Loading...
05-24-05 BZA Agenda e e e Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, May 24, 2005 7pm 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers I. Approval of Minutes - April 26, 2005 II. The Petitions are: 117 Paisley Lane (05-05-12) Robert Kolasa & Lois Lenarz. Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.72, Subd. 3(A)(1) Front Yard Fence Height Regulations . 3.5 ft. higher than the allowed 4 ft. height to a distance of 7.5 ft. at its highest point in the front yard for the arbor gate. The fence part of the structure is proposed to be 6.5 ft. at it's highest point Purpose: To allow for the construction of an arbor/fence in the front yard. 3126 Manor Drive (05-05-09) Peter Steichen. Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(3)(b) Side Yard Setbacks . 8.7 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 3.8 ft. at its closest point to the side yard property line for a garage addition. Purpose: To allow for the addition of a 2-stall garage. 212 Janalyn Circle (05-05-10) Troy Auth. Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(1) Accessory Structure Location . Detached accessory structures shall be located completely to the rear of the principle structure. The waiver would allow the shed to be built in the side yard. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a potting shed in the side yard. e e e 1500 Zealand Avenue North (05-05-11) Vincent Brama, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 1 0(A)(1) Front Yard Setbacks . 15 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 20 ft. at its closest point to the front yard property line for the construction of a home. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new home. III. Other Business IV. Adjournment 2 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals . April 26, 2005 A regular meetingof the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 in the Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. McCarty called the meeting to order at 7:10 pm. Grimes stated to the rear of t same Iin prope existing Those present were Members Duff, McCarty and Zinn and Planning Co Representative Waldhauser. Also present were Director of Planning Mark Grimes and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Member e I. Approval of Minutes - March 22, 2005 MOVED by Duff, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carri the March 22, 2005 minutes as submitted. II. The Petitions are: 4501 Avondale Road (05-04-04) Brian & Patricia Peuschold A Request: . 10(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setbacks . . 1 .7 ft. 0 poi a ft. to a distance of 13.3 ft. at its closest ard property line for a house and garage Purpose: n addition to the existing house and garage. re requesting a variance in order to add an addition ined that the addition would extend out along the f the existing house, but that the house is not parallel to the would be slightly closer to the property line than the h applicants what they consider the hardship to be with their lot. Brian icant referred to the survey of his property and explained that with the way the y lines jog on the west side of the lot it doesn't allow any space for. additional building on that side. McCarty agreed that the lot is irregular in shape and that it is logical to keep the proposed addition in line with the east side of the existing house. . Duff asked the applicant if he had considere(j any other plans that would allow the addition to be built more toward the south or west. Mr. Peuschold explained that part of their existing kitchen cantilevers into the garage. He said if the addition were moved to west it wouldn't be in a straight line with the existing home. Patricia Peuschold, applicant added that the home currently has only one bathroom so they would like to add another bathroom as a part of this addition as well. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals April 26, 2005 Page 2 . McCarty asked if this proposed addition would fix the issue of the kitchen having to bump. out into the garage. Mr. Peuschold said yes and explained that as a result of the remodeling the garage will be two feet narrower and that the reason they would like the addition to extend further in to the rear yard in order to make up for the two feet they would be losing. Zinn referred to the landscaping on the east side of the property and asked if that area gets visually blocked when the bushes are fuller. Mr. Peuschold stated that his plans are to make a terraced wall along the east property line. t, McCarty opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one McCarty closed the public hearing. Waldhauser stated that the request is fairly straightforward already a half of a foot into the setback area so asking the ap proposed addition would not really solve the existing n stated that there really is nowhere else to build 0 to be reasonable. Zinn also agreed and said the continues along the same line of the existing ho rage is he i agreed and this proposal seems better if it . MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by the request for 1.7 feet off the require point to the east side yard prope hardship was the irregular shap ed unanimously to approve ce of 13.3 feet at its closest garage addition. The noted 5600 Woodstoc Jennifer Moore I ection 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(3)(b) Side Yard Setbacks ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 10 ft. at its closest t to the side yard property line for a garage addition. To allow for the construction of a garage. Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(2) Rear Yard Setbacks · 7.72 ft. off the required 33.72 ft. to a distance of 26 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard property line for a garage addition. Purpose: To allowfor the construction of a garage. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals April 26, 2005 Page 3 . Grimes stated thatthis home was built in 1926 and that it does not have a garage. He explained that the applicants are requesting a 2 % foot variance in order to build a garage. The home to the west is about 30 feet away from the proposed garage addition. He added that the proposed driveway shown on the survey is not part of the requested variances and that the applicants are aware of the City's driveway requirements. Waldhauser asked if there was any consideration of moving the garage addition closer to the front yard property line. Grimes said he thinks the garage is set f ck because of design issues. tz said the garage is 26 urther forward the right at the new garage. s proposal because it fits in ighborhood. Brett Kosmider, applicant introduced his architect Carl Gramen the reason the proposed garage is not set further forward 0 would then have to eliminate a window in the living room. H historical house and it would be nice to keep the windows on room in place. He. said that another reason is becaus less prominence then the proposed new porch. Zinn asked about the depth of the proposed ga feet deep and explained that if the garage neighbor's site lines would be changed He added that the neighbors are very well and will enhance the characte . McCarty asked the applicant if and questioned if they wo said they need the addif equipment in the garage o bout not making the garage so deep he rear yard setback requirements. Gramentz ce in order to park their cars and keep lawn oer to Iowa utility door to the back yard. i1t on the eastern part of the property and it would not sure he sees the hardship in this case. Kosmider e storage into the garage it would improve the value more ing. Jennifer Moore, applicant added that the eastern y a minimal rear yard and is the only private spot they have. Zinn stated that as still look very stated that by . than if he corner M stat subdiv to where at the Board needs to see a hardship with the lot itself. Moore inherited problems with this lot and that the way it was originally em in this situation. Grimes agreed that this lot is somewhat unique as ouse sits on it. Zinn asked the applicants if they had landscaping plans. Moore said that they are planning to consult with a landscape architect. Zinn suggested putting up a barrier on the west side of the property. . McCarty opened the public hearing. James Peters, 5605 Woodstock Avenue, stated that the proposal is okay with him. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals April 26, 2005 Page 4 . Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, McCarty closed the public hearing. McCarty said that the side yard variance request doesn't seem too unreasonable, but he is concerned about the rear yard variance request. Waldhauser said she has the same concern about the rear yard setback but that it would be nice for the applicants to be able to preserve their living room window and the integrity of the architecture. She added that the lot itself doesn't really have a hardship but it won't cause any difficulties with the neighboring properties. at be e but this is McCarty noted that even if the back part of the garage lined up w' house the applicants would still need a rear yard variance. Duff the hardship is not having a garage and that granting this va . keeping with the spirit of the code. Zinn added that the petit distance to keep the elegance of the house. He said there ar clearly going to enhance the property, the house and MOVED by Duff, seconded by Waldhauser and the following variance requests. The noted hard garage on the lot. nimously to approve ct that there is currently no . · 2.5 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a property line for a garage addi . ft. a Its closest point to the side yard · 7.72 ft. off the required 33.7 yard property line for a of 26 ft. at its closest point to the rear 6) nt - Dan Larson-Loucks Associates from Section 11.35, Subd. 7(C)(4) Yard Requirements ft. off the required 10ft. to a distance of 0 ft. at its closest point to the east side yard property line for the parking lot. To allow for the reconstruction of the parking lot. Request: Waiver from Section 11.35, Subd. 7(C)(4) Yard Requirements · 5.ft. off the required 10ft. to a distance of 5 ft. at its closest point to the west side yard property line for the parking lot. . Purpose: To allow for the reconstruction of the parking lot. Request: Waiver from Section 11.35, Subd. 7(C)(3) Yard Requirements Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals April 26, 2005 Page 5 . · 15 ft. off the required 20 ft. to a distance of 5 ft. at its closest point to the west side yard property line for the existing build,ing. . . Purpose: To bring the existing building into conformance. Request: Waiver from Section 11.65, Subd. 5(C)(1) Shoreland Management Requirements · 36 ft. off the required 50 ft. to a distance of 14 point to the top of the bank of Bassett Creek. Purpose: To allow for the reconstruction of the park' Grimes stated that this is a request by Wessin Transport to building by adding a loading dock. He stated that beca se th through the variance process for the dock addition it the building into conformance. He discussed the stated that this proposal would vastly improve t having dock space will also enhance the prope nts to their e going to g the rest of requirements and ite. He added that Zinn asked if the proposal would be en Grimes referred to the property survey stated that even though this prop of the creek and if the proposal wouldn't be able to maneuver Watershed Management with plans and how the the creek setback area. edge of the pavement. He area, it is not on a protected part o the setback requirements trucks e sta that staff and the Bassett Creek s reviewed this proposal and are very happy proved. McCarty asked the applicant stated that Wessin what k f business. long they have owned the building. George Wessin, the building since February of 2004. McCarty asked is. Wessin stated that it is a small package delivery neer, Loucks Associates, Inc., stated that currently most of the roperty goes directly into the creek. He explained that they are rb and gutter along the east property line and that they will be to an underground pond which will also help with infiltration. McCarty as ed about the run-off from the building. Larson stated that in his calculation he figured half of the run-off from the roof would go to the north and half would go to the south. Waldhauser asked the applicants if they would be able to add some vegetation along the creek. She added that this would be a nice time to add some screening from the townhouses across the creek. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals April 26, 2005 Page 6 . Grimes said he didn't think the City would have objections to adding vegetation, but suggested that the applicants talk to the Environmental Coordinator about the types of vegetation. Duff asked about the current use in the building and asked if the entire building is up for lease. Wessin stated that they have leased out part of the front office space. Waldhauser said she was under the impression that the applicants were having trouble leasing the space because there were no loading >Clocks. . Zinn asked the applicant to give a history of their business. Wessin started their business in 1972 at the airport and then moved to G February of 2004. Zinn asked the applicants about their peak their drivers leave the building between 5 and 7 am in order if they receive this variance if they are planning on increasin trailers that they use. Wessin said no and that the new docks to use. that sked r cks with er and safer Waldhauserstated that not much is changing w. improvements would be made. She said she w added along the creek border. Zinn agree property and that he is ok with it. s if anything, uest that screening be would enhance the Duff stated that the hardship is re said that when the lot was origi and that by allowing this propo specifically prohibits and t "the property as it exists now. He sn't a Shoreland Ordinance in place u d lIowing something that the code concern. Zinn stated that the bitu said he agrees that exi tena s already gone into the setback area. Duff ilding is non-conforming. Grimes agree could review t stay out hat this is something staff struggles with. He said he I e City Attorney, but that if the City makes the applicant ck area they couldn't use the rear part of the property. if all of the Industrial properties in the area are in the same situation. look at possibly changing some of the language in the code for tuations. Duff said ould be comfortable approving this variance request with the caveat that this is a use that has been used over time. McCarty asked the Board if they wanted to vote for all of the variance requests in one vote or if they would like to break them up and take separate votes for each. Grimes said they could vote on all four variance requests with the recommendation that they applicant consider adding a buffer along the creek. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals April 26, 2005 Page 7 . McCarty said he has a concern with requiring the applicant to screen the view for the townhouses across the creek. Grimes stated that they have asked the developers of the town homes to make buyers aware that they are adjacent to an industrial area. . MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Zinn and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variance requests. The noted hardship is that the back part of the lot is unusable without the proposed dock space. · 10ft. off the required 10ft. to a distance of 0 ft. at its closest point to yard property line for the parking lot. · 5 ft. off the required 10ft. to a distance of 5 ft. at its closest property line for the parking lot. e yard · 15 ft. off the required 20 ft. to a distance of 5 ft. at its c10s yard property line for the existing building. · 36 ft. off the required 50 ft. to a distance of 1 bank of Bassett Creek 117 Paisley Lane (05-04-07) Robert Kolasa & Lois Len Request: Subd. 3(A)(1) Front Yard Fence t an e allowed 4 ft. height to a distance of 8 ft. at its int in the front yard. e construction of an arbor/fence in the front yard. this proposal is unique because the house is located far y line. He explained that the City recently passed an g fences that states fences in front yards can only be four feet in <,at the applicant is proposing an eight-foot high fence/trellis/arbor is existing garden, which is located in the front yard. Zinn aske ere the nearest fire hydrant is located and if allowing this fence/trellis/arbor system would hinder fire equipment. Robert Kolasa, applicant, referred to the survey and pointed out the nearest fire hydrant located on a different lot in the cul-de-sac and said that it would not be hindered by this proposal. . Kolasa explained that he usually fences in his garden with wire fencing in order to keep the rabbits out but that this proposed fence/trellis/arbor system would allow him to have an arbor and trellising for overhead growth and would also keep rabbits and deer out of his garden. He showed the Board several different pictures of his lot and drawings of Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals April 26, 2005 Page 8 . the proposed fencing system. He explained that the fence portion of the system would be 36 inches high but the posts used to support the trellis and arbor system would be up to 8 feet high. Zinn asked what the maximum height is for backyard fences. Grimes said 6 feet is the maximum height allowed for fences in rear and side yards. McCarty asked if there are 8-fo the posts if it would be con he would consider that Waldhauser asked the applicant if he looked at the same design using 6-foot high posts instead of the requested 8-foot high posts. Kolasa said no because he . it for the dual purpose of keeping the deer out and to be able to work under it ants it to go beyond a simple fence and that there is not necessarily a stance is that it is not just a fence. Zinn said he is leaning toward granting a variance for a 6-fo would be taking into account that the neighbor could install a the same property line, because it would be consider i se that ce along perty line. McCarty stated that he doesn't see the hardship weren't part of the proposal but the 6-foot high considered at fence. Grimes said he woul ked if the arbor . '11 there if that would be ence. . Zinn asked if the arbor part was remov Grimes said he would still conside . e considered a fence. 40" high fencing material between foot high fence or a 40" high fence. Grimes said Duff stated that he a fence. He asked t Kolasa said th put in a garden accompli as been decided that this request is considered to be he purpose of the fence is to keep.the deer out. rpose. The purpose is trellising for his plants and to at IS attractive. Waldhauser added that that could be high structure. pu lie hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment he ring. t this is a nice design but he is having a hard time finding a hardship. Duff said greed that it is an aesthetically pleasing design but he doesn't find a hardship. He said that the stated hardship is that this property is a front yard, but it borders on the neighbors rear yard, which means the neighbor could put up a six-foot high fence. He said that if the Board goes down that road it would eviscerate the fence code. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals April 26, 2005 Page 9 . Zinn asked if the applicant would be better off proposing this in a backyard. He said by the letter of the law there is no hardship, but he is not convinced that they'd be opening a can of worms. Duff said that because the fence ordinance is new, they have to be careful about following it and a hardship in this case has not been laid out. . . Waldhauser stated that if the purpose of the fence were for privacy or security it would make sense to go to 6 feet high because it does border on everyone else's back yard. She added that in the winter months it would be a 4-foot high fence. Zinn stated that the garden was probably started before the fence or adopted and that they should try to keep residents happy and pro t said he is not saying that the Board should grant an 8-foot hig ce applicant to only go to 6 feet in the back of the garden and 4 garden. McCarty.asked Grimes what the thinking was regardi for fences in front yards. Grimes stated that they look. Waldhauser added that the 4-foot height r throughout the Twin Cities. t equirement id the "stockade" ards is common Grimes stated that this is not a standar this is a front yard but it really acts like the City if very clear about setbac yard is. He said the code is cle and he does not see a hardshi the neighbors rear yard pr e way the City defines lots ated that in other scenarios yards are and where the front eight allowed in a front yard is 4 feet the hardship is that the property line is McCarty called for the vo tabled to allow for B s exp ned that the applicant's request could be e present. Kolasa asked Grimes agreed e made clearer on garden architecture versus fences. be worthwhile to have a meeting with the Building Official. table his request in order to have a full Board present and in ised design. , seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to table the est to allow him to come back with a revised design. 6445 Cortlawn Circle South (05-04-08) EMA Homes. Inc.. Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 1 O(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements Minutes of tne Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals April 26, 2005 Page 10 . . 11.41 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 23.59 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new home. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements McCarty referred to the dr Engstrom, EMA Homes, explained that the propo because there has wa back on the lot. · 0.17 ft. off the req uired 35 ft. to a distance of 3 closest point to the front yard (north) propert Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new home. . Grimes stated that the applicant is proposing to demolish th portion of the existing foundation to build a new home. He e request is for the location. of the existing foundation an,p the 0 home to be 10cat!3d closer than allowed to the front ya~ He stated that if Edgewood was not a cul-de-sac and they would not need a variance. He also st pushed back further on the lot they wouldn't req was moved forward in order to allow for a view in the back also. He said it is a fai these types of tear down requests. He taller than the existing house, but. the west. use a variance for the new I ng Edgewood. ectangular in shape e p sed garage were e. However, the garage d it makes for a better the City is starting to see roposed new house would be oser to the neighboring house to ed what room opens on to the patio. Matt that it is the future bar/family room. He e wou be located closer to the front property line es with the existing garage which is located further lanning on keeping the same curb cut for the driveway. y were planning on using the existing garage foundation. Engstom McCa about the hardship with the lot. Engstrom said he thinks the hardship is the cul-de-sac and the shape of the lot. Zinn asked the applicant if they are planning on taking down any trees. Engstrom referred to the pictures of the property and showed a tree located between the existing house and garage that they would be taking out. . McCarty opened the public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals April 26, 2005 Page 11 . George Colstrom, 6455 Corti awn Circle South, stated that he has concerns abol1tthe new house blending in with the neighborhood. He said he is concerned about the demolition of the existing house. He said that there are issues with water migrating into the home's basement that needs to be addressed. Duff asked how the water issues at this home impact him. Mr. Colstrom said that the roof line is overwhelming and that he would like to see an American style house that would blend in with the rest of the neighborhood. He said he sees this as an extremely overpowering house that will affect the value of his home. Mr. Colstrum said that a water problems, it was th anything against thi u Zinn asked Mr. Colstrom if the requested variance would impact stated that there would probably be multiple cars and more tra are a lot of UPS trucks. Linda Colstrom, 6455 Cortlawn Circl requested variance does not impact them but they do have Grimes explained that Golden Valley does not do arc homes and that unless there are covenants betw have architectural requirements. He said that in City does require applicants to get drainage and developer is not allowed to make any exis . the drainage actually comes more towa i single- family ers the City doesn't nd water issues the i trol permits and the se. Engstrom stated that of their property. . McCarty asked Mr. Colstrum abou house. Mr. Colstrum stated he i the debris out of his yard. Grim ing the demolition of the existing ut dust, asbestos and fences that keep emolition permit process. rd knows about the potential pollution and ppro it, not him. He added he doesn't have is builder he is just concerned. Engstrom expl of any asbesto a hazardous waste contractor hired that will dispose else wishing to comment, McCarty closed the public ed that the lot does have a peculiar shape because of the cul-de-sac he said that she doesn't see that there would be any negative impacts ring properties. Zinn asked if the house would conform to setback requirements if half of the patio was eliminated and the garage was pushed back. Grimes referred to a subdivision in the zoning code that talks specifically about stepping the house back from the property line so there will not be 50 to 60 feet of continuous wall space. He added that breaking up a continuous line makes the design a little more interesting. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals April 26, 2005 Page 12 . MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Duff and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variances. The hardship with the lot is the fact that the cul-de-sac on Edgewood created this odd shaped lot. · 11.41 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 23.59 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line. · 0.17 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 34.83 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (north) property line. III. Other Business McCarty stated that the Board needed to elect officers. Gri the chair position has been rotated among the board membe MOVED by Zinn, seconded by Waldhauser and McCarty as chair. IV. Adjournment . The meeting was adjourned at 9: . . .'1'~ 05-04-07 Robert Kolasa & Lois Lenarz . 117 Paisley Lane . . . . Planning 763-593-8095/ 763-593-8109 (fax) I Date: May 18, 2005 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Aaron Hanauer, Planning Intern Subject: 117 Paisley Lane (OS..OS-12) Robert Kolasa & Lois Lenarz, Applicants Robert Kolasa & Lois Lenarz own the house and property at 117 Paisley Lane. The applicants are requesting a variance from Section 11.72, Subd. 3 (A)(1), in order to construct an enclosed garden fence-arbor-trellis. This request was tabled from the April 26th BZA meeting in order to allow the applicant to come back with a revised design and to allow for a full board to hear the proposal. The details of the resubmitted proposal are as follows: The fence would stretch along the east and north side of their property. The fence portion of the garden fence-arbor- trellis would range from 32 to 34 inches. In addition, the fence would include posts that would be 6.5 feet with adjoining top crossbeams (reduced from 8 feet). The post and top crossbeams height will vary along the north property line from 6.5 feet to 6 feet due to changes in grades. The inner curved portion of the fence would have posts 5.5 feet with adjoining top crossbeams and a 7.5 foot arbor gate. The applicants were not required to obtain a survey as there was an accurate survey on file with the City. The applicant sited two stated hardships. First, being the irregular lot conditions. The applicant's front yard borders the neighbor's back yard which would allow for a 6 foot fence. Second, the current fence ordinance does not address garden structures such as gateways and trellises. The project requires a variance from the following Section of City Code: · Section 11.72, Subd. 3 (A)(1), Height Limitations. City Code states that no fence in the front yard of any residential property shall be higher than 4 feet. The requested variance is fbr 2.5 feet greater than the maximum 4 feet, to a maximum height of 6.5 feet. A review of the City file indicates that the house was built in 1960. A conforming porch was built in 1963. . May 8, 2005 To:The Board of Zoning Appeals Re: Re-hearing of petition from: 117 Paisley Lane (05-04-15) Robert J Kolasa and Lois Lenarz, Applicants The most recent (4-26-05) Zoning Appeals Meeting my proposal and variance request for the following front yard structures: . A combination garden fence-arbor-trellis . An adjacent pergola Following considerable discussion, I requested a postponement of the vote on the variance requests until the May meeting to allow for the following: · To re-submit design changes to address questions raised at the April meeting. · To present additional drawings/perspectives which clarify those design changes in the context of the overall design. . To further clarify the hardship. · To submit a request for an additional variance which may be needed for the pergola. · To allow for a vote by the full five member Board. . The design was created with the following criteria/purposes in mind: · To enclose a garden space, not a yard. · To create structures which are: aesthetically attractive and enhance the garden space as well as the yard visually open and non-obstructive to people, (as well as sunlight) allow for trellising and arbor growth of annual and perennial climbing plants to minimize animal/pest intrusion and damage to the garden Hardship: '. The legally defined front yard boundaries of our lot are such that they adjoin what are the back yards of 3 neighbors. · Current ordinance limits fence height to four feet in front yards, -in particular, on the north and east facing edges ofthe garden space (see photos) · Current fence ordinance, as applied here, does not address and/or limits the use or placement of architectural garden structures such as trellises, arbors, gateways, or pergolas which may be incorporated into any garden or yard fence design.(applicant has photo examples of such structures) . Proposed Changes and Requests After consideration of concerns raised and confusion about the original design proposed at the last meeting, I constructed a mock-up to a desired height, took photos and drew in sketches ofthe proposed redesign.(see photos # 1-4). The originally requested variance for a peak height of eight feet for the arborlfence is, . indeed, disproportionate to the space and not needed to achieve the design criteria. Therefore, variances are requested for the following modifications: 1. Variance from the front yard fence height maximum of four feet for construction of a garden fence-arbor-trellis combination whose peak height is between 5' and 6'6". · Specifically, between 6' and 6'6" on the east and north sections. This allows for changes in the grade on the north,(see photo #3) as well as head clearance below the arbors crossbars and crossbeam ofthe arbor top. (see photo 5) · The curved (diagonal) portion of the garden fence will have posts 5'6" with adjoining top crossbeams. (see photo #4) 2. Variance for at least one (and up to three, one per side, depending on cost)) 7'to 7'6" high arbor gate entrances (through and connected to the fence) to the garden, for ease of entry to and maintenance of the garden. (See photo #4). . 3. Variance from the five foot limit for structures for the northwest corner of the pergola structure, to come up to 4' from the north boundary line. (As currently drawn/designed on plans, this comer may be slightly <5', but no >4' from that line. This rear comer is meant to be in line with the north fence section, which, inside the rock wall, is already 4'-5' from that line. See drawing.) \( . MINNEAPOLIS 8, MINN. : '.- . EGAN, FIELD & NOW'AK SURVEYORS 129 WEST LAKE STREET .... ..~, ..... '. - ' .E'>:F..... . - . . ~~~.~.~;.:!. :':~~.1j: : N /.' ..~... . i~B:i " ~'.~;hi ';.~ ":';,,'-,';! r CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY For ~'E PALMER o - r. I '- I / t \ ./ ,/1'" . If' ./ I . Y 0\ - - '87.0 - -- OE~ . P TI ON: LoT 3. BLOCK I. TRALEE. SCALE: ,II _ .30' We he~eby ce~tify tha1 this ;s a true and.correct the boundaries of the lend ebove if any, thereon, and all visible encroachments, r City of Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Zoning Code Variance Application For Office Use Only: Application No. Date Received BZA Meeting Date Amount Received 1. Street address of property involved in this application: f 11. f~6\ly lhV\~ ~:r. Kot~3:LfLci~ A.~V6 Name 11'7 Rtrs,lQ/ ~~ ~lA~~I~ .564~ Address . . Ci y/State/Zip 7b3-~4h4~ 2. Applicant: h\;;J-qb!-7(3+ , Cell Phone Business Phone Home Phone ~hl~V @ Clltv~~(~.~ 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. ( C~~~tl~;),b~AOJ(lI\\ "" ~/(",1:~f:N ~ ll~ b-( &Orl>S~ -r~. I LLKt~ W\ \l vOV\' (J-':' f ~\ t/U'~ t (1\<L1A WiJO~~~~~~~lW -mfn~CL~.fm() 5. I , I . / 4. A brief statement of the hardship which provides legal grounds for the granting of this variance (see Frequently Asked Questions for an explanation of a "hardship"). Attach letter, photographs, or other evidence, if appropriate. t ~\+'~,df\<:. OM~ 3h-4</{..;L~, k~ Olst--S ~ ~~ffffJ S"~~Uf~&~7\~c6~~~... (~\~S"l bdQJ~~vroLo(1~~6.~~b~(~ 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. 3. ~ f'~ol<L, -'\ l~'l)\~vb; ~~W'~j ~ttALY~ . . Qv0ov; G~-\\~~'r.~ (\!lvo{ ~~~~ ~ S'4f!\r018j ~.. &\J~\!J\~$. ~.~ t; <::;-( ~ ~\I~O'l\~ 1\0\\\ \.o~~0::lJ\l\1 l(t · l}J\~ 9SL<;'~ \...t'f.- ~()~l.:Jlu -ti'()QA(\l1t ~ ~ex( IJ)~ 0/ 5-{wJ",~ ~\JO-0.(l~Y\~'\ VY\e,,^--[(~ ~F-~ (lJf -t~Gl/lIfnJX1!lS~~ (}v.vt..eJ: ~ ~ pvC/\l\&L S~'l',Jt,Jl'f VL'/V>{)~lLrV\~~\ril~~ ~\\.s.(~~ M~el)'(V\~\1..1 \'tM~VC1vJt~ D') Mlfi<.-<rNll- ~ SJ..~"""'-f', \\'1 ~\Ju^kJ..~, N(}..ljl~ (\f\\)~ ~~~ ~"'-\~~$l<t~ Jl-~l1; 1-~g~tf\, , ~c.) ~~+~tAkhNu~~ ~U-~, ~<~~-t~~\\L ~l~~~ &QS1~-th1:t ~ \(\o\"~~ ~t\-\-"'- ~~~ {j\(l s~hJ\'.N\i'l\~S (l)~~\QJ\J~ ~)(f'~vil~lLvW5 .~. V~. \rf4Yl\I".'~~ ui~i~!Vi"'~~ f(~~ ~~ (uJ~~t\~y ~0\\~~Jt.c ~~U-~ 1~ l~/CV~~~ ~ ~~e.V' :c~. ~ ~~ W:f (,atrl--, fcwet . ~~lV; eov ~~~k:>t>\.r ~ ~~lcl ~~~1- 0-- h~ot .rvN~ ~ ~+~t k?<Y\.l'<<l~l\O\'li:l~UJt-t0u-t~CJV\\'j d0 {. ) . . 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 application. If an application is incomplete, it will not be accepted: ~ . ! i! Completed application form, including signatures of surrounding property owners. ~ ~ A current or usable survey of the property must be attached. See the handout on survey requirements. ~i \ 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. I ~ 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. IfyoohaveattelTlptedt6 c6ntactapr6pertYowner on t\l\lO 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 ,y 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 ,\ ! H---' <~~ ( WINL ~ \ Comment !J) Mt OJ do (f -f/ L(( Signature Address. "::;2.0.:f!A..{s(-t; Lo,.(.^-~ Print Name JD~Y-- awOJIj.\!I~(.k ~V'I1V 7 fr> -5~- (7f;S Comment Signature ~ I (/ '------ Address l~5 f~ ~ 703 -~1 Print Name Address ! Oq P6]S(& Lh . I Comment Signature entName S~k A vt \. ftvi.tv "7G3-645"- d-\ Comment . .....u. h~ ~ u. ~ adtit/h61rL -jt; nu ~"-I<Jt7YJ' Signature~~~ Address 081 P(AIj~ LV\ , Print Name G{)~yI V:)~\['M~~V\ ~---(\}~V01~ A\'r'!~V\ !r41~~'{15 Comment Signature 4/ &~~ Print Name Mo~Mc(1W'--I.of:.. , . , C. t -l. j,J. (;'.';?~ ''- ...; ':-), .-11;.. 1l...1.~</h-- ommen ';'.'" - ":-1 <,- '/ .. . v/;'_. .~'-'_ _ - ,,' Signature . ,-;:;;;2~"(7;i/c/2?-h'-..L. Address \ 3\) E.~~\'M~.J\b. ((.{,j ~{d ~~D:11 ..._.. ,,_ \ 7':; ~ -L<)r.? ~ (4t ! ~ I)\" \ IJ"- {J ~ "tt!:J... Address. I (jG Ri~~ .~ ti)..~. Print Name &ment Signature Address . ~ .. p . .. . 05-05-09 . Peter Steichen 3126 Manor Drive . .. . . Planning 763-593-8095 r 763-593-81 09 (fax) Date: May 9, 2005 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Aaron Hanauer, Planning Intern Subject: 3126 Manor Drive (05-05-09) Peter Steichen Applicant Peter Steichen owns the house and property at 3126 Manor Drive. The applicant is requesting one variance fromSection 1 t.21, Subd.10 (A)(3)(b), Side Yard Setbacks, in order to allow for the tear down of breeze way and one-car garage and to build in place a two-car garage. The survey indicates that the existing setback is 6 feet from the side property line. The proposed addition would have a setback of 3.8 feet therefore extend 8.7 feet into the side yard setback. The requested variance will allow for the construction of the addition. The project requires the following variance from City Code: · Section 11.21, Subd. 10 (A){3){b) City Code states the required side yard setback for lots greater than 65 feet and less than 100 feet shall be 12.5 feet. The requested variance is for 8.7 feet off the required 12.5 feet to a distance of 3.8 feet at its closest point to the side property line. A review. of the City file indicates that the house was built in 1950 and that no other additions have been made to the house. 3. . . City of Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Zoning Code Variance Application For Office Use Only: Application No. Date Received BZA Meeting Date Amount Received $"2"" z,~ 1. Street address of property involved in this application: 3',?. 6/V}f4.NOPl f)-K Applicant · ~. rE R STt; 1 z. i4 r;: tJ 312. (; f\I1Al0o B DR GV flIt~Syt[2- Address City/State/Zip & r~ L-r '1.2:8'J~~ f 12: 2qo~ 4 a..tJo/ B 'ness Phone Home Phone Cell Phone 2. PLfllr~ · 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. 7'"15A rz DowJ0 LAR- 6A~Gtt6&. e-"'SI"51'lfJG Bf)&r~G.. U-;AX-AiJ!J .!)10~ B qlt.. pT(c.) (/ c:.r1:R CA lZ 6A 6 fi; 4. A brief statement of the hardship which provides legal grounds forthe granting of this variance (see Frequently Asked Questions for an explanation of a "hardship"). Attach letter, photographs, or other evidence, if appropriate. ~. --1-.. .~/At/tC. A OP& <::::A R 6f1 !Z61{6E.. 5. To the best of myknowledge the statements found in this application are true and correct. I. also understand that unless construction of the action applicable to this varic;lnce request, if granted, is not taken within one year, the variance expires. 6. If the applicant is not the owner of aU 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 application. If an application is incomplete, it will not be accepted: 2 Completed application form, including signatures of surrounding property owners. --Li' A current or usable survey of the property must be attached. See the handout on survey requirements. tI'. A brief statement ofthe hardship which provide grounds for the granting of this variance (see Frequently Asked Questions for an explanation of a "hardship"). Attach letter, photographs, or tI:: :::::::i: ;::~=i:::CriPtion of buildin9(S).additlon(s). and alteralion(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 V;~::~:'apPlicationfee, as follows: $125 - sln91e 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 aU properties abutting the applicant's property and directly across. the street. Ifana corner, this means across both .streets. Toabtain these signatures, you will need to personally visiteachofthese property owners,tell them about your project (,<<e encourage you to bring along a copy afyourbuildingplans) 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 add ress. 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 Ay possible effectthe granting ofthisvariance could have on your property. You will also be "'ceiving a written notice informing you of the time and place of the variance meeting. By signing this form, you are only verifying that you have been told about the project, not that you necessarily agree or object to the project. If you wish, you may comment on the project. Comments can contain language of agreeing with the project, objecting to the project or other !atements re9a.!?heprojec.t.. .. ... .... ,'., Print Name .~ c< J J:i, /Jpt-i-...I Comment al<.w / '-It Vf- Signature A.~/:!2,,4 Address-5lcA:> ,A,.., .~H- t-- Print Name fl~tK :l GU-J It S\;lJEN So N Comment Signature ~-r:~ Address 3\\~MAtJDP- O({\Ve Print Name \DA- VI~ ~ IlnbeL4 "'\)l~'7iiR ~?,-t Address?'~o/~6&t4tii Comment Signaturil .int Name Comment Signature Address Print Name Comment Signature Address Print Name Comment Signature Address ,int Name Comment Signature Address \J \f\ , . a' .~ ~ _ . _j,l{..,.-T I J.:.! . .. .. .. .' .~.L_ l jil/(' !w;....... ~J. ~ ~ -&\ ~ \:J fi . . .: ~I ~ !--'.---. ~ ~ j t-f\ ~ J t~ ~ Of. I . -(,I ~.J 'Sf .8- '-:-:=-"'-I-----o:-,..l,,)-,' .lS -.--.....-.v. ..l' ~I"Y ~...t1 -.' -::r I.. . .. I ~.:, -- ....... I" & ~ :. I 4 . .. .,. .... Iff E' FJ 'S" ;-..,~-- r-; f!{.-,f!-~ I r-:il j .:: 'r, ."1 I t:.::,I_" I 1 .J/"} I I l~.z;; A L 7 1JAIO. rl~E. N#It{lIEAr.re~LY, flALF ~PLe7$, t3l~c.A: DeL. Pi!! .AA.! lie 16..l.l7....J 12'5:9 /21. () . . ,. . ..., &. , . ,. . ., L.07- (I SCHOBORG 'D SURVEYING INC. I hereby certify that this certificate ot survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under 14e laws~, ot !l1e, S t te.~ M" innesot a. /?~/,{ I/~..'k{ -L ..;.1-" '.. ' '., ", I ~~' ~ ?1 ' .r .J--.;fJ.......!Jt__ ~...., - ,. --,., ", ,"',", ~.-""-, ,,'- -,,'.,C:I Date: 1f1A. Y' Z-,2Cpf'" Registration No. 14700 000.0 = EXIST. ELEV. r ?eo,' OK-PAGE ~.~ ft'J .;>> ,7 E&P (GOO.O) = PROPOSED ELEV. 000.0 '" EXIST. & PROP. JOe ~ · t,:t 'ct .,.1'0" ~..~}(),..''). H n 8M- 0= WOOD STAKE PLACED BEARINGS ON ASSUMEO DATUM o '" IRON MON. SET . PROPOSED INFORMATION ~~ .~ :"... ~.."'. ~J f i , ~ ~ ~ I ~ BASEMENT ELEV. . = IRON MON. INPLACE GARAGE FLOOR ELEV.' 'TOP BLOCK ELEV. '= DRAINAGE l.!l. S~AlE Zb J 8997 Co. Rd. 13 SE 763-9n-3221 OtianG. MN 55328 . v ~ ---' > (, ~ ,~\ ~ 1..,:/ ~i r- . (r~< l/\ '4:,. -... ) ~ C\\ ~.. - LC (, /"" :t. , ~\ -r ~ - !"S \ \ ~ D '(', "-' (iJ \' . \:::J ):. f'.. (fj ~ 0 r- r )~'\ <~ ~ 0 -...j :t~ ~ =<. \:) r ~Q ((' 1 .., ..... ~ <C'\, ~ -) :t ...... <?) l~ OJ ~l ~, -:j, ...j,. -CJ\ ,'- ~ VI - t[;' \.1 <;" ""- ~""", , " , .. ''''-'''' "'...".,.,'-'-,"<,: i -<"-'-.-.><.,:.-':'~ I " " i ,_ U '-'1'0 ~'"" -D !!-.~' C' D: ~ C '- r- '- ~ 1 '--. Z7 s: 00 z.s- 90 I I I tN N C' ~ :t. o 'I' u .~ , I 75:00 Mil r/ol? , r','-, ' I ,', / j: /J'--' ~~,) /~. / [~/r::::::-~ . 05-05-1 0 . Troy Auth 212 Janalyn Circle . . . .. Hey Planning 763-593-8095/ 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: May 9, 2005 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Aaron Hanauer, Planning Intern Subject: 212 Janalyn Circle (05-05-10) Troy Auth, Applicant Troy Authowns the house and property at 212 Janalyn Circle. The. applicant is requesting one variance from Section 11.21 of City Code in order to allow for the construction of a detached accessory unit, an 8 foot by"12 foot potting shed. The potting shed would not be located to the rear of the principle structure (a requirement under City Code). The requested variance will allow for the construction of the addition. The applicant states two primary hardships: First..the steep slope of the western lot. Second, the two retaining walls (4 feet and 6 feet high) and the 5 foot fence located directly west of the home make it impossible to access backyard without walking around the entire house. The project requires the following variances from City Code: · Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(1) A detached accessory structure shall be located completely to the rear of the principal structure, unless it is built with frost footings. In that case, an accessory structure may be built no closer to the front setback as the principal structure. If an addition is built on to an existing principal structure that would create a situation where an existing garage or accessory structure would not be completely to the rear of the addition to the principal structure, the addition to the principal structure may be built and the existing garage or accessory structure may remain and be considered conforming as long as there is at least 1 0 feet of separation between the existing principal structure with the addition and the existing garage or accessory structure. Additions may be made to the existing garage or accessory structure as long as the 10 feet of separatjon can be met. . A review of the Cityfile indicates that the house was built in 1959. An addition was completed in 2004 that did not require a variance. The addition consisted of adding to the rear kitchen and construction of a new den and mudroom. 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. ~ s/.fL i tII~;-kr1<- 0+ t /If *A Jl ~~ .~ ,Uff! 64JyJ w).t ~),t-afW"j? 'rt. . ~tI~-2 rd-aJ~" wJJ I b I,~ . sllu" -h14U-..tr attlt$UA.l~Cft({J4.. if,. tiJ rJlltir. $hll will L fM) *' ~t€- tJ ~ of. fJ.WJc- 9~~ *~+ 149 ~ -d ~'c vkuJ-. ~~luf~~$. 5. To the best of my knowledge theCSt~ements foul1d In thiS appfica\ion are true and correct. I also. understand that unless construction of the action applicable to this vari .ce request, if granted, is not taken within one year, the variance expires. J I . 4. . City of Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Zoning Code Variance Application For Office Use Only: Application No. Date Received BZAMeeting Date 6. Z 4 Amount Received ,~6 1. Street address of property involved in this application: Z. (2- TfW4Ly/J C(~C~ 2. Applicant: Tf2...c 'f Name A-un~ 2- To.. t'\. Address ~(lfJt lh ({ tt{tJ sst/f City/Stat 7Zip C,vJI<L -rb., - ~~ 1- ~7?2-- 76"3- 37y-lo33 Business Phone Home Phone -(-r-py t1. @ f/fol'<o. do".u~r;fVJld>. Go #<-- Email Address f, I ~ tl2.- m -6tffb Cell Phone 3. Detailed description of bui/ding(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. g' ~ I~' ftfl,j,f She/~. k lh61ruc:M 6.fMe;.. PIt';u/(){frlfaA r~~ pdt'o + wr~ (X.;d:j tf(~ -~ ~l J'/qLfj~~~ S;t~ ~d.{;1> /..r;s,tltL Idd'. f.A/i.,,/ows tncl9NtB) /N;II Mdfcf laMa - I f I I /' I By signing this form, you are only verifying that you have been told about the project, not that I you necessariiy agree or object to the project. If you wish, you may comment on the project. Comments can contairllanguage of agreeing with the project, objecting to the project or other statements regarding the project. Print Name Comment Signature Print Name (;-~~ f ~_. ~J ~~'"'"' r\ Va \\ v"'~ f":J fc....~ <::" 0'1 t; ""....\1 .......". f.......... ,,- ( " +- t:~ieuiHL I ~~ ~_Jt.U~/ Address -'u., ~.-~--"" .,~.-~ fi l) ~ \ ~.; I u I ,'r-eJ,fL -~ 0.11\"';' t! r~ '-'" , . ." /~.{ i~,! {4-- /.,...tj (it ~,. ...,~ ~l'...; It litL.-~ '__ l/' ! ' " -t., (atrl C1 e;t" f/ fL".;), tlU.fiJ , ~' Comment Signature ~J~i~ Print Name Comment Signature ent Name Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature Print Name . ::.ment 3ignature ~ 4d~~p Address y.ztf 3' (;:hIt WlicJ7 4t{~ 1 .~ _ ..I,'} ". ~. -fA ra Kf~ r: :f _ _ t_~.~ U/ If>, l? /;/::.. .tAw,' . 1:"" l' I rf Cl l' ~1 ,~~~ / \i\~ j ff -"~t,. f tA ,., ll',-A.:))tV"-'L Address -~~ f .J d.f\qj V ft I /"1 ~ p L'll'-C.-/ E: ;;?LJ r- r"'""1 C:nll5 r y Q., 't- e, ,--, .. n <:~-~~ 'if (-AJ'fJtJ..1. ^- ';UI.JqvJ. I , . , -' {'j /1 , C'_;._ j:' ;......)"./,:.. ~... .....~I ,l ~.~.;:;~ ;;" [..:}~ t.' :...~,:'>...'^I. Address :;2-....1 :3 .-<-- f.' f1 1 "')At~<Ai/~I-t, C,,'h:>(f.:__ (. ..J p.., /l l Itit a..r~ J' i//i ",.. t" 't!Ar' tl._ .A) ,/"l ..!~ ",./ t tfl"JI14, -, \i jl~/ ,/ ,1,::-' ./'.' (,"/ ., /',; o,r;/"',/ 1'0 / /~../' l/ (~rc';: "" ie,._ rF', ,~#"~""'~" ..~=:/;>),/ (/ i,f ;_,/~:., :L. .'.' -., \ '-:i ....rl--l U -r- f! ,.,::'1{) ~l!lJl..-v p,,- I ll, l 'i../ff <1'1::,1 e. Address ,~~r: ~'~t'L lJ (t M./A it b ~ "'!~l J t'. .. _ ",..] L/l,~"'\./\r"~~__~} , I ! I I I I Address Address 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 application. If an application is incomplete, it will not be accepted: - Completed application form, I din signatures of surrounding property owners. ~A current or usable survey of the property must be attached. Seethe 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. V-/ 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 fo"o~~:;kingle family residential; $225 - other Signatures of Surrounding Property Owners Note to the variance applicant: As art of the variance a plication process, you will need to attem t to obtain the sidnatures of all ~rrounding property owners. This inclu es 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 staffwill 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 .. possible effect the granting of this variance could hilve on your properly. You will aiso be . eiving a written notice informing you of the time and place of the variance meeting. .L . INSTALLING THE FIRST PORTICO RAFTERS: Cut the portico ratters and lookouts. Support the portico ridge and gable~ end rafters with a 2x4 nailed to the portico plates. Nail the ridge to the sheathing, centered on the front wall. Snap chalk lines from the intersection of the ridge down to the intersection of the portico plates and the outer edge of the fascia. Layout the valley rafters using the chalk lines. . INSTALLING THE REIIIIAINING RAFTERS: Fasten the remaining portico rafters to the ridge and sheathing, keeping the rafter tails lined up on the chalk line. Nail the lookouts and install siding on the front of the portico. Then face~nail the portico barge rafters and fascia. . FINISHING THE ROOF: Shingle the roof following the procedures shown for shingling a dormer or roof extension on pages 93-95. Start by sheathing the portico and stapling felt paper, creating a valley as shown on page 91. Shingle the roof with composition shingles or the material of your choice. All roofing except untreated wood shingles can be installed over plywood. INSTALLING THE SIDING For horizontal lap siding, install a spacer or molding at the bottom of the first course, as .....-...........~ ....... . "'".."."u .,.....,." J I shown on page 100. Use a story pole (page 101) to space the siding, beginning on the front wall and transferring the lines around the remainder of the building. If you start on one of the sidewalls, the lines probably won't correspond to the top and bottom of the doorway and windows. Nail the siding into the studs with 8d nails, then add trim. HANGING THE DOOR The rough opening and door frame is designed to accommodate a standard 32-inch prehung exterior door. (See page 102 for information about installing doors.) You may not be able to find the exact door illustrated, but any full-view steel (or wood) door with a center pane of glass will work. Most models come with snap-in muntins that allow you to create the pattern of your choice. You can install a solid panel door and still achieve the same overall design effect, but you'll lose the interior light, making the shed less inviting for potting. If you jnstall a solid door, consider electrifying the shed or installing additional windows or skylights. This is a decision you should make during the planning stage of your project. It's possible to add windows to existing walls but much easier to install them in framing that was designed for them. TRIMMING DETAILS 1x6 (top door trim) 1x4 1x4 1x4 V +'I:LIM"BLtH ~1 :rM) ~, ~L..~ Esta bUshed in 1962 LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC. LAND SURVEYORS REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA 7601 73rd Avenue North 763-560-3093 Fax No. 763-560-3522 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426 ~UrUtynrll attrtifi.rutt INVOICE NO. 67906 F.B.NO. 973-11 SCALE: 1" = 20' . Denotes Iron Monument Found ADAMS & ASSOCIATES FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SURVEY THE WEST L~E OF LOT 2, ASSUMED TO BEAR NOoOO' OO"E EXISTING RESIDENCE No. 216 I 1JCi\ " c:o ~ ~~, 'L'- I " ,. , . , ,., ~CQ \~\ Q , "'T-! " r.:i (i~):~, '\ ;2.1.D t'\ ~ Pi! '. " ~~r"'\-'~"""'''.' :: "l f. 0'-1 ' ~ o QI~ 01 61 ~ 15.10 ~l t! o '~ p '. ~l_ ;t-I.O o ~1! ---.----,--~ Z 30.92 .cr-.-J 16.1 ~ f\ "II: <1v'0 "II: C'\I "'''' C'\I .... <?v .... o o . o cY'J T-! 11.8 30.2 i3= EXISTING RESIDENCE No. 208 o cD ('oj 11/2-S-FRAME No. 212 cO C'\I - - m T-! ... C\l o o o Z 22.6 .... c-l 35.5 15.89 as Meter ."... :;:.......? Brick Planter Brick _ _ _ _ _ _ .2~~hgng _ _ Planter I"~'" I " "",.",.: " C'\I d ..,. .... en cO ..,. t<) o ui. ~J_ /;, '\. ,..,~~...., ...................................... N 88024 '22"W _L-- 104.04..................................../ Set Iron 'j Bituminous Curb. JANALYN CIRCLE Legal Description: . Lot 2, Block 1, BIRCHBANKS ADDITION TO GLENURBAN Hennepin County, Minnesota. The only easements shown are from plats of record or information provided by client. We hereby certify that thi~ is a true and COrrl:;ct representation of a survey of the boundarie$ of the above described land and the location of all buildings an~ visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. Signed Surveyed If ITERR us this 30th day of January, 2004. 4/bbag2-1drw.,90 CharlesF. derson, Minn. Reg. No.21753 or Gregory R. Prasch, Minn Reg No. 2 2 . 05-05-11 . Vincent Brama 1500 Zealand Ave. N. . See Large Size Plans and/or Survey in Planning Department . '. . Planning 763-593-8095/ 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: May 16, 2005 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Aaron Hanauer, Planning Department Intern Subject: 1500 Zealand Avenue North (05-05-11) Vincent Brama, Applicant Ross and Elizabeth Farmer own the property at 1500 Zealand Avenue North. The applicant Vincent Brama is requesting a variance from Section 11.21, Subd..1 0 (A)(1) Front Yard Setbacks that would allow for the construction of a proposed single-family home on the vacant lot. The house would extend 15 feet into the front yard setback to a distance of 20 feet. The same variance for the lot was granted (and lapsed) to Ross and Elizabeth Farmer at the March 6th, 1999 Board of Zoning Appeals hearing for the construction of a single-family home. The requested variance would allow for the construction of the home. The stated hardship is the steep slope that makes a home of moderate size improbable to build on this plot. The project requires the following variance from City Code: ----- · Section 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(1), Front Yard Setbacks. City Code states the required front yard setback shall be 35 feet from any front property line along a street right-of- way line. The requestedvariance is for 15 feet off the required 35feetto a distance of 20 feet at its closest point to the front yard property line. . . . 1508 Zealand A ve~ Golden Valley Set-Back Requirements. Current Set-back Requirements: 15 leet lrom side property line. This is equal on both sides il the garage is attached. 35 Feet lrom lront property line. Front ol property usually indudes a standard street easement ol 12-15 leet belore your property line begins. Variance: a variance was granted allowing a home to be buil t 20 leet lrom the lront property line. This variance has expired It is likely that they will grant another variance considering the prool 01 Hardship. Ootis dilficult to build on in it's current state) 1 With the current Set...hack requirement ol35leet lrom Properl-g Line, a home ol moderate size will not lit on the lot. The lot can currenU-ghe considered unbuildahle. The new owner is requesting a varianceol15 Feet From lront properl-gline. A previous variance ol20 leet was granted and has since expired. 2. Currentl-g the cit-g requires a drivewa-g at the garage to he 2 Feet above Curb. The new owner is requesting a variance allowing the drivewa-g tp hel Foot above curh. This will allow a less signUicant elevation change hom garage to home., and improve the POSsihUit-g ol having a natural septic drain without the use ol a grinder/ Wt pump. . 4. 5. . City of Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Zoning Code Variance Application For Office Use Only: Application No. Date Received BZA Meeting Date Amount Received 1. Street address of property involved in this application: 1,,:::>o8ZEALA.;o...tO . Av€.. ) Go'-O~ \JA1.4...~ 2. Applicant: \/"Nt.J!N"'T 1$ ~A Name (0 ~ l\.o "'39 '0 c;...,.. W Address ~ " W\A' h ? M.,\t.. S~'f I <t? City/State/Zip Business Phone G s z - qZ<f .. OlQ ~'I Home Phone Colt-qfo\- Obqto Cell Phone rbr6N\b ([) eN". ,s,b...., - ,..<.,8.( e ..."-OT'C". l:.b~ 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 anyvariance that may be approved and cannot be changed before or after the building permit is issued. ;;20 f1oo..- ~ ~,.~ ~ ~""'.. ?",~"e.c..""1 L4we:.."TO ~--vr 01= ?t""l0('70'\.flk> &4.c;LO;.......,C., - Mo,~~~ -z: "'"f'"OI'l.~ ~. C~T'"~.....L~.....:> -* ~AA~. C I'~ ~./\.G.-~ D'hvE~ ~.' .~~ P/;-r Hc>vs. i'-_ ..-0 11; E.. ~ r-r rh~l+c!A. ~ <..4A.A.'3- ~~"':) U'- . \;) r&.e.. (i)vc:s.,....,Je.. CoIt"""'1 Mlto.Ns. ~.~..,..u t..... A brief statement of the hardship which provides legal grounds for the granti~g of this variance (see Frequently Asked Questions for an explanation of a "hardship"). Attach letter, photographs, or other evidence, if appropriate. ... -- 1- 0.,. . \S NO"'" 'fSc..t I\..-s? fh'S~ u.J '~u."t" vA^"a'ANt.:(. L.o-r .4A-s.. A s~ ... (...0 P i!... J1AJr) , · ~ a....Lot 1 lOl::) .;::-r 'P~ " C .q Jl. f"I..A!' '" T' .s.e.,. G A-c,..,," ~ Wl&.l.. ~O'f"' . A \\.",...,J tP~_ ~"'- A ,~E. To the best of my knowledge the statements found in this application are true and correct. I also understand that unless cqnstruction Qfthe action applicable to this variance request, if granted, is not taken within one year, the variance expires. \t~~ S'ignature of .... Icant 6. If the applicant is not the owner of all property involved in this application, please name the owner of this property: !:OSS :7, r:;tl-Yl'fLiJ- G/ ; Zit bt,f4t /t1 ( r;lf'77~Y Print Name of owner ~l4t>L' .l~,4 h."?~-:, ~t:.~t'lhC:,f.-/ :"",.-;,;;1' , "'(j{ { (JL/...i./L ) J 7, G,;ltJc{ .L., Signafure of owner ' Variance Application Submittal: The following information must be submitted by the application deadline to make a complete application. If an application is incomplete, it will not be accepted: Completed application form, including signatures of surrounding property owners. A current or usable survey of the property must be attached. See the handout on survey requirements. A brief statement of the hardship which provide grounds for the granting of this variance (see Frequently Asked Questions for an explanation of a "hardship"). Attach letter, photographs, or other evidence, if appropriate. You may submit detailed description of building(s), addition(s), and alteration(s) involved in this project.. The site plans and drawings submitted with this application will be the basis of any variance that may be approved and cannot be changed before or after the building permit is issued. . 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 . possible effect the granting of this variance could have on your property. You will also be i ceiving a written notice informing you of the time and place of the variance meeting. By signing this form, you are only verifying that you have been told about the project, not that you necessarily agree or object to the project. If you wish, you may comment on the project. Comments can contain language of agreeing with the project, objecting to the project or other . statements regarding the project. rint Name Comment Signaturef! ~ '1!l ~1J Print Name ~<L- M9.Sbl1- Comment Signature ~ Print Name Comment Signature N\fti( Sm~ ~~ .int Name ..1JAVt b ~ps~.v Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature int Name Comment Signature ~~~ ---r- P) Gt:A- )~l ~k~....~~ QcuR~ ~r" Address Address. /.7at..~,~.~ v - Address CC6.L.l\\ralu~~~ tW. Address ~t=t .~ ~.1.J, Address \:)d ~ '1. ~,~ , .. . ...... Address. /)t/:r~X< Address