage and she would
ns or not.
and hearing no one wishing to comment
Waldhauser said sh
as a hardship.
a nice plan but she just can't justify the laundry room
ded by Waldhauser and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve a
uired 35 ft. to a distance of 32 ft. at its closest point to the
line along Noble Ave. N. to allow for the construction of a 22 ft. wide
gainst the motion.
13 Ipine Pass (06-05-08)
Spencer Johnson & Amy Lynch. Applicants
Request:
Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(3)(a) Side Yard Setback
Requirements
.
. 6.5 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 6 ft. at its closest
point to the side yard (south) property line.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
May 23, 2006
Page 4
.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a deck
Grimes stated that this house was built within the last 10 to 15 years. He explained the
applicant's proposal to construct a deck on the south side of their home and noted that
there are several topography issues with this lot. He stated that the applicants have noted
that the hardships for this variance request are that they have three front yard setbacks,
the topography constraints and that other locations for the deck would not provide
privacy.
.
to
ment
o within
Grimes referred to the survey and explained that originally the ap
build the deck to within 5 ft. of the south property line, but ther
along that property line so the applicants changed their requ
6 ft. to the south property line and out of the utility easemen
Spencer Johnson, Applicant, stated that they have 0
He said it is a fantastic house and property but th
house is outdoor living space.
it was built.
missing from the
Waldhauser asked the applicant if he had
proposed deck. Johnson said they con
steep.
er locations for the
of the house but it is way too
McCarty asked what rooms in t
dining and living rooms.
ted on the west side. Johnson said the
Grimes stated that the a
to the south would be abl
neighbors to the so re
ed wanting privacy and asked if the neighbors
right the proposed new deck. Johnson said that the
t in line with their home.
sed deck would be coming off of. Johnson said it is the
se to the kitchen.
at there would be enough room on the west side of the house
of the deck. Johnson said there is a narrow patio and a couple of
t area and then it gets very steep so it would not work to put the deck
Grimes as about creating a patio or deck along the north side (front) of the home.
Johnson said that area is also very steep and they would still need a variance because
the house is wedged in on the lot. Grimes explained that the City tries to make people
who own narrow lots aware of the fact that there is typically no more room to make any
future additions. He asked the applicant if this property was purchased through MnDOT.
Johnson said he didn't know, but that they bought the home through a builder who built it
as a spec home.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
May 23, 2006
Page 5
. Sell stated that with the setbacks and topography on this lot the only logical place to build
a deck is exactly where they are proposing to put it. He said that the applicants have
hardships with the three front yards and the topography and that it seems like a
reasonable request.
Waldhauser said she is having a hard time seeing a deck as a requirement on a home.
Nederveld agreed and said that obviously this is a beautiful home but he doesn't think a
deck would fit in this location. He said a deck could possibly be built on the west side and
that a lack ofa deck doesn't meet the hardship criteria the Board is as 1I0w.
Landis agreed that it looks like a deck could be built on the west sid e 0 without
the need for variances. Johnson said they would not want a deck t est s' of the
house and that they looked at all their options.
Landis told the applicant that he had the option to table this
vote on the request in front them. Johnson said he would like
proposal.
,1 to deny the request
losest point to the side yard
MOVED Waldhauser, seconded Nederveld and
for 6.5 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance 0
(south) property line. Sell voted against th
.
5101 MinnaquaDrive (06-
Fred Nabeta. Applicant
Request:
n 11.65, Subd. 5 Shoreland Management
required 50 ft. to a distance of 44 ft. at its closest point
w for the construction of a laundry room addition
Waiver from Section 11.65, Subd. 5 Shoreland Management
Requirements
. 30.5 ft. off the required 50 ft. to a distance of 19.5 ft. at its closest
point to the creek.
Purpose: To bring the existing home into conformance with setback
requirements and to replace an existing overhead deck in the same
location
. Grimes referred to the survey and explained that the applicant is requesting the above
variances in order to allow an expansion to the home and to replace an existing deck off
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
May 23,2006
Page 6
. the second level. He stated that the City Engineer and the DNR have reviewed the plans
and have no issues with the requested variances.
Nederveld noted that the existing home is 24 ft. away from the top of the bank of the
creek, not 19.5 like written in the staff report and on the agenda.
Grimes agreed and said the second variance request should be changed to read 26 ft. off
the required 50 ft. to a distance of 24 ft. at its closest point to the creek.
McCarty asked if the first variance request is for the existin
that the first request is for the proposed laundry room additio
rest of the house.
ds to be updated. He
master bedroom because
om which is small. He said
Waldhauser asked if the Board typically grants variances to applicants
in the same location. Grimes said yes. He added that the City Engin
more concerned about the lowest floor being 2 ft. above the 100 r
in this case it is.
Ken Hedberg, representing the applicant, state
said that they are trying to provide a utility/laund
the current master bedroom is located in t
they are upgrading the house and maki
.
Kevin Winchell, builder for the pro'
down and a new one will be buil
will be creating uniformity along
e existing garage will be torn
m the creek. Hedberg added that they
use.
Hedberg showed the Bo
talked about the pitch of
patio will be made ler
trying to make the a
'ons of the proposed new look of the house and
n t roposed new deck. He stated that the existing
I also be further away from the creek and that they are
. and not look like an "add-on".
Waldhauser a
back of t
smalle
away fro
I t ey are planning on replacing both of the patios in the
said that they are replacing both patios and that they will be
om the creek. Grimes added that patios don't have to be 50 ft.
the bank of the creek.
plicant stated that the existing deck is so unsafe that people aren't able
t is imperative that they get it fixed.
McCarty asked if the variance for the laundry room addition were to be denied what other
options they would have. Hedberg stated that they would still need a room to put the
heating and cooling equipment in for the new addition and that since they are doing that
he felt it seemed appropriate to add a laundry room to the proposal as well. He noted that
the laundry room addition would not be in the flood plain and that it would tie into the
. home's existing foundation and would not be any closer to the creek.
McCarty asked if the home would have two utility rooms. Hedberg said yes.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
May 23, 2006
Page 7
. Grimes noted that this proposal would be taking a lot of the garage and concrete patios
out of the shoreland area.
McCarty asked where the existing laundry was located. Winchell pointed out the laundry
room area on the plans. McCarty asked what the roof line would be like on the proposed
new laundry/utility room. Hedberg said it would be a flat roof with a rubber membrane
then the overhead deck will be on top of that.
Landis opened the public hearing.
closed the public hearing.
revious laundry room
house and only a
agreed that it does seem to
he City adopted the
ion.
Winchell stated that their proposal seems like a fair trade to them beca
improving the shoreland situation. Grimes added that they can't reall
the north.
McCarty noted that the applicant's stated hardship is that th
replacement and that the creek makes it difficult to expand
that he is not seeing the hardship in regard to the laundry roo
Waldhauser said she has less trouble with this pr
proposal (Godejohn) because it is in a straight Ii
small portion of addition really requires the vari
make some sense because the home wa
shoreland ordinance which created the
.
no one wishing to comment, he
Nederveld said he thinks t
request because this pr
with this proposal. Waldh
very different from the previous laundry room
. g into the setback area so he is comfortable
e grees.
MOVED by Sell, se
the following v .
dhauser and motion carried unanimously to approve
50 ft. to a distance of 44 ft. at its closest point to the creek to
ction of a laundry room addition
equired 50 ft. to a distance of 24 ft. at its closest point to the creek to
existing home into conformance with setback requirements and to
n existing overhead deck in the same location
III. Other Business
Sell reminded the Board of the annual Commission Dinner being held on June 14.
.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 pm.
.
06-06-10
.
Sharon Arndt, Applicant
540 Cloverleaf Drive
.
~
/"'>' ~""
SCHA7Ji'1'O(!f i;
L
Ut..AC DR N
OlSON MEMotUAl HWY
HIGHwAY 55
HIGHwAY 55
LIlAC DR N
H4
5221
5211
5201
51U
5111
S33
m
515
516
SOl
WOODSTOCK AVI!
440
5301
420
422
-'"
M~~~~N-ca.S. ~~tC}~GfS3>>5.
4U
216f1
.
.
.
.
Planning
763-593-8095/ 763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
June 27, 2006
To:
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
From:
KristinA Gonzalez, Planning Intern
Subject:
540 Cloverleaf Dr
Sharon Arndt, Applicant
Ms. Arndt owns the house and property at 540 Cloverleaf Dr. The applicant is requesting a
variance from Section 11.21, Subd. 10 (A)(3)(b), Side Yard Setbacks, in order to construct a
new garage addition. A survey was required to obtain information regarding the existing
structures on the property. The proposed new garage addition to the house will bring it to
within 5 feet of the west side property line.
The applicant is proposing to add on an existing one stall garage. This garage addition will
bring the size of the garage to 22 ft. by 22 ft.
The applicant states that the hardship is the fact that the current garage is a one stall garage.
The project requires a variance from the following City Code:
Section 11.21, Subd. 10 (A)(3)(b), Side Yard Setbacks. City Code states that
the required side yard setback for lots with a width of greater than 65 feet and
less than 100 feet shall be 12.5 feet from any side property line. The requested
variance is for 7.5 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 5 ft. at its closest
point to the side yard property line.
A review of the City file indicates that the house was built in 1954. No other major additions
have been made to the house since that time.
. ?.CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
ji'OR: SharonL.Amdt .
540 Clov~l~Drive
....."'.Golden VatIey, MN 55422
. 'B~~~hmark: TNH, SW, Cloverleaf Drive @ Clover Lane.
N.G.V.D. 1929 adjusted elevation = 870.369 feet
L:;j J'
I
J
. ... 1~ '"
I.. (.,;'. "'r
I
~
, '-
:._t'; .:J
.
. J!:I lof ,7 LDfs -
In
I 01, I A~$A:: 14f'/l.aS"~ptl
I
f ' I 10:\ t!F t..:~.:. 8'lJlf/i' .
I Ji't'f.'lL. t..;: 75./J()
-- I
I .4 # /1".1<1-' S/il
I R.::. 3"/..'2.4-
8~4."7
x
I
/-$-,
tfr&lSt
, I
j I
~ I I
U{1!!:
'" I /1.x3/~
" 0"0
'" I
or-.: ,
~ I
~ I I
\\. ! /
~ I
S I,~
~ ,
"
I
,
" LC'T9
! I
!
I I
II
}
-
Scale: 1 = 30'
o Denotes iron monument
xooO.o == Existing elevations
Bearings are assumed .
~
~
,<l CLOVER LEAF _
. )C g(,S;z.D
. DR.IVE
)( ~'f,35"
~
Legal Description:
Beginning at the northeast comer of Lot 8, thence southerly to
a point in the south line of said distance 15.00 feet west from the
southeast comer thereof; thence west along the south line of
Lots 8 and 7 to a point 10.00 feet west from the southeast comer
of Lot 7; thence northeasterly to a point in the north line of Lot 8
distance 10.00 feet east from the northwest comer thereof; thence
east to the beginning, Block 1, CLOVERLEAF TERRACE.
.
I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under
my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land
Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
Surveyed by me this 31d day of May, 2006.
1L6:1 L-/
Herb F. Lemire RLS ' '
Minnesota Reg. No. 13349
4416 Abbott Ave. N
Robbinsdale,MN55422
Phone: 763.537.0497
, ,I
City of Golden Valley
Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
Zoning Code Variance Application
1. Street address of property involved in this application:
.. 510 r%k!I!I'#f !Jr/;;~
2. Applicant: lWartJl1 L~ IIrltdt
Name .. /I/'/
ffLi (itJ/djDJtJ f)ri/Je, ~/It;4. fJ!P/l, /1 JL{~N42.-
Address ~ ~tate/ZiP
163 --j/fJ~ tff()f
Business Phone Home Phone Cell Phone
Email Address
3. Detailed description of building(s), addition(s), and alteration(s) involved in this petition. The site
plans and drawings submitted with this petition will be the basis of any variance that may be
approved and cannot be changed before or after the building permit is issued.
~L&Iiflt;~ 1/!l)ff4 rtJ/Jd~
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.
~ tMN//f8{l/ MfFfi
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 var'ance request, if granted,
is not taken within one year, the variance expire .
6. If the applicant is not the owner of all property involved in this application, please name the
owner of this property:
s/titYfJI1 tl Artptdt;
Print Name of owner
Variance Application Subl11ittal:
The following information must be submitted by the applica~ion 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.
V 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 corner, this means across both streets.
To obtain these signatures, you will need to personally visit each of these property owners, tell them
about your project (we encourage you to bring along a copy of your building plans) and' have them
sign the area, below. The signature is meant only to verify that you have told them about your
project and gives them opportunity to comment.
. If you have attempted to contact a property owner on two separate occasions and not found them at
home, you may simply write something to the effect "made two attempts, owner not home" and then
write their address. City staff will also send a written notice informing these property owners of the
time and place of the BZA meeting.
Note to surrounding property owners:
This is an application by your neighbor for a variance from the CityZoning Code. Please be aware of
any possible effect the granting of this variance could have on your property. You will also be
.eiving 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.' .
rint Name
Comment
Signature. '
Print Name
Comment
Signature
Print Name
Comment
Signature
rint Name
Comment
Signature (
Print Name
Comment
Signature
Print Name
Comment
Signature
Print Name
.omment
Signature
-D el- ~ i-ft- F; P::cel?~ E:.. ,
J ~~~AJ~ W()IJ,Jd..~44/dL
. ~~.. . *. .1i.ii'4. ..... .... ... .Address~; &I{)tle.t.i~~ r ~
~i c? lJ iJ{; C)/?) J1 5 (/ VJ/
OX-~ ~ del>' r: ,-,,, YV &Iv (?, .11' t; L !J Q ~I ~v;? ~
~$ ~ Address~ r YJ' e/#'",,.-:;- h&r /J.
/
~ (} t1) ~V' ~e ~ -r m.A-- t-Y (i ~ ~~,
-.i1t&l-~lJ;Ovh - "t- w1Q (tea ~ ~~\~V1Q OJ( ~~
-(1.( ~ 1ra d::.d(~~,_) Address 53,.Q (>lrJi((fftalf [)~
~~
Address7~pl. ~vtAA'~~:f.1'
Address )'2-1/- d$(Jw ~ 1It-,
..
....
Address
Address
\. --r
.
I
I
I j
I CJ1
I ~
I
I 0
I
I 0
-
I 0
~<
CD
..,
-
CD
Q.) C
-It
C
. ...
.
t'i
.
~".. ~.
.71
'i;t: ~~C<I-' :~
'Q"r.lI
. ~~. f!
~"'';~':f'":' .,~.
H ,.'~ '~r~ JRi l'/~ -!
.,~ "lJr~>;
,.,,1' .,1....
.~ ,,"0,
..... I\,r
(D...... ~;.)
_ ':ti ~I ,,;
, let!
. ,.'\1;: l~,''''
.I' -
..JJ'j
i:
..iQiJ,.,'i;"1I
~.~\,~. I
\, J '.. '~,,;~::),:,
1\,.$,~ ~_tl
:(, {.<
l.....t., ~, I:';
i 1ii!'l: il
il.l' ,f iii' :~~, ii'
, .f ;"':t' _ ~~" .. t~
'!~};t+'" l> i1
.~ ,.,\....,. i AI
\'lj~: "~ ''''1' II 'lo
i'l1r.:. ,Jt l(, .nl.'
, .
R
" Ii!
,j
";
'''i.
y
ollI
t.,.o:
.
06-06-11
. Scott & Cyndi Barrington, Applicants
817 Westwood Drive S.
.
4511 40ll * 4(J8 4301 4223
4211 4201 4115 4101
4510 508 515 m 529 m 541
JANALYN CIR
STRAWBERRY I.N
512 516
4511 451)1 520 528 S32 536 600
700 TYROL TRl N
641
109
708
700
109
717
aoo
801
4414 440ll
920
tJ
1000
4112
4102
4032
WB 1394 to SIJ HWYl00S
IT\..... !NTl;/lsrATe 394 WI! 139470 Na HWvJ()O S
\&i 194 HOv I.N
M."""".,; *""A'dMS. c<""4" tel i.if.;l$QlS:lOO5 3&4 HOV LN 0
WA"fZATA IJLVO
321fl..
.
.
.
.
Hey
Planning
763-593-8095/ 763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
June 27, 2006
To:
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
From:
Kristin A Gonzalez, Planning Intern
Subject:
817 Westwood Dr. S.
Scott & Cindy Barrington, Applicant
The Barrington's owns the house and property at 817 Westwood Dr. S. The applicants are
requesting two variances. A variance from Section 11.21, Subd. 10 (3)(a), Side Yard Setback
requirements, in order to construct a new living space addition with a lower level two-car
garage. The second from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (E) Size of Accessory Structures. After the
construction of the living space with lower level garage, the total garage area (with the
existing garage) will exceed 1,000 square feet.
A survey was required to obtain information regarding the existing structures on the property.
The proposed new garage and living space addition to the house will bring it to within 5 feet
of the north side property line and will increase the amount of accessory space to 1,361 sq.
ft. The current garage will remain as garage space and is approximately 495 sq. ft. in area.
The new garage will add 866 sq. ft. of accessory structure space.
The applicant states that there are several hardships with this property. The majority of the
problems with this lot are because of its pie shape and steep topography. The majority of this
lot has street frontage with a 35 foot setback, which limits the amount of buildable area. The
steep topography directs the placement of the driveway. The driveway already has a steep
slope and to move it from its current position would only increase the slope.
The project requires a variance from the following City Code:
Section 11.21, Subd. 10 (3)(s), Side Yard Setbacks. City Code states that the
required side yard setback for lots having a width of 100 feet or greater shall be
15 feet from any side yard property line. The requested variance is for 10ft. off
the required 15 ft. to a distance of 5 ft. at its closest point to the side yard
(north) property line.
Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (E) Size of Accessory Structure. City Code states
that each property is limited to a total of 1,000 square feet of accessory
structure space, this includes attached garages. The requested variance is for
361 sq. ft. off the required 1,000 sq. ft. to a total size of 1,361 sq. ft.
A review of the City file indicates that the house was built in 1992. No other major additions
have been made to the house since that time.
Jun 06 06 OB:lSa
MRY-09-2006 15:20
Barr i ng.t.on
CITY GOLDEN URLLEY
~b~~~~~U~! ~.~
763 593 8109 P.04/06
.:;/~;tXfr~;:~~'~~~f~.~7~f.~i~i::":-;
.AppJlcabon~Nc:r:';" .' . ....,:.~'. ;;. .:.:"
'~~~~;'l':-~~P:
. Amount:Recelved:'" "~':." '.;"':'
City of Golden Valley
Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
Zoning. Code Variance Application
1. Street address 'of property involved in this application:
0,' 7 i A J, i)'--" ,r'.
t.) ..' V ~ l21S[j),)'J]O,-./ \ Ar", ':"")
2. Applicant: .Cr'Qtr+- C'-Jn~D'7 f\,Jf-nA
Name I c~
8 /7 N([.(4-~lUilj)r. S. (~Jdo:n \}CI ) ~4 ; IV! tV
Address City/StatelZlp
(0 J-~ - ~~3 =lllD '7 fD~ -3 '7 7-q CJl t ('0/ OL - Q3;J -3 'ltJ"3
Business Phone Home Phone Cell Phone
C"jndj.-tn(n(\j~ @.. ~ODl,OlYI
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.
S~E l\T1AcHt.1Q
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.
Sf t: f\ TT t\ c tltlJ
. 5.
To the best of my 'knowledge the statements found in this appli~ation are true and correct. I also
t1'm.terstand thatunle'S's-consfruGtrorruf1fTe-action-applrcable t01hrs-vl'niance' re-qaest, itgranted;---
is notlaken wIthin one year, the variance expires. ~
. ~~ &Ir1LY1~ J _ _ . ..1 "'h-
Signa re of Appficant '- I e--}2 ~
Jun OS OS 08:1Sa B~rring~on______ 763377SUHI p.~
.MRY-09-2006 15:21 CITY GOLDEN VALLEY 76~ 593 8109 P.06/06
By signing this formJ 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 ~y comment on the project.
Comments can contain language of agreeing with the project, objecting to the project or other
statements regar~ing the project.
Print Name -.f)r(1(~ I + fVln {'-\ ff()u)(\
- . . . \
Comment
Signature
Print Name
Comment
Signature
Print Name
Comment
Signature
Print Name
~~~)
I -
.Pv~~eL E~,J
? ~J;--
~1~
q/J~ 6 Ih--t/~---
tY 7
.]jon \ ,~uV"'-J 7Je':">rJ'1 ~~_
1
:~:~~~~ ~-~6~
Print Name
Comment
Signature
Print Name
Comment
Signature
Print Name
Comment
ignature
Address
Address
1 tt/ /!IkOjyv{)od.Dr ~
7/7 tU~ /;.. s:;~
Address 9,0 / /1JI/"'!zooo c/ if)) Sq
Address ~ J~+wvrd OYL s
Address
Address.
. .----., ,..-----... ,........---.--.........
Address
TOTAL P.06
.
.
.
6/6/06
KEITH WATERS
& ASSOCIATES, Inc.
DESIGNERS & BUILDERS
Ref: Scott & Cyndi Barrington
817 Westwood Drive South
Golden Valley, MN 55416-3354
6216 Baker Road
Suite 110
Eden Prairie, MN 55346
(952) 974-0004
fax (952) 974-0005
www.keithwaters.com
License Number - 0001508
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The property contains a single family home constructed at 817 Westwood Drive. The
applicants wish to add to their home and modify the existing floor plan. They are the 3rd
Owners of the home. Several internal floor plan revisions will be made within the house to
accommodate their growing and changing family. Among the changes are expanding the
kitchen and eating area, adding a deck at the first floor, and a bedroom/bathroom over a
garage for Mrs. Barrington's mother who will be joining the household soon. The proposed
bedroom addition requires the reduction of a side yard setback to 5'. The enlargement of the
kitchen and deck do not require a variance (see attached site plan).
DESCRIPTION OF HARDSHIP: The site has several unique circumstances created by the
land, not the buildings. These include:
Steep Topoaraphy - The lot is an extremely steep uphill lot, rising approximately 48' from the
lowest elevation to the highest point on the site. The slope from the street at the east property
line is approximately 33%; it is approximately 34% at the lot mid point and approximately 15%
at the north property line. Westwood Drive drops approximately 26' as it goes around the
corner from west to east. The steep slope condition is further aggravated, as the home does
not sit on the top of the hill, the steep slope continues unabated above the house. There is no
flat area on the site.
Irreaularly Shaped Lot - The lot is triangular in shape, an extremely difficult shape. The
longest leg of the triangle is on Westwood Drive approximately 235' with a 35' setback. This
means that over 7000 sq. ft. of the lot is contained in the front yard setback. This restricts the
buildable area.
Restricted Buildable Area - This triangular lot has approximately 36% buildable area. A
typical rectangular lot of the same size would have 45 to 50% buildable area.
Existina Driveway Access - The driveway has to enter the site where it exists, at the highest
point of the Westwood Drive frontage. Even now, it has a 19% slope. If the driveway were to
move to the east side of house it would require approximately a 40% slope. The driveway and
J:IBarringtonlSummary of Request.DOC
.
garage location cannot be changed. Adequate maneuvering in front of the garage doors must
be maintained.
Limited Parking - The lot is on a blind curve. It can be dangerous to park on the street, and
the City has previously asked the Barrington's not to park on the street. The driveway again
has a 19% slope and is dangerous to walk down when wet or snow covered, particularly for
children or elderly persons. The street is approximately 38' below the 1 sl floor of the house.
With the trees and retaining wall it is not possible to maintain adequate monitoring of parked
vehicles. It is not safe to assume that extra parking is possible in the driveway. The driveway is
steep; cars cannot maneuver in and out. The configuration of the driveway is very limited due
to structural retaining walls/steep grade, which eliminates the ability to expand the driveway.
Lack of Expansion Area - The kitchen will be expanded to the east with no variance required.
It would be imprudent to extend this addition all the way to the setback line. A large overhead
power line runs up hill on the east side of the property. The house to the east is significantly
lower. To extend further could require building retaining walls near or under the power lines.
The proposed deck doesn't require a variance, and will provide the only area to walk out of the
house on the main level. The area proposed for the variance is the only feasible buildable
location on the site.
Economics - No economic hardship is requested.
.
Spirit and Intent: The proposed addition will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the City
zoning laws and will not change the character of the neighborhood. The front yard will not
change. The Owners have done a great job of landscaping and preserving the existing trees.
No trees will be removed in the variance area. The house sits so high above the street that it's
not very visible from traffic on Westwood Drive. The only adjacent property to the variance
area is city property at 717 Westwood Drive South on top of the hill. The 717 Westwood lot
was originally split off from the 817 lot. One of the conditions between lot owners was that the
ridgeline of the new house would not exceed a certain height. It did not, and the new addition
also would not. The rooflines of the new addition fit the character of the existing house. The
Owners of the property have been good stewards of the land and this addition will continue that
stewardship.
Falls Within Size Guidelines: Despite needing a setback variance, the proposed additions do
adhere to the City's ordinance regarding lot coverage. With the new additions, the lot coverage
would be 24%. 30% is allowed, therefore showing that the property is not being overbuilt.
No Precedent Set: The lot has such an unusual combination of shape and topography that
approval here should not open a door for future unknown requests. It is clearly a one of a kind
property.
Neighbors: The Barrington's have visited with their neighbors on each side and across the
street about their request for the variance. None are opposed or feel they are affected by the
proposed plan.
.
Additional Background: The original house and driveway were creatively designed to fit the
lot (look at how the roof lines fit into the triangle and building area) the house was custom
designed for an artist and his wife who was an agent representing artists. It fit them perfectly
J:\Barringlon\Summary of Request.DOC
but contained many idiosyncrasies that make it difficult for a growing family with younger kids
. and a live-in grandparent, like the current owner's family.
Internally the house is a series of small levels that stair step up the steep hill. By necessity due
to grade, all garages on this property are tuck under. The additional garage space would also
be tucked under the new bedroom and bath that is needed for Mrs. Barrington's mother. The
applicants are not requesting an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), but rather only a bedroom and
bath located on the main level of the house. If this space is not on the main level, then every
trip within the house would require using stairs. This location allows her car and any future
teenage drivers to park without blocking access to any garage doors. Parking on the sloping
street or driveway and walking up is impossible.
Summary - The Owners are requesting a commonsense arrangement of spaces for a multi-
generational family. This is a creative solution to overcome hardships created by a very unique
site, while allowing them to plan for the life cycle changes that occur within families. The
Owners are committed to living in Golden Valley and raising their children here. The addition of
the requested living and parking areas will allow them to do so, and continue their good
stewardship of the property.
.
.
J:\Barrington\Summary of Request. DOC
.
~'!'-
;
~
...
.
ltlt-
~
f
~
~
,+
.<
/
/
j'
.
.
~
..r;.J
IJ
N
co
. 0
(.J1
N N
0
0 &1 -
0
La>
__ _ ___J l_ _
.
.
~~~
~
~
... ~ '"
"::i/iii'"
,..,....
r;j:2
.
.
J11-
'--:111 \
....1
....'
.-,
"
.
.
en
...
C
-c
o
o
~
......
It/)
(I)
~
I'-
~
CO
.
..t_ ___~
n
.
tJ)
'J
....
C
"
0
0
.!
tn
(1)
~
r--
....1. ~
" co
.
t
~ :
~)!"iJ
~",
~ .~~
~t-'. t'"
~ .
~
;rII.l~ ;
I'.. [
!I.. '. \
i
I
,
!
I
_f"::-
i. ..
A;~~.
.
~~
/1
,
/
(
..
.
"~
.
.
.
~'l"l-'-
I""
r...
L {j,'"
'"
en
'-
C
:
. ~,,,,
",J.
.
.
.
PLAT OF SURVEY
FOR: WATERS & BONNER, INC.
LOT 2, BLOCK 1, WANDA ADDITION
HENNEPIN COUNTY
BENCHMARK: TOP NUT OF HYDRANT AT
901 WESTWOOD DRIVE.
ELE V. = 865.36
~
EXISllNG
. HOUSE
s 00. 2.17
'44 ~ OS- E ~ :::::
--
--
,
/ T/IRON
J" (897.05)
I#}.
/ (, 0.88.1)
",,/ y.. ......~
~/I:>
.v~
,
z
o
CA
.
(J1 i\
.... , f>9Jf:>.
...: ~
~ I EXlSnNG
~ HOUSE
k
.....~.
~ ~~
.
(J\
.....
.
l61~.~)
NOTE: SEE ARCH IT ECTUAL SITE PLAN
FOR GRADING DETAIL
LEGEND
ELEVATIONS
1902.581 lowest floor
o iron monuments
( ) existing elevations
c:::J proposed elevations
~ c!!!"ection of proposed surface drainage
-0- power pole
* 0 trees
1.1~~ Hansen Thorp
~ Pellinen Olson Inc.
. I. Civil Ie Survey Engineers
7565 Offlce Ridge CIrcle
~d!t!\. Prairie. MN 553+4-3644
(612) 829-0700
REVISED 5-21- 92
Note: Only copies which bear an emboased seal are certified copl..
I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my
supervision and that I am a duly reglatered land surveyor under
Minnesota Statut.. Sectlon 326.02 to 326.16.
FRe No.
91-137
Book-Page
70/1/9
Scale
1-=30' .
c ~/?: 4-
Date: MAY 15, 1992 Reglatratlon No.. 18421
.
.
.tolD
.
. ",;
0'
II
""
<~
0
.:s
-- /
~. I
.III-
,.
~
,
fP
.::i
i ~
1:7
OS
J. ..
0
~
#
! ~..
i'.
.. ,..
. ," i
I' ~:
~
.J
I
r
.
.
.
-".
'.
ZD-O
.
T
.:1
d
T
~
-r.
t-
~ ,.
.
..,.
.
.
ClO
..::i
~
t
.
.l..
V
C'
f!'
t.P
}.
'E~
\
.
.
I
I
-1
on
Q
""~
c,.....
~i
3
..
~~
~9-~
..
V
. 4 , .
.. ::r
.
.
.~
D~
VJ
~}
~
. !
~ ..
~ ~ ~
· ~ ~A~./; "
~ '/ JlI~. \ '
~ ~'/)'-~ .. - '\
-J~ '///) \,.... '. .',
'Z / // ,\ " '- ,
.~/~ . ./ \./ .~.,
./~ / I ,/,.. ~ . ,
'fl '.' ,. . ~_ _....." \ /< ./.~ .'. . ~
I . / \
..,I' ; r'"1'l. . '_;,"1'./" . I I' 11'.~ ~
u / 1'."; - . ./. . 1/11 .
", I 3...:<" / /. ',' .I . rd" . '
, .... (. ,; //./(, V' / . ~
/ ' J' . ...... : ,. . ~,...
/ 'aX ':.iI ." ~.. +, :'. ' \....!
~ .~. . '-I' . _ I.' ': ~~ '. ~
...... --, ~ . ,.
"" - ...... _.. I. , ~
.~.,. ..~~~~ .Y', ....~.~. 1.~~.;- ..,~~ '. / ""
~ ... N ." //.. i - ~ '/
/' : ..
x:
... ,# l
~ .& ,.x..,,/. '. !
. ~ " '~~. . ~. ~. _"C _ . ..... ':' '/ '.' /. .
t:"I-: ~ . - v~~ . lI-.~. '.
~ . ~ =d" .'. \~>L \;. ~; ,
. ti~' :H." ..' i: ~/.; . /.. ~:\ ffi
tj' - . f"".\.' . ~ I" 'I .1'1 . J.'d 7.
- . ~ a:.~ _.~~ ~f~'1!~., ,40 ~~~~"
; ~.. J~II' @ll no;' ."~ :~_. .l,\:-:-r.;. .,![ '-',1 \. -~-:-t :~.-
. I ~ '-. U;;.\.:.I':, [ \1 r. - .....- . I. ;a
t U I I ,-". ,. J:' ,.;':. ,,' U ~~~.-t:";O. .I.. " .111"-.' '.
o .. ..... ;r.... ' I'. ~;'.. ;r-.or ~'I'''''\' --:- .r r- ~
~II \ "if" ,{ ')>-" \ I ~rl-:-,.... '.;-'- .,::~ .', . . ~~ '. -I~ ~ l; . I ~ b
~ l \~.' \ $\ \ a.-o1 . ~~ ~ !I !I ,.., I / J~.:.- ...: '.I:f.~ ........-l-
./ \ . ~"I' \ 'lfl '.\~& . I-.a.' I.,' ; .t..... . . . :it ....; 1: ~~;.\t! ~I.~ ="". i
I Z ~ z. .\ ; Id'" . \ .'~, ~.... . ~I"'" . ... ", . \~ ? "" ; ~ ~~ ... nll' f-
'. \ ; \1 . ' : ' ::, .. I .~... ~ .~. K-' \ T' ':. i1\ '~Si "Ill. iJ S
I / '"1__ '''\. \ . \.a... ,I I W ..' ~ -
. *:.,...~f-..... #l.:.<. ,,', '. \. .....~.1' '.' -=~=~=}: v
.. ~ /. -4 ' \ '. Y" . 3' , Il . ~ ~ K s
l' · ' ~" 4~a:-,' ~ .1 Iii' ~~;~ .
~~ 'k ,; \' . ~,//"'\-- \~~..~. -rE;:
\ 7. ) '&.0
.,> "'" ., ~
"'"
...
".
"x~ ' .
I)
..
~
c).
\
I-
11
\. \
'\ ... \
\
iJII-t) \
\ yr
...
"t
',.,/1
\)~
2t-D
..
./
. __'u_._.,' p'~ _
. . . . .._..-..... .
.
.....
.
.
.
~'
r:
m
~.
"
-t
t
q
fJ:[
S:t
_, '--..S.J
?- ("
Cst
. -
- -t
~
.
Q ,m I
~ -0
r
)>
z
37
"'.,.,/ ?
j""
. /
,
"
\
t>2 III Bah'l' Road
SUil': 110
Eden Prairie, MN
')')346
Barrington Residence
Site Plan
KEITH W i\TERS
ti i\S~OCI^TES. INC'.
I )L,>!(;i':LR'> t.', HUlL! >ER'S
817 Westwood Drive
Golden Valley, MN
.
.
.
.
06-06-12
. Bruce Fraser & Michelle Bigelow,
Applicants
319 Hanley Road
.
.
.
.
Planning
763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
June 27,2006
To:
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
From:
Kristin A Gonzalez, Planning Intern
Subject:
319 Hanley Rd.
Bruce Fraser & Michelle Bigelow, Applicant
Bruce Fraser and Michelle Bigelow own the home and property at 319 Hanley Rd. The
applicants are requesting three variances. Two variances from Section 11.21, Subd. 10
(A)(1), Front Yard Setback requirements, in order to construct an open front porch and an
addition. The other variance is from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(3) Accessory Structures, to
allow a current shed to remain. A survey was required to obtain information regarding the
existing structures on the property. The proposed porch addition will bring it to within 19 feet
of the west side property line along Hanley Road. The proposed house addition will bring it to
within 27.2 ft. at Hanley Road.
The applicants are planning two additions to their home. The first addition is to create an
open front porch where the existing stairs are on the west side of the home. (Within the R-1
Zoning District, covered front porches similar to the one proposed by the applicant, may
extend into the front setback by 5 ft. This would allow a porch to be as close at 30 ft. to the
property line. In this case, the existing house is already closer than 30 ft. to the setback line
so this provision does not apply.) The applicants are also proposing an addition to the south
side of their home. This addition will include two new bedrooms on the main level and a
recreation room and bedroom in the basement. The shed, located in the southeast corner,
needs a variance to be brought into conformance with the setback requirements.
The applicant states that the hardship is the current placement of the existing home. The
house is already 10 feet into the 35 ft. front yard setback on the west side.
The project requires the following variances from the following City Code:
Section 11.21, Subd. 10 (A)(1), Front Yard Setback. City Code states that the
required minimum front setback shall be 35 feet from any front property line
along a street right-of-way line. The requested variance is for 7.8 ft. off the
required 35 ft. to a distance of 27.2 ft. at its closest point to the front yard
property line for the addition.
.
.
.
Section 11.21, Subd. 10 (A)(1), Front Yard Setback. City Code states that the
required minimum front setback for an open front porch shall be 30 feet from
any front property line along a street right-of-way line. The requested variance
is for 11 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 19 ft. at its closest point to the
front yard property line for the open front porch.
Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(3), Side and Rear Setbacks. City Code states
that accessory structures shall be located no less than 5 feet from a side or rear
yard property line. The requested variance is for 2.5 ft. off the required 5 ft. to a
distance of 2.5 ft. at its closest point to the side yard property line.
A review of the City file indicates that the house was built in 1941. The garage was added to
the home in 1948. No other major additions have been made to the house since that time.
2$ 18
24
1I3
38
~ 45
150 >-
;
~
200 US
210
217 8032 8024 IOU 8010 800ll 79ZO
310
322
4:1.0
!OS
615
G40
675
700
775
8100
@
805
.
30
36
100
216
IUDGI!WAY RD
8021 8011 800ll 400
401
400
lA
~
<(
I
60S
623
675
70S
643
723
m
143
rr=
City of Golden Valley
Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
Zoning Code Variance Application
1.
Stre. et address of pro;lerty involved in this application:
3/9 flail/Oj KtJrd GoIrk1L V~/hl-I MfII 5Slfl/(J
Applicant: /1::0&$(/ ~ iUdttlh 8if1ovv
3/9 Hanley fotlct GtJltbv Vilkj/ A1/V' 55'f~
Address ' r City/State/Zip
6/rA - ~61f.. fJ7'!3 16& -5/3"/ I.f6o f;/;{ - ~Ol" 95J5
Business Phone Home Phone Cell Phone
'lJ4~eJ~~. C~ 7nide/b-hsert/t$~ CtV1l
Email Address t:t
2.
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 ~. fvJ
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.
SfJL .~.
5. To the best of my knowledge the statements found in this application are true and correct. I also
- -------urnteTStarrd-thatunless--constroctiurrof Lhe actiorr applicable-mihis-vaTiCfficeleque-st, if granted;-- ~-
is not taken within one year, the variance expires.
6. If the applicant is not the owner of all property involved in this application, please name the
owner of this property:
Print Name of owner
Signature of owner
Variance Application Submittal:
The following information must be submitted by the application deadline to make a complete
appl~tion. If an application is incomplete, it will not be accepted:
~ComPletedapPlication fonn, including signatures of surrounding property owners.
~ A current or usable survey of the property must be attached. See the handout on survey
7 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
J other evidence, if appropriate.
You may submit detailed description of building(s), addition(s), and alteration(s) involved ifi
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 corner, this means across both streets.
To obtain these signatures, you will need to personally visit each of these property owners, tell them
about your project (we encourage you to bring along a copy of your building plans) and have them
sign the area, below. The signature is meant only to verify that you have told them about your
project and gives them opportunity to comment.
If you have attempted to contact a property owner on two separate occasions and not found them at
home, you may simply write something to the effect "made two attempts, owner not home" and then
write their address. City staff will also send a written notice informing these property owners of the
time and place of the BZA meeting.
Note" to surrounding property owners:
This is an application by your neighbor for a variance from the City Zoning Code. Please be aware of
ny possible effect the granting of this variance could have on your property. You will also be
eceiving 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
tatements regarding the project.
rint Name LrJr/ j- ORtlf:., . 5tJUne
Comment
Signature (/rg,.. ffa<N-
Print Name ~'" "'" \~.Q ~ _
Comment
Signature &= ~~ _
Print Name t'\ a.V1 ~ TOM. t~
Comment
Signature
.int Name
Comment
Signature
Print Name
Address ~ OJ Z. (<./ct~~1 · ((of) _
/
Address & \.-=1- ~ \ 0... ~. ~
"
<ff:F- ~
'pqvt ~ fJwr /0 rJerf
~
4f1e-Wo/+
Address 22 2 lict~ k( (/20(
Address
:5zzffat,ky !?~
Comment
Signature ~f!
Print Name ~ ~ \ev
Comment
Signature
Print Name
omment
Signature
Address (5()O I:/ctVl /.ty &.
~....~
Address ?OQ /-I<; ~ l"-'1 {[J
~ 'R~C)I~
Address pC> k-- Lfi~€t..J'1 .~
Print Name NoJVr}fI :Ji1E.0:I:::f<..
Comment
Signature Address ~ '22 -I#lt.llJ:~ If/),
Print Name ~ Q 't7 € /LJ4-TI.1 "WfA...eeN
Comment ~"f R..Nl,.rI.S -..E ~~ vb -rIfE N€I,,*dr>"'~
Signature /'tf:;; . 9t.A-. Address JJt~~ JJIr"N<.E>( fU)
o tt81 /Je)f
Print Name
Comment 6 rrll1 tt';I16 ltf};h/tJ
Signature 4- J!---/f- Address ~ I 0 tf ""j~ d
Print Name
Comment
Signature
Address
Print Name
Comment
Signature
Address
Print Name
Comment
Signature
Address
City of Golden Valley
June 27th Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting - Hardship Statement
Owners:
319 Hanley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55426
Bruce Fraser and Michelle Bigelow
Address:
House Addition:
Weare proposing to add an addition to the south side of the existing home. The hardship
is as follows:
. The existing house was built 10 feet into the current 35 foot set back
. The current foundation was built with 8 inch block which is not sufficient to
support a 2nd story addition
. The home's previous septic field lies near the end of the proposed addition and
does not allow for further expansion
In respect to the setback requirements, we are asking to offset or stagger the addition 2
feet behind the existing structure and straight back to the east. This would require
approval for a variance of 8 feet from the 35 foot setback for our addition. We would
like to obtain approval for the following reasons:
. Update the size and aesthetics of the home which was built in 1941
. Upgrade the value of the home for the neighborhood
. Add a third bedroom for our expanding family
. Prepare the home for a future kitchen remodel, (Phase IT)
. Maintain the mature trees and landscaping on the property
Covered Entry:
Weare also proposing to add a covered entry to the front entrance. The hardship is as
follows:
. The existing house was built 10 feet into the current 35 foot set back
. The existing front steps are 4 feet into the 25 foot set back
In respect to the setback requirements, we are asking for a 4 foot variance to add a formal
covered front entry with posts utilizing the existing space over the existing front steps.
As a point of reference, the existing steps cap the existing well room which bumps out
under the front steps. We would like to obtain approval for the following reasons:
. Formalize the entry and provide guests cover from the elements
. Accent the look of the remodel and assist with the flow of the new roof
. Compliment the updated look of neighbors homes that surround us
. Upgrade the value of the home
The plan is to accent the new addition and entry with brick to tie in the new addition with
the existing structure.
Thank you for your time in reviewing our design in hopes of improving the size, look and
feel ofthe home and the neighborhood.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
'..
9,-
" .
il.l~ ?
. ..
+r
, ~
,- ..
'~~~. :,~.
lo-,
. 4:1-'
':', 'v.,..
.,~}. .
,". iii
..,
.
.
.
,FI
-"r
~';.-.
.
c
.. 0::
i;
~
~
i CI)
-. I
- I
c:
ca I
:I: I
I
en
....
. M
.
\
~
'I
~~
~,
\
I
I
J
',,' ~
.'?,
.;1~'
;a:;
l:.~'. -
. .
~..-.;... .;"'" ..f
.. .;,'" .,.
:.G ''fJ
::.:i'fl'~ _ .~~-
~:! ~tr" .
- :t1f
. ;,i21~ if. f'
~."'<\1
~..10 jl;'
'i~
; ..
.'~ '
". I
, "
.
.
,
~.
.~
-".*~I
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY-
FO~_ ,",Bruce Fraser & Michelle Bigelow -
-, - 319 Hanley Road
Golden Valley, MN
Scale: 1 inch = 20 feet -
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Lots 11 & 12
JESSEN'S ADDITION
LEGEND
. Denotes iron marker found
o
Denotes Y2" iron pipe set
o
Denotes nail set
-~-
Denotes'steel fence
lU
.~
,
'-
I...
\II
'1..
~
I
Q
~
()
~
~
~
..J
~
1<
~
\
\
\
- -3(:/
(
"....",----
,
(
/
I
J?/DGE WAY
ROAD
cvrb v _
,
Ie-
I~
,/\,\
I
z..S:'2.
.---------..
fro~e.
,lu If\
'~
~~,
"~'to
1"\-
..
I\J
~
~\~
~o. ~
.....""'A- \,l\
S- ~
_ _ _ 3F-_2..
-Q
I..
:)
v
I
I
\
\1 .r - ~ -
{- ~~- ~~--
I
I
\
\
\
~
'~
\
,
I
<.1'\
,
I " -
I I' I
, i
- - -'
.. 6('"
-z.l.
.L51,~
NqO'oo'oo"e
149.S I
( .
J:
,\
I
'I
I
I
It>>1
^
'1'
Q, ~I
I ,.. )
~' ~'t
\,\' tJ~'
'" I t: I
I 0
U
I I --...... '----~f I
\ '.4.-- : I
\ I I {
\'
()
r.:
i,fI\
30.1
8:J I
,,0 lJ" ~31' ,/' GA ,,-~c;.1 C2
t5-n t(~J"C"~ "'I)
'V '4/ loti. 6
~G. ~ I I
-~/'
~
..:/ d
l\I 'f(_.Jr
(
\
~
?'l(,q
"
"<i
'",
'"'
",
N
y "
I
: " .....
I \ I
-... - --'
- I-
I
.; ",/-/ '
'I otfoY'\
*$ t_ (r:'} >~,!j
.. , I
r
I
1
~I
'll
---
---
\,
; 5'. 'Z--
---- \~'
.\
\
>3~tJ-
"" l(' I(:
/41.88 - -- -
58q"~O'4Z"W
.
-/..
\HOll~e. '1I'lf5"~
0' eJ.-. e..
;-r"3-d"61:;l(:;l~
1 ,
, I
I I
I I
:;f
'7
---'1.._"- 0(' ./
/
./
CSKTlI'lCA.'l'IOH
-,
.
\
I
,..
~
'"
- - 1''3~1(:-- -,.
,
I
I
<:l
....:
"'-
o.'~'
l.t
':i-
::)-
'-
'"
o
~
,
Iu
III
::>
()
:t
)(
-..-0.'
I
I
I
I
;;- 3, t
-----
I HEREBY CERllFY THAT THIS SUR\t:Y WI>S PREPARED BY
ME OR UNDER t.lY DIRECT SUPERVISION. AN{) THAT
I AN A OUL Y REGlSlERED LAND SUR't€YOR UNDER
'THE LAWS Of THE STAlE OF t.ltNNESOTA.
~.-'2.~tJ6
Date
/~ ~,l
,~
Roy l Hansen, Reg. No, 6274