Loading...
01-27-04 BZA Agenda e Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, January 27, 2004 7pm 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers I. Approval of Minutes - November 25, 2003 II. The Petitions are: 210 Westwood Drive S., 55416 (04-01-01) Daniel & Connie Dunn, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(B) .Rear Yard Setbacks . 6.92 ft. off the required 26.92 ft. to a distance of 20 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard property line for a proposed new deck. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a proposed new deck. e 2485 Perry Avenue N., 55422 (04-01-02) Charles Grunewald, Applicant Request: Waiver fi'om Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C) Side Yard Setbacks . 7.5 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 7.5 ft. at its closest point to the south side property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a proposed new garage addition. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setbacks . 1 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 34 ft. at its closest point to the front yard property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a front entry addition. III. Other Business e IV. Adjournment . . . Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals November 25, 2003 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, November 25, 2003, in the Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Vice Chair McCracken-Hunt called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Members Ovsak, McCracken~Hunt, Sell, Smith and Planning Commission Representative Shaffer. Also present were Director of PI d Development Mark Grimes and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittma mbe was absent. J. Approval of Minutes - October 28, 2003 MOVED by McCracken-Hunt, seconded by Shaffer and moti approve the October 28,2003 minutes as submitted. II. The Petitions are: 5150 - 33rd Avenue North (03-11- Gre 0 Schindler A licant Req uest: . 7(A) Front Yard Setbacks . 6.5 ft. off t point exis 35 . 0 a distance of 28.5 ft. at its closest rd property line along Scott Ave. N. for the Purpose: xisting deck into conformance with front yard setback from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setbacks . off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 28.5 ft. at its closest point to the front yard property line along Scott Ave. N. for the proposed new deck. Toallow for the construction of a proposed new deck. Request: Waiverfrom Section 11.21, Subd. 12(A) Accessory Buildings . 2.8 ft. off the required 5 ft. to a distance of 2.2 ft. at its closest point to the side yard property line for the existing shed. Purpose: To bring the existing shed into conformance with accessory building setback requirements. Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals November 25, 2003 Page 2 . Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 12(A) Accessory Buildings · 3.4 ft. off the required 5 ft. to a distance of 1.6 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard property line for the existing shed. Purpose: To bring the existing shed into conformance with accessory building setback requirements. . Grimes stated that this property is located at the northeast corner of S North and 33rd Avenue North. He explained that the existing home d 35-foot setback requirement along Scott Avenue North. He expla' a permit for the existing deck in the City's files and that there w built above the garage that wasn't granted a variance. He st existing shed on the property located in a City utility easem shed be moved as a condition of granting a building permit. Gregory Schindler, applicant, explained that the p further toward Scott Avenue. He stated that he with the existing shed but that he would look int uld not be going any would be an issue McCracken-Hunt asked if the deck was enclosed room. Schindler stated it wo Inspections Department had alrea pen structure and not an open structure and added that the s. Craig Hess, 3320 Scott Avenue house he thinks there ma asked if the City change would have caused thes added however, th ted t t in looking at this house and his uses out of conformance along Scott Ave. He egarding the setback requirements which o be t of conformance along Scott Avenue. He jection to the proposal. ows the setbacks have always been 35 feet to the at area. Shaffer added that with the potential changes to the types of problems will go away. econded by McCracken-Hunt and motion carried unanimously to g variance requests with the condition that the existing shed must the easement area by July 1, 2004 and the proposed deck must structure. c · 6.5 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 28.5 ft. at its closest point to the front yard property line along Scott Ave. N. for the existing deck. . 6.5 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 28.5 ft. at its closest point to the front . yard property line along Scott Ave. N. for the proposed new deck. . 2.8 ft. off the required 5 ft. to a distance of 2.2 ft. at its closest point to the side yard property line for the existing shed (only until July 1,2004). ~. . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals November 25, 2003 Page 3 1319 Zealand Avenue North (03-11-59) David Thompson. Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 12(A) Accessory BUildings . 2.75 ft. off the required 10ft. to a distance of 7.25 ft. at its closest point from the corner ofthe deck to the existing garage. Purpose: To allow for the existing deck to be remodeled. into porch. Grimes stated that the applicant is proposing to replace an exi season porch. He explained the variance is required becau instead of the required 10 feet between the existing garage added that there was not a permit for the existing deck in the Smith asked if the 7 % feet measurement was fro proposed porch or from the garage itself to the the measurement is from the roof overhang and and the proposed porch addition is 11 fee om the garage to the reh ition. Sell stated that ance between the garage McCracken-Hunt asked if rotating the between the two structures. Grim deck the same way it has been ould help get the 10 feet required e lieant would like to keep the enclose it. David Thompson, applica the garage was built in 1 he would like to be able to e has lived at this location since 1969 and that doesn't know when the deck was built, but that etter. Smith asked the app stated no, and posed screened porch would be heated. Thompson e a screened porch. est seems fairly minimal. McCracken-Hunt added that the aek issue (not from property lines). seconded by Smith and motion carried unanimously to approve the feet off the required 10 feet to a distance of 7.25 feet at its closest rner of the deck to the existing garage. 3325 Kyle Avenue North (03-11-60) Dave & Pat Nesbitt. Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setbacks . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals November 25, 2003 Page 4 . 5.9 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 29.1 ft. at its closest point to the front yard property line along Kyle Ave. N. for a proposed front porch addition. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a proposed new front porch addition. . Grimes explained that this same property received a variance earlier this year and that now the applicants have decided to add an open covered entry on the heir house to provide protection from the weather. He stated that this req e allowed under the changes that are being considered to the Zoni Sell asked if there was a blanket variance given on Kyle AV~.rl other side of Kyle Avenue may have had a blanket variancew; think so for the west side of Kyle Avenue. MOVED by McCracken-Hunt, seconded by Ovsa approve the request for 5.9 ft. off the required 3 closest point to the front yard property line alon ied unanimously to 29.1 ft. at its 4949 Olson Memorial Highwa~ Pro Partners Grou LLC A Request: Subd. 5(8)(3) Side Yard Setbacks 10ft. to a distance of 2.5 ft. at its closest t s yard property line for the existing and king 10 . isting parking lot into conformance with setback from Section 11.45, Subd. 5(8)(3) Side Yard Setbacks 8 ft. off the required 10ft. to a distance of 2ft. at its closest point to the west side yard property line for the existing and expanded parking lot. Purpose: To allow for expansion and reconstruction of the parking lot. Grimes stated that the applicants are requesting variances in orderto do improvements to their parking lot. He explained that the applicants recently received a Conditional Use Permit to allow an Adult Day Care facility to operate at this location. He said that the applicants originally presented a parking plan that met setback requirements but have since decided to expand the parking lot to provide for better circulation. He stated that the City has issued a stop work order because the applicants began removing . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals November 25, 2003 Page 5 pavement from the existing parking lot without the proper drainage and tree preservation permits. Shaffer stated that when the Planning Commission reviewed the Conditional Use Permit application he thought some of the parking spaces shown' on their plans were proof of parking spaces. Grimes said that they have d'ecided to construct up to 37 parking spaces in order to meet the parking demand for 92 participants. Shaffer stated he is concerned about the proposed drive aisle width be' wide. Grimes said that generally, if diagonally parking, the aisle widt 18 feet. He added that he has spoken with the Fire Chief and tha 0 an lik fire at this location would be fought from the street. He said tha app I sure that an ambulance and a Metro Mobility bus could circu r a the parking lot. 18 feet than a make nd McCracken-Hunt suggested making a few less parkin easier access. Grimes said that the applicants ha said they could maybe have a couple of proof 0 internal parking lot circulation. allow for enough parking and t would improve Randy Engle, Buetow and Associates, I owners are trying to breathe new life in Commission was concerned abou vehicles and that a week later h that he said to maintain a 20-fo building. He referred toa s' bus. He clarified that thet building will be sprinklere and said that accor to stated that the appli the neighbors e n narrowness of t. has been i;~QrJtI project, stated that the irig:iHe stated that the Planning room on the site to maneuver City Fire Marshal, Ed Anderson and parking along the west side of the 'scussed the turning radius of a Metro Mobility a e 20 feet deep and 9 feet wide and that the lalne hat 24 trees have been removed from the site nt a permit for tree preservation is not necessary. He ce trees if the Board finds it necessary. He said that nd that the property has hardships because of the dded that a civil engineering plan for grading and drainage ity Engineer for review. ked Engle if they thought he would need all of the parking being jd initially they won't need all of the parking but in the future with the articipants they might. He added that they are providing the amount of because of the City Code requirements. Grimes stated that situation now is that the parking lot is ripped up. If they are going to rebuild it, the lot should be constructed with a 20-foot driveway along the west side and adequate parking. This would require variances. Shaffer said that this proposal is basically what the Planning Commission said was okay and that the only way to make this property viable is to allow this proposal. McCracken-Hunt said she would like the applicant to provide a parking plan showing Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals November 25, 2003 Page 6 . what parking they need and what can be proof of parking. Grimes stated thatthe Planning Commission recommended that eight parking spots could be proof of parking. MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Smith and motion carried unanimously to approve the requests for 7.5 ft off the required 10ft. to a distance of 2.5 ft. at its closest point to the east side yard property line for the existing and expanded parking lot and 8 ft. off the required 10ft. to a distance of 2 ft. at its closest point to the west side yard property line for the existing and expanded parking lot . 8811 Olson Memorial Highway (03-11-62) KARE 11 John Remes A Iicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.45, Subd. 5( . 14.7 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a point to the front property line alo parking lot expansion and ex' . building. its closest d. for the south of the KARE Purpose: To allow for the sout of the existing par . xpanded and for a portion Request: Subd. 5(A)(1) Front Yard Setbacks 35 ft. to a distance of 25 ft. at its closest point p 'ne along the new access road for the parking and eXisting parking lot te an expanded parking lot and existing parking lot orks Director, Jeannine Clancy was at the meeting because 'ty will be doing in the area. He explained that the access to RE 11 will be cut off. In order to compensate for some of the st in the front of the building (north side) they are requesting a est side of their property to allow for more parking and to make the Ing legally non-conforming, McCracken-Hunt asked if the City is comfortable with the right-in, right--out configuration shown on the plans. Clancy said that KARE 11 and General Mills have been working hard with the Cityto come to this resolution. . Jupe Hale, WSBAssociates, project manager for the project, stated that part ofthe TH55/General Mills Blvd. intersection improvements is to add additional turn lanes and to improve safety. This requires that the frontage road in front of KARE TV be closed at General Mills Blvd. He said that KARE 11 is considering making the current front lot a . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals November 25, 2003 Page 7 visitor parking lot and the expanded lot on the south would be used for employee parking. Sell stated that thinks the opposite would be better, designate the front lot for employee parking and the south lot for visitor parking. Tony McDonald, Operations Manager at KARE 11 stated that most of the employees come from the north and explained that visitors and deliveries will be told how to get to the north lot. Sell asked if consideration was given to the neighborhood regarding th south. Hale discussed the dual left turn lanes shown on the plans fro TH55 to southbound General Mills Blvd. and showed the Board t 0 would use to access the neighborhood west of KARE after the 5/ e intersection improvements are made. ents Blvd. Ovsak asked if there would be a stoplight at the access road KARE. Clancy stated no. Grimes asked if this proposal had already been stated no and that the agreement includes thes t ty Council. Clancy ariances. McCracken-Hunt clarified the variance Grimes said there are just the two vari cting on at this meeting. e south lot being requested. Don Ralph, 440 Decatur Avenu of having General Mills.traffic d He said that he wanted asked if KARE 11 would ity didn't take his original suggestion e instead of having it all on Highway 55. antee that they wouldn't put in a helipad and tanks located on their property. Grimes said in ord Conditional Use Per also have con s 'copter in Golden Valley KARE 11 would need a at he has talked to the FAA in the past and that they d at this location. nk on .the south side of the property has been drained and It. ked if there is a planting plan for the 26 feet of setback area north ad. Grimes said the City wants to be sure there are no issues with the 1'1 that location. Clancy added that there would also be a sidewalk MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Ovsak and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance requests for 14.7 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 20.3 ft. ati.ts closest point to the front property line along General Mills Blvd. for the parking lot expansion and existing parking area south of the KARE 11 building and for 10ft. off the required 35ft. to a distance of 25 ft. at its closest point to the front property line along the new access road for the parking lot expansion and existing parking lot. . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals November 25, 2003 Page 8 604 North Lilac Drive (03-11-63) Dr. Wayne Dahl, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.30, Subd. 7(A) Yard Requirements · 35 ft. off of the required 35ft. to a distance of 0 ft. of landscaping to the front property line along Lilac Drive North for the existing parking lot. All front yard setbacks are to be maintained as landscaped areas. Purpose: To bring the existing parking lot into conform requirements. rd Request: Waiver from Section 11.30, Subd. 7( . 15 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a di the north side yard property . half ofthe required side yar line, is to be landscaped. ft. 0 ndscaping to parking lot. One- ured from the lot Purpose: To bring the existi requirements. formance with side yard Request: Subd. 7(8)(4) Yard Requirements 15 ft. to a distance of 3 ft. of landscaping to i'foperty line for the existing parking lot. One- uired side yard, as measured from the lot line, is to . existing parking lot into conformance with side yard ments. er from Section 11.46, Subd. 7(C) Loading and Parking Requirements · 68 parking spaces off of the required 126 parking spaces for the entire lot. Purpose: To bring the existing parking lot into conformance with loading and parking requirements. Grimes explained that this proposal has been changed and now this property will solely be used as an MRI clinic and not as a banquet facility. He said that as a result of this change the proposal will meet the parking requirements of 40 spaces. He said that the applicant would also be using the space for a MRI training facility for 30 to 40 people. . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals November 25, 2003 Page 9 He explained that the existing building does not meet the required number of parking spaces. The spaces shown along the front of the property adjacent to Lilac Drive are located. on MnDOT right-of-way. This row will eventually be turned over to the City. At that time the Public Works Director has said the parking spaces will De removed to make roo.m for landscaping and a sidewalk. Smith asked if vacating the banquet facility space would give them the extra room they need for parking. Shaffer asked if the existing banquet facility were used as a training need more parking for that use. Grimes said he would suggest pu g the property saying that the City would allow no more than 50 Ie on training or seminars. Sell asked if any of this property was taken by MnDOT as a r Grimes stated no. Dr. Wayne Dahl, applicant stated that he his her and special addition to the City. He said they ar only offered in 22 other locations in the wo addition and stated that because of the would have to be demolished in order architecture of this building and th after the remodeling. Sell asked Dahl if he plans uses. Dahl stated that th uses. RI services for other than just chiropractic t will be used for a multitude of diagnostic McCracken-Hunt as number of peo II that whatever t occupan north a problems would have any problems with the City limiting the ite to 50 when he has training or seminars. Dahl said ys he will be respectful of, however the existing permit eople in the restaurant. He said that his neighbors to the ed to do shared parking and that he knows there will be no rking on the site. Me there parking a t said that she didn't think there were any problems with the clinic but if a seminar for 100 people on the site they would need to have a ment. Shaffer stated that he is concerned that the City would be setting up something that in 10 or 15 years from now might not be as amazing but that the site could still be used as a restaurant. Dahl clarified that he would be giving up the restaurant part of the building and that they onlywant to be allowed to use it as a restaurant during the construction of the addition and then it would go away. Shaffer said that this proposal just has so many aspects for problems. Grimes said he has the same concern and that is why he is Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals November 25, 2003 Page 10 . suggesting limiting the number of people allowed on site to 50. Dahl added that he sees this proposal as being an anchor to a medical center in that area of the City. Smith asked if it is unusual to find a clinic in a Commercial zoning distript. Grimes said there are quite a few. Cindy Balderson, McCrossan, manager of the apartment buildings to the south stated that they are in favor of this proposal. She said she thinks it will give the area life and they would like to see a face lift done on that building. e He ed that O. Shaffer asked how the BZA could put a restriction on allowing ani site. Grimes said he would talk to the City Attorney or ask Dr. D said his concern is seeing 100 people going to the site and t Dr. Dahl as agreed to limit the number of people allowed on McCracken-Hunt asked if the BZA could suggest that 1111 agreement with the City regarding the number of condition of approval. Grimes stated yes. . MOVED by McCracken-Hunt, seconded b the following variance requests canting arrangement with the use of the banq people. Members Shaffer and Ov carried 3 to 2 to approve g out an acceptable 'ch t ZA is assuming to be 50 proposal. . 35 ft. off of the required 35 ft line along Lilac Drive N be maintained as Ian nc ft. of landscaping to the front property ting parking lot. All front yard setbacks are to . 15 ft. off the req property line for t as measure distance of 0 ft. of landscaping to the north side yard ing lot. One-half of the required side yard of 30 ft., IS to be landscaped. ft. to a distance of 3 ft. of landscaping tothe south side yard sting parking lot. One-half of the required side yard, as e lot line, is to be landscaped. ez Avenue North (03-11-64) om bacher, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7{C) Side Yard Setbacks . · 0.4 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 14.6 ft. at its closest point to south side yard property line for the existing house. Purpose: To bring the existing home into conformance with building setback requirements. . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals November 25, 2003 Page 11 Request: Waiver from Section 11.21 ,Subd. 7{A) Front Yard Setbacks . 2.4 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 32.6 ft. at its closest point to the front yard property line along Natchez Avenue North for the existing house. Purpose: To bring the existing house into conformance with building setback requirements. MOVED by Smith, seconded by Ovsak and motion carried unani request for 0.4 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 14.6 ft. south side yard property line for the existing house and 2.4 distance of 32.6 ft. at its closest point to the front yard prope Avenue North for the existing house. 701 Parkview Terrace (03-11-65) Kath n Sedo A Iicant Request: Side Yard Setbacks . 1. 7ft. off the re point to the n . tance of 13.3 ft. at its closest y line for the existing house. Purpose: to conformance withbuilding setback Request: Section 11.21, Subd. 7{A) Front Yard Setbacks uired 35 ft. to a distance of 30 ft. at its closest point ard property line along Parkview Terrace for the house. ng the existing home into conformance with building setback requirements. MOVE er, seconded by McCracken-Hunt and motion carried unanimously to approve uest for 1.7 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 13.3 ft. at its closest point to the north side yard property line for the existing house and for 5 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 30 ft. at its closest point to the front yard property line along Parkview Terrace for the existing house. . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals November 25, 2003 Page 12 1120 Wisconsin Avenue South (03-11-66) Elizabeth Hoffman, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 12{A) Accessory Buildings · The existing garage is not located wholly to the rear of the existing house. Purpose: To bring the existing garage into conformance wit building requirements. MOVED by Smith, seconded by Ovsak and motion carried una request to allow the existing garage to not be located wholly house. III. Other Business Grimes reminded by Board Members of their ho 2003 at 6:30 pm. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9: . 04-01-01 210 Westwood Drive S. . Daniel & Connie Dunn . . . . Hey Planning 763-593-8095/ 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: January 22, 2004 Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals Mark W.Grimes, Director of Planning and Development To: From: Subject: 210 Westwood Drive S., 55416 (04-01-01) Daniel and Connie Dunn, Applicants Daniel and Connie Dunn own the house and property at 210 Westwood Dr. S. (The property is located south of Glenwood Ave in the North Tyrol neighborhood.) The applicants are requesting a variance from one requirement of the Residential Zoning Code (Section 11.21) in order to allow for the construction of a deck attached to the rear of their house. The applicants came to the Inspections Department to begin the process to receive a building permit for the proposed deck. A current survey of the house was in the City file for the property. Based on the size of the deck the applicants proposed to construct, it was determined by staff that a rear yard setback variance would be needed to go forward with the construction. (The deck is proposed to exceed the side yard setback requirement of 15 ft.) According to the applicants, there was a deck off the rear of the house until November 2003. At that time it was' removed because it was no longer safe. A picture of the old deck is enclosed. This deck was added to the house sometime after the house was built in 1981 and no building permit was issued for the deck. The deck that was removed is smaller than the proposed deck. Staff estimates that the old deck extended about 10-12 ft. from the rear of the house. The proposed deck extends about 18 ft. from the rear of the house. The old deck probably met the rear yard setback requirement of 26.9 ft. The applicants' lot is about 13,400 sq. ft. with 100 ft. of frontage along Westwood Dr. S. The Zoning Code requires lots to be a minimum of 10,000 sq. ft. in area and have 80 ft. of width. In this case, the house is quite long from east to west that makes the rear yard smaller. As indicated in the attached photos, the properties to the west are at a much higher elevation than the applicant's property. The following variance is requested to allow for the construction of the proposed deck: · Section 11.21, Subd. 7(8) Rear Yard Setbacks. City Code requires that the rear yard setback shall be 20% of lot depth. In this case, the lot is 134.6 ft. in depth. Therefore the rear yard setback requirement is 26.9 ft. The variance request is for 6.9 ft. off the required 26.9 ft. to a distance of 20 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard property line for the new deck. The City's file on this address indicates that the house was built in 1981. It appears that the footprint of the building has not been increased. There have been no other variances granted to this address. ;1'..."!" Certificate for: Sonts Construction Attn: Don 0180n ~.' Su \I... \ loe.. A"\ \ cl..l . o~ ~'^\'-D\~6... a. B1c1 "6/75 DELMAR H. SCHWANZ L.ANO SURVEYOR R"1Iilt.,ed UnCle' L.wl of Th. SI.t. of Minn.sot. 2978 - 1415TH STAIET W. - BOX M AOSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA 56068 PHONE .12 411-1,... SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE - ...... I ..... N ego 17'1O"W 81.33 ,1 10' . , ... C ..:!I.... . -i' \ I) g \ \- o 1. flu 1... lIJ I? .::r ... 0 J::l:" ..:i ...... 14 134.63 ~~ 89017'10 "W ... \ J ~6 '0;' ..n. ~. - "-.,.- ...... 0(.0""'"' I ~\ .... Eleyatlona 111:=1:- and We. ood Dr.' So. :::r I- 0::: o Z ~ (i I ~ / .. lilfl I 11_10" '''JIIl. , I ~I ~l \ I 61.33 '- SCALE: 1 inch - 30 reet o Denote~ .et wood hub and tack Benchmark: Top hydrant s. W. quad. Maddau8 Elev. - 875.33 tt. Proposed garage floor elev. I hereby cert1fy that this 1. a true and correct repN..Dtat1on ot a survey of the boundaries of: . The east 134.62 teet of Lot 6 and the south 6.00 feet of the east 134.62 feet of Lot 5., Block I, SUNRISE LANE, aeeord1ns to the reoorde" plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Alao showing the location of a proposed house as st.-.d thereon. . As surveyed by me thi8 3rd day ot April, 1981. F~E..V\:~ED .J4...Hf_ \2.., \98\ To 'S140uJ 'EX\GTIU~ loc...~"n cl'...'l cr-f ~'V.\I....D\O~. .;P ,~ ~.,"''l1.!>1.; '1'~'-c.~' ..... .~~ ;:;(,4 /~ " . . . Dear Members of the Board of Zoning Appeals, We are asking for a variance to the rear setback requirement of 20%of the lot depth or 26.92 feet, in our case, to replace our original deck which was built with the house in 1981. The original deck became unstable because of deterioration ofthe wood and I removed the deck in November, 2003. A picture of the original deck is enclosed(pA).The original deck extended beyond the setback requirements from the rear of the house. I don't know if a variance was requested at the time the original deck was built. The deck we have designed is almost the same footprint except for an additional set of steps to the south side of the deck (p. 7&8," A") and a repositioning of the steps on the north side of the deck (p. 7&8, "B"). A setback of 20% or 26.92 feet would leave a deck width of only 11 feet (p. 5). This width would not allow for a table with chairs or any movement of people on the deck surface. Any use of a barbeque grill would be hazardous in such a confined space. Our property is unique in that during the summer when the deck would be used our neighbors would not be able to see our deck because of a wooded ravine to the south (p.9,"B"&"D"), A fifteen foot embankment with dense foliage to the rear or west(p. 9, "A",p.l0"A"), and to the north, shrubbery separating our properties(p. 9,"C"). The proposed deck is similar in size and design to the original deck built in 1981. The asked for variance would be unobtrusive and would not interfere with our neighbor"s enjoyment of their own property in any way. A deck width of 11 feet as required by zoning regulations would make the deck virtually unusable for family gatherings and bar- b-ques. This would represent a significant hardship for a family that would utilize a deck five or more days of the week during the summer. The resale value of our home would also be adversely affected. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. c;JJ2:1Y~ Daniel and Connie Dunn . ' Jhe Home Depot # 2806 , 5800 CEBAR LAKE RD, ST LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 (g52) 512-0109 Thu Nov13 15:42:21 2003 The materials for this project will cost $4065.54 c&,IE DUNN ~2 158908 Deck Dimensions for Deck 1 - - N C'" --20' 3" .~ I ~ '.-I .-I h QiA., g <(. r-- - N N N In .-I - .-I r-- 0') eck 1 3 ' 3' -17' 3" -----.-17' 11" . Joist Spacing = 16 in. o.c. Baluster Spacing = 3 3/4" Toe Spacing = 3 3/4" Railing Height = 36" 31' r:, 'In J L I.,' 7" m ~ iH ! '" I . II I " ~ ~ ~ I.' 8"- 4' 6" 5' 7" .10' 1" 31' \".1 (..1 d il II r: ~ ,-I (~\ ,-; I 'j' ,." !~}:i " ""jf"II,!". " ".'.'.' .!Ij~. ....: '.' !:i li::l ~f If t;. ;i"l, "Ii;,l,!!, il\!j1:!J I' :1 :'-! 1: ! j , ,i; i ~ : I! it ':"":!.i ";.:j-!, :! ;;::,~.1' '! t "..:1 II !.:; :i:':iii: ! i H ;!;j . il . ! .:~! ! : . I,:; UI'ij"t!!, : rnl: i! :;!iH'i 7 I fi:io'... . "f.he Home Depot # 2806 . '58(jO CEDAR LAKE RD, ST LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 (952) 512-0109 Thu Nov 13 15:42:21 2003 The materials for this project will cost $4065.54 '( '2- C,AE DUNN D~2 158908 3D View . . ;!j , ! , ,," . ~d De~ D n Il/03 ~l)-Jecx- . r --- . , 'f ~.~ i,...~,~~~.:.' . .; 1:;:1 , .4"' . , ;_... ~.~..) I .~-". " .... - , . " L \~ . 'I. , ( , /IJ 4,."'9Y-' .' , '. ~ ," . ,~ I~~,/~..t 'i .. , . \\ '. \ ~ #, f' . f 'j, ~ t II. , ' , I I, 'W I , \ , e I \ "\ r " I, \ I i \~ . ....~ , I ~ ~ t .~, ;~~t . . 1"- , I ~ F ~-_"I _ , ,:......:.. " . I i " + " ~""' I., , I I .' 0 '. " ': .' .. { .'/''tf.' I ... t ...."-", \~ .,' ..ta. _, ...., I ~.~ ....... _.....:.- -.,;. t. .~' "I-b' . 'i'\ , 1 " 'of ~ 1\ -\1 \- 1 ;' , I , j\~ \. 'l /" ~Il\l ~ \ r : ,. . .' ......-::t~. .,.. ." 1,.. ;.'. -. I. o. '0. r , ,_ ../ r . . " '- ...- City of Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals {BZA} Zoning Code Variance Application 1. Street address of property involved in this application: 1 / ;Z/ () {I)~~-rtJ~oJ J)r;'ye- ~J.!- Dah;~1 ~ ~tJl?/1;e VUh/? Name . . .. 6~/tlb ~//~ ~/ d cW&.;j!-Ndd oJ }),r rd', /y/7. J~r/0 Address arty/State/Zip ~ 12. f5~ ~~?? 72J 7 &.! - s 17- s!tlS-? ~/.). ~-11'9J/z Business Phone Home Phone Cell Phone clo cd 1A >1 h @.,. AIPY k CU-/, C-ZJ,Ju. Email Address 2. Applicant: 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. t~~~S'~cl 4. 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,' ranted, is not taken within one year, the variance expires. 5. 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 I . , Variance Application Submittal: 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 .ounding property owners. This in. eludes all properties abutting the applicant's property and directly ss the street. If on a corner, this means across both streets. To obtain these signatures, you will need.to personally visit each of these property owners, tell them about your project (we encourage you to bring along a copy of your building plans) and have them sign the area, below. The signature is meant only to verify that you have told them about your project and gives them opportunity to comment. If you have attempted to contact a property owner on two separate occasions and not found them at home, you may simply write something to the effect "made two attempts, owner not home" and then write their address. City staff will also send a written notice informing these property owners of the time and place of the BZA meeting. Note to surrounding property owners: This is an application by your neighbor for a variance from the City Zoning Code. Please be aware of any possible effect the granting of this variance could have on your property. You will also be receiving a written notice informing you of the time and place of the variance meeting. 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. nQI~ Signature jut r ( Address Z 00 l.{)~) f" Id'h~A Ft?f"S)&-1 Print Name Ament " Print Name enment Signature ., /" ,,/ " i 1 print Name ':) t P'r- I <~,E. ?\ J2 f\ tJ C) '., /' /"~' / /~'7 7,,/:~~"-'~/ - - - - -. .,. ~-> ,i,V" ~""7, d <:C:-___... ____, /" ">/ /~ ,;-"" ",.---,.-- ~ -'A::-........... 4 --~ "'~-::-.-~~~~~""'~- ,""'I?-,)C70 Address "''' - I! - J' -, <. '-I' 1.1 ~ ; [J I'"\p VVC':> "V L - (f '...r\ ~ //2-/rkf h Cra mE IL Comment Signature f ~ ~/JTI ~ Print Name Comment Signature, .int Name Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature eintName Comment Signature ~" ~ ..J A- /It{ ~ S (.-- R tJ-e.lf / ~tfVl.7J1 {).At nCb #~ Address 4!(~ (jJ~ /fa.-pj)) Address Iy' S"'llJ We57JU6)~ t.J4o^ ~ Address I (tD '7I1d?fl~~ Address Address Address 3 . 04-01-02 2485 Perry Ave. N. . Charles Grunewald . . . . Hey Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) Date: January 21 , 2004 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: 2485 Perry Ave. N. (04-01-02) Charles Grunewald, Applicant Charles Grunewald recently purchased the house and property at 2485 Perry Ave. N. (The house is located just north of Bassett Creek Dr. in the northeast portion of Golden Valley.) The applicant is requesting variances from two requirements of the Residential Zoning Code (Section 11.21) in order to allow for the construction of an attached garage (with living space behind) and entry on the front of the house. Mr. Grunewald came to the City to inquire about the process to receive abuilding permit for these additions. Since a current survey was not available, the applicant was required to submit a survey showing the location of all buildings on the property. The survey indicates that the existing house meets all setback requirements. However, the proposed garage addition on the south side of the house and entry addition will protrude into required setback areas. The house already has an existing single stall attached garage. It is the intent of the owner to convert this single stall garage to living space and build the two-stall garage addition to the south side of the house to within 7.5 ft. of the property line. The proposed garage addition will also include living space behind the garage. This space will possibly be used for a study area and/or bedroom. The entry addition will extend into the front setback by 1 ft. to a distance of 34 ft. to the front property line. The applicant is planning to construct an enclosed entry. The proposed additions require variances from the following sections of City Code: · Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback. City Code requires that all structures be set back at least 35 ft. from a front property line or street right-of-way. The variance request is for 1 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 34 ft. at its closest point to the front property line for the proposed entry addition along Perry Ave. N. · Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C) Side Yard Setback. City Code requires the side yard setback shall be 15 ft. for lots 100ft. wide or greater. The variance request is for 7.5 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 7.5 ft. at its closest point to the south side property line for the proposed two-car garage (with living space behind) addition. The City's file on this address indicates that the house was built in 1959. It appears that there have been no changes to the footprint of the house since that time. There have been no other variances applied for or granted to this address. . ,. ,,, "",. (::I. ~ ;;.. .... -lI"", .--, FI I I f I JJ r. ~ ')< <..>, -{.. -. ~' It. ;:;'" ..., >,-. . .l__ ----~ ! i 1 ! I I i I . OTP Form 175" ",.5-85 . . .~Z:~~~;: ..~~~~~:~~~:.. . . 4. City of Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Zoning Code Variance Application 1. Street address of property involved in this application: dJ11tr.;- f7p V'~'~j . A u e Applicant: C ht\.vl{. ~ 6:~~ f)(3(tht! c./ Name For Office Use Only: Application No. 01 ~ 0 i _07-- Date Received I - 1 - C>~ BZA Meeting Date I - Z 7~01 Amount Received So . ~ City/State/Zip ~~6-L/~ ~, . Print Name of owner 2. dJf(Q{ !~J'/ Aile \\{ Address " G c:lle11 Uritk, , Mill , J". ~ Business Phone Home Phone 7 (, ?l '6~'n - 60(.18 C'1' ;1~ .~ Email Address "7 & 3- 3c')~}.'~.~"7G?5 Cell Phone ':](7:{-77,1 ~cf~?[ 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. Add ~4 I Ga.j.u,"~ l(' .t~\ "5o__tfh 5.,'J( p~y- njJo,r(Hl fHvl~t \\1;1\ (.\,\'51: \w\;d-~U n~w *~-"i"\t fnhJ iJ...5 h~~ 'f}to.fJ~ c-c.c.+b fJ.fr'~ Ex f?t>-t>A eA)C.(5+ '''J 'f;q' k;td, .'1- ; t\ 'f- D ~ V' HIt"" j <t.t'u'j e '5ftt.te' 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. ~' ., ~} n I. 'I, ,l,Y' , ~ . )"tlLJ) i ,A~.,\Q,t,t../a.tt Signature of Applicant 5. If the applicant is not the owner of all property involved in this application, please name the owner of this property: Signature of owner Variance Application Submittal: The following information must be submitted by the application deadline to make a complete plication. If an application is incomplete, it will not be accepted: t/ 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 reasons, necessity, or hardship which provide grounds forthe granting of this variance (see Frequently Asked Questions for an explanation of a "hardship"). Attach let~er, pho~ogra.l?hs, or o!h~r/eYide_ncy, if C!Ppropriate. \;~r~:i'I1>.,d( J(,rrktl) ltn J 'j,Lt~j L 1 ~t;~':n~y ~~'~~it ~~;ai~~L~es~~~;ti~~ ~f b'U~ldi~~/;1, jJdTti~~~), 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: $50 - single family residential; $150 - other . Signatures of Surrounding<PropertyOwners Note to the variance applicant: As part of the variance application process, you will need to attempt to obtain the signatures of all .rounding property owners. This includes all properties abutting the applicant's property and directly oss the street. If on a corner, this means across both streets. To obtain these signatures, you will need to personally visit each of these property owners, tell them about your project (we encourage you to bring along a copy of your building plans) and have them sign the area, below. The signature is meant only to verify that you have told them about your project and gives them opportunity to comment. If you have attempted to contact a property owner on two separate occasions and not found them at home, you may simply write something to the effect "made two attempts, owner not home" and then write their address. City staff will also send a written notice informing these property owners of the time and place of the BZA meeting. Note to surrounding property owners: This is an application by your neighbor for a variance from the City Zoning Code. Please be aware of any possibleeffect the granting of this variance could have on your property. You will also be receiving a written notice informing you of the time and place of the variance meeting. 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. i:~::~ /9 NIP- {)~124~~' ~ ~ Signatur~ -~? ~ Address ~ Lj .6 0 WM:( , . Print Name omment Signature Print Name Comment Signature Print Name A VIA To L< ) ) ~t r" U01H ~ 1~l(:ob5 Qd ri.}{V ;, i'~ Address~~/O Q~j Address ~t!f1/ LI/;J; 4J1t1LyS~ commen~ / Signature .. ... . .. .~~ Print Name .mment Signature Print Name Comment Signature Print Name . Comment Signature .nt Name Comment Signature t (1 N E:.L Lel 5/fEA -7 jl.':~;_ /?rl .~~-----:? //"-~. ) Lf~O ~e VVV( Address :1&JS ~~r; . Address ,1Jd.f ~. -P~[)J2~ he. tJ() . Address Address Address Established in 1962 LOT SURVEYS CO~PANY, INd. LAND SURVEYORS REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA 7601 73rd Avenue North 763-560...3093 Fax No. 763-560-3522 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428 ~ur\.ttynrs mtrtifir-att INVOICE NO. 67770 F.B.NO. 971-44 SCALE: 1" = 20' o. Denotes Iron Monument ~URVEY FOR: Charle$ Orunewald Property located in Section 18. Townshi p 29., Range 21? Hennepin County, Minnesota. \ Q) \ ""0(.) ~2 . \ ?J."" (.. ..?............................................................................ .... 127.6 6 .....................................................................................J 1 1 1 I 1 51 I . tt, ..... I.... '1., .... 1....:-.- mi':'. .~ I "C ~ I E 1 (\) -01 ~ g\ w 1:1 (\) ~10l 01 g 1 .~ 1 0 24.0 ~ ~ . CO lO .U t-::! co ~ o cO N ~ 01' .D .... ::l (,) . en to Pi:! ~ <ID ~co ~~ IN U). I 0 ....-tZ - 2.0 ~ o cO 10 (,) c: o (,) -0 C o o o l'/") lJ ---r:; w I -'3 ,t ~ 26.0 .':tt- BituminouS Driveway . "363-- . _.~ >. ..... :.;J :::J :.f " 'l.'S"'" f ~ (..9 to .~ .... t"l <t M Light g.~~ ~ 0(1) ~ :r c: :S ~ ~g: ~ (1) ~ ~\ ~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 \ ~\ \ pa ::2:\ <ID ~~ ~~ IN U). I 0 ....-tZ 34.9 . ----. Legal Descriptiorn; Lot 4, Block 2, Down Acres Second Addition :t t---' ~ o z 00 ~ txJ ct Gi <J C'9 ( {'() ~ ~ ~ ';Z .tiJ > < ~ 0:: 0:: t;I:J Cl-t ~ The only easertlents shown are from plats of record or information provided by client. We hereby certify that this is q true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries .of the above described land and the location of all bUildings and visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. Survey. sl~edQM21~-- Charles F. Anderson, Minn. Reg. No.21753 or Gregory R. Prosch, Minn Reg No. 992 IflTE y us this 7th doy of January, 2004. SURVEY Ida2-4-2.S90 ....,.;:.,..