Loading...
10-26-04 BZA Agenda . e e Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, October 26, 2004 7pm 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers I. Approval of Minutes - September 28, 2004 II. The Petitions are: 4841 Killarney Drive, 55422 (04-10-26). Douglas W. Day, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (E) Accessory Structures . 130 sq. ft. more than the allowed 1,000 sq. ft. for a total of 1,130 total sq. ft. of accessory structure space. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a detached 2 stall garage in the back yard. III. Other Business A. 1601 Gettysburg Ave. N. - Request for a second one year extension for variances originally granted in October of 2002. B. Discuss rescheduling the November 23, 2004 BZA Meeting IV. Adjournment , .. . . . Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals DRAFT September 28,2004 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, September 28,2004 in the Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Cera called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Chair Cera, members Duff, McCarty and Sell and Planning Commission Representative Keysser. Also present were Planning Intern Adamfulton and Recording Secretary Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes - August 24, 2004 MOVED by Sell, seconded by Keysser and motion carried unanimously to approve the minutes from the August 24, 2004 meeting as submitted. II. The Petitions are: 535 Janalyn Circle, 55416 (04-9-23) Chuck & Martha Moline, Applicants Request: Waiver from SectIon 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(1) Front Yard Setbacks · 1.36 ft.()ffther~quired 30 ft. to a distance of 28.64 ft. at its c1osestpointto the front yard property line along Janalyn Circle. Purpose: To allow for the construction of an open front porch. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(1) Front Yard Setbacks · 3.03 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 31.97 ft. at its closest point to the front yard property line along Janalyn Circle. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage addition. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setbacks · 2.01 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 12.99 ft. at its closest point to the west side yard property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage addition. Fulton stated that the applicants are proposing to build a significant addition which requires two variances from front yard setback requirements and one from side yard requirements. . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals September 28, 2004 Page 2 Cera asked how big the proposed garage would be. Fulton said the proposed garage would be approximately 24 feet wide and 31 feet deep. He said that the existing garage is about 20' x 21' and that the applicants have said that it is hard for them to get their cars in the garage. Chuck Moline, Applicant stated that their first priority is to widen their garage because right now it is only 18.5 feet wide. Their second priority is to expand the depth of garage for storage and their third priority is to put the cover over the front steps. Cera asked the applicants what they feel their hardship is regarding t~eir property. Moline stated that the house sits too close to the front and side yard propertylines to allow for a reasonably sized garage. Martha Morgan, Applicant, stated that the garage was expanded slightly in the past but that it is still really a one car garage. McCarty asked the applicants to explain the proposedJagade. Moline explained how the gables would look and said they would match the main house. Cera asked the applicants why they are proposing that the garage addition come three feet out toward the front. Morgan stated that the additional three feet will allow for a mudroom in the rear and nice clean lines across the front of the house. Sell said he thinks it makes sense to go out an ~xtrCl. three feetinorder to make it look symmetrical. Cera suggested lining the proposeq8q.dition up.with the existing front of the home in order to have less of a vari<3nce.~oq;Jan said doing that would change the whole design. Moline asked the Board ifJhey would be voting on each of the variance requests separately or if it is all or nothing.iCera said they could separate each of the variance requests. Keysser asked ifJhe neighborto the west had any comments regarding the proposal. Morgan said they are absolutely fine with the proposal. Cera opened the publichearing. Seeing and hearing no one Cera closed the public hearing. Cera asked about the width of the mudroom addition. Morgan said it is 11}'2 feet wide. McCarty asked where the mudroom is going to be located. Moline referred to the plans and pointed out the mudroom location. Morgan stated that after the garage addition is done they will have enough room in front of their vehicles for their garbage cansand lawn mower. Keysser asked the applicants why they weren't proposing to build the garage addition toward their rear yard. Moline said they aren't proposing to build further back because they want the garage to line up with the back of the existing house. . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals September 28,2004 Page 3 Cera noted that the proposal was incorrectly drawn on the survey that the Board Members received. Moline explained the correct dimensions of the garage addition. Cera suggest~d spitting the variances and voting on them separately. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Keysser and motion carried unanimously to approve the request for 1.36 ft. off the required 30 ft. to a distance of 28.64 ft. at its closest point to the front yard property line along Janalyn Circle to allow for the construction of an open front porch. FINDINGS OF HARDSHIP - The Board decided that the existing house is too close to the property line to begin with and that they have been encouraging open front porches. MOVED by Sell, seconded by Keysser and motion carried 3 to 2to approve the r~quest for 3.03 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 31.97 ft. at its closest point to the front yard property line along Janalyn Circle to allow for the construction of a garage addition. Members Duff, Keysser and Sell voted in favor of the variance req II est. Members Cera and McCarty voted against the variance request. FINDINGS OFHARDSHIP - Without this variance the applicants would have a minimal-sized garage. MOVED by Sell, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to approve the request for 2.01 ft. off the required 15 ft. to.adistance of 12.99 ft. at its closest point to the west side yard property line to allow for the construction of a garage addition. FINDINGS OF HARDSHIP - Without this variance the applicants would have a minimal- sized garage. 301 Westwood DriyeNorth,55422 (04-09-24) Ivan & Tina Rafowitz. Applicants Request: lNaiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10 (A)(1), Front Yard Setbacks · ltft. offthe required 35 ft. to a distance of 24 ft. at its closest point to the front property line along Loring Lane. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage and home addition. Due to a potential conflict of interest, Cera recused himself from discussion of this proposal and Sell continued the discussion as Chair. Fulton stated that the applicants are requesting 11 feet off the front yard setback requirement in order to build a 3 stall garage with living space above. He stated that the property is unusually situated on Loring Lane and that the home is unusually situated on the lot as well. Keysser asked about the existing addition on the west of the home. Ivan Rafowitz, Applicant, stated that it is the bedroom addition which was built in 1999. He explained that they are planning on remodeling the whole house including raising the living room . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals September 28, 2004 Page 4 floor and roof, re-doing the kitchen and expanding the existing garage, because it is very small. Sell asked the applicant how deep the proposed garage will be. Mr. Rafowitz said it will be about 20 feet deep which he feels is minimal. Sell asked what would happen to the back end of the existing garage. Mr. Rafowitz said it would be used for storage. Sell noted that this house has a Westwood address, but that it is really sited to Loring Lane. Mr. Rafowitz stated that this is a very irregular lot and that they have nowhere else on the lot to build. He said that they are planning to put a half a million dollars into this house. Tina Rafowitz, Applicant said it is a hardship for them to have to mOve a Gar out of the garage to take the garbage cans out. Also, they have had damage to the tailgate of their SUV from hitting the top of the garage door because ifistoOlow. Sell asked how old the house is. Mrs. Rafowitz stated it was built in 1957. She added that the house next door has a 3-stall garagf3 that comes closer to the street then what they are proposing. Mr. Rafowitz said that their house really stands alone and that it really can't be compared to any other homes in the area. Keysser asked whatwould be builtabove the new garage. Mr. Rafowitz said it will be an office. McCarty asked the applicants if they have any elevation sketches. Mr. Rafowitz said they did not. Keysser stated that. the proposal would have a lot of additional height. Mr. Rafowitz said the height would .match thf3 existing back portion of the house. McCarty suggestf3d that the applicants adjust the roof on the inside of the garage. Mr. Rafowitz said his concern is that the existing garage is too small. He said that the addition won't look out of place and that the neighborhood can support it. He said that it won't be able to be compared to any other house and that it is good for the neighborhood. He said the hardships are the irregular shape of the lot, the small garage and that they are on a hill. Keysser explained the dilemma the Board has is that the lack of a third garage stall is not a hardship. Mr. Rafowitz agreed, but said it is an irregular lot and there is no where else to build. McCarty suggested that one way to minimize the variance request would be to extend the existing 2 car garage. . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals September 28, 2004 Page 5 Mr. Rafowitz said the way the project is being proposed is the only way that makes sense. Duff said there is a hardship with the irregular shape and topography of the lot. Mrs. Rafowitz said in her day to day life the size of their existing garage is a hardship and it is also a safety issue. Sell pointed out that the lot does have terrain issues and 35 foot setbacks everYwhere else. He said that the addition is really in being proposed in the side yard from a practical standpoint. Duff said that the character of Loring plays into it and it is hcl'rd to. say that the proposal would impact the neighborhood. Keysser asked if there would be any logic in separCitin9 this vCiriance request into two requests. Fulton said they would be granting the~ame 11foot variance along Loring Place either way. Sell opened the public hearing. Seeing hearing no one, Sell closed the public hearing. MOVED by Keysser, seconded by..ty1cCartYCind motion carried unanimously to approve the request for 11 ft. off the required 35ft. tOCi~istance of 24 ft. at its closest point to the front property line along Loring<Lant3to allow for the construction of an addition. FINDINGS OF HARDSHIP.....lrrt3gularshape and topography of lot. 855 Hanley Road, 55426 (04-09-25) Scott Thuleen, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd.10(A)(1), Front Yard Setbacks -16 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 19 ft. at its closest point to the front (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage addition. Fulton reviewed the applicant's request for a variance from the front yard setback requirement. He stated that the property is located at Hanley Road and Wayzata Blvd. and explained how ten feet of the applicant's property was taken on Wayzata Blvd. for the 1-394 project which changed the setbacks and affected the homeowner's options. He explained that there is a corner visibility code violation on this property and said there are shrubs that need to be removed before a building permit could be issued. He said that due to the shape of the lot and the way the home is situated that it would be hard to build the addition elsewhere. . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals September 28, 2004 Page 6 Scott Thuleen, Applicant, stated that his hardship is that ten feet of his property along Wayzata Blvd. was taken about 12 years ago for 1-394. He added that without the taking he would really only be asking fora six foot variance. He stated they are proposing to make their home completely handicap accessible for their son by installing a wheelchair lift in their garage and on their stairs. He said that families with handicapped children often have more equipment and therefore need more storage. He showed the Board pictures of his property and explained that the proposed garage addition would be located completely behind existing bushes. He referred to the bushes thatar~pausing the corner visibility issue and stated for the record that they were added as a part of 1-394 project by MnDOT, not by him. Cera asked about the proposed new garage dimensions. Thuleen saidthe total width would be 35 feet. He showed elevations and a floor plan and discussed the.platform and lifts. Cera opened the public hearing. Tina Rafowitz, 301 Westwood Drive N., stated that they are in favor of the proposal. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to spe(3k. Ceraplosed the public hearing. Duff said that in regard to disabilityjl3~ues,.itisthepolicy of the State to accommodate these types of situations when thel1eighborhood isn't being substantially changed. Sell stated that he would like the. Jecord to show that the variance request isn't really for 16 feet off the required 35 feet because of the taking it would really be 6 feet off the required 35 feet. MOVED by Keysser,secoQqed by Sell and motion carried unanimously to approve the request 16 ft. offJhe required 35 ft. to a distance of 19 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (south) property line to allow for the construction of a garage addition. FINDINGS OF HARDSHIP.- MnDOT's taking of 10 feet along Wayzata Blvd., it's a corner lot, the applicants need handicap accessibility and the garage will still be a two car garage. 2136 Orchard Avenue North, 55422 (04-09-26) Lois Sjogren, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setbacks . 12 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 3 ft. at its closest point to the south side yard property line Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage addition. Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals September 28, 2004 Page 7 . Fulton stated that the home is long and narrow, is unusually situated on the lot and was originally constructed with a one car garage. He said the applicant's proposal is to extend the existing garage to the south in order to add a second stall. Keysser referred to the survey and said that there are two sections of garage shown and asked if it was going to be a tandem garage. Fulton said he didn't know if it was going to be a tandem garage but that there are no issues with the rear yard setback requirements so she could build the garage deeper without requesting a variance from the rear yard requirements. Lois Sjogren, Applicant, stated that she currently has a one-car garage and she can't get her car in it. She said she only wants to build out four feet to.ward the rear yard and not 20 feet as she originally requested. Richard Lindahl, representing the applicant, explained that they are proposing to add a garage stall on to the existing single car garage, ratherthan tearing doWn the existing garage to build a two car garage. Keysser askedir.itWQLlldbeppen between the two garage stalls or if there would be a wall between them. Sj~gren selid there would probably be an opening between the two stalls. . Cera explained that the Board prefers to keep side yard .additions at least five feet away from the property line. Sjogren said she would riot have enough room to build a second garage stall and stay 5 feet from th~propertyHne. Cera opened the public hearing. Barry Sullivan, 2075 Ordway, stated thathis lot aesthetically faces the applicant's lot and that all of his living area faces her lot He said that she could stay 5 feet away from the side yard property line if she tore down the existing one stall garage and rebuilt a two stall garage rather thal1just adding on the second stall. Sjogren said that would be cost prohibitive. Sullivan aSK~d.ifthere.we~e any elevations or drawings that show how the drainage would wo{k.Lil}dahlsqig he didn't have any elevations but he explained how the drainage from the new garage stall would work. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to speak, Cera closed the public hearing. Cera asked the applicant if she would be amenable to moving the existing gutter to the other side of the garage in order to direct some of the water away from Mr. Sullivan's property. Sjogren said that would be fine. . McCarty said he is concerned about how close the proposed garage would be to the property line. MOVED by Keysser, seconded by Sell and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve the request for 12 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 3 ft. at its closest point to the south side Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals September 28, 2004 Page 8 . yard property line to allow for the construction of a garage addition. They asked that the gutter be moved from the right side of the garage to left or away from the property to the south. McCarty voted against the variance request. Cera, Duff, Keysser and Sell voted for the variance request. FINDINGS OF HARDSHIP - The way the house is situated on the lot, and the fact that the existing garage has only one stall. III. Other Business Keysser stated that the Planning Commission elected him as their Chair. He introduced Cathy Waldhauser as the new Vice Chair and said that she would be attending the BZA meetings in the future as the Planning Commission representative. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 pm. . . . . . Hey Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: October 22,2004 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Adam W. Fulton, Planning Intern Subject: 4841 Killarney Drive, 55422 (04-10-26) Douglas W. Day, Applicant Douglas Day owns the house and property at 4841 Killarney Drive. He has petitioned the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance from the Single-Family Residential Zoning District of the City Code. The requested variance is from Subdivision 11, "Accessory Structures." The applicant proposes to build a two car detached garage to the rear of his house. When taken together with the existing garage, the new garage will raise the total amount of garage area to 1,130 square feet. Subdivision 11 (E) of Section 11.21 allows only 1 ,000 square feet of Accessory Structures, including attached and detached garages. The existing house includes an attached 3-car garage. The applicant has cited the fact that because of the existing configuration of an office and closet abutting the attached garage, spatial difficulties often prohibit parking three cars in the garage. A building permit was issued for this project prior to the discovery that the detached garage would breach the size limit for accessory structures. The area calculation for the existing attached garage was complicated by the fact that the abutting office and closet jut into the garage. Construction was halted upon the discovery of this error. During staff observation it was noted that the site has been graded and that the molds to pour the footings or slab are in place; however, no concrete has yet been poured. The proposed structure meets all setback requirements. The existing property abuts the Union Pacific railroad corridor running through Golden Valley. The rear (south) portion of the lot rises sharply at the property line. There is a 5 foot easement from the south property line. The applicant's property features a chain link fence around the rear property line, restricting access to the hill and rail bed above. The topography in this case does not present a hardship to the existing or proposed structure. Additionally, the railroad corridor was in place many decades prior to the platting of this section of the City. The project requires a variance from the following Section of City Code: . . . · Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (E). City Code states that each property is limited to a total of 1,000 square feet for all accessory structures, including attached and detached garages. The requested variance is for 130 square feet off the maximum 1,000 square feet for the purpose of constructing a detached two-car garage. A review of the City file indicates that the house was built in 1977. In 1988, a variance was granted to a previous owner for the construction of a deck addition. This variance involved the front yard setback. Four feet were requested off the required 35 feet to a distance of 31 feet from Killarney Drive. The hardships cited in this case included the unusual configuration of the lot, the topography of the site, and the dead end of Killarney Drive. No other additions have been made to the house since that time. It is noted that this property sits at one end of Killarney Drive which terminates at the west property line of the applicant. Killarney Drive features a single access from Ottawa Avenue North and is isolated from the rest of the City by its distinct borders. The Union Pacific railroad corridor isolates the area from the south, and Sweeney Lake isolates the area from the north. There is no way to reach Killarney Drive without passing over the Union Pacific railroad tracks. ",r:~~~r~!; , " .' " . "'"~"'~M D. 110-' , ". 1.1 - - CIVIL 1EtG'..., MI\III ..., ... 110 0Al< 7!IlS WI. NO. ''''78 FI..CAIDA ..., 887' , , ..., OAK, 1!183 MONT NO, .... TlE)CAlllIG 3l!IIIl!J8 ~oeLL' Q MAOSON, INC. .NCItNtI....a .. SUJllVaVQIIII8 . ao NINT... AVeNUI: .OUT.... HCI~<<'H.. ...,~NI:.OTA ..'343 PHON. ..-?Wo1 -- NO. ~~q3 ~".I " c.u.u.... MADIION ' """AI!!O LAND ~ v C.RTI"CATI DF8URVEY ..a..,LOWCI.L F~OST HOME 8/1/LOERS , MINN..., 437.. 80 QAte:, 781 W1B No 8-87.. 10_ NO 37CJl!l ..., O"'te: 1lClI!I MONT NO 17"2-6 .i- ", ~f4J' "',,' .;... ",,\'1 , ".... . ."~ I , . . :f" I ~ . . ,\,'-n'" ."JI . , ,..,. . . . '" .' ~ .::::- (" = 10' , . ,f MINNE$OrA --'23'. '27-mt!"" -.- 23&'. 5'1 p/#; WESrE~N ,~A IL WAY co. · - Oenqf_ /ro", MOI'llt/m",.,f .. .' , .r.. I HEReBY CERTIFY THAT THIS I. A TAUE 'AND CCfY1E:cr no FlESENTATlQN or A SlJRVEv OF THE ~ OF: ' , , , Lol 3, 810ck 2, Whifeacres AND 'CF THE LOCA~ QF ,AU.. 1II..Jtt..DN:Je. IF ANY. THEAI!cN. AND AU. VISIBLE 'E~,IF.~.FAQMQRON8AlOlANO. , d . AS~""I4~~~~~1HIII 22n DA'r OF . al"C~~,:.;,,,,,"i;.;: ~i'f!J.;.~ e: ~ ~ LAND St..IAVEVCJR . ~ .' . ":J. '. .-\.,. . , ':-';(1:}'" -' "\"'':'''I.;:,~.,~~;.:':'\_:, "'j.""..,,., 'l1! ' .<1 - -.7~:: :;'.: .' . .;''f\.. .~ d">:;.. '(,-~>"')'~r J" ~ .)~ :!;h~' ,.':. ;!~?<:>'..-;' . 't ~, 1.,) a'w 1', '"'" .~ ,'- ! "~ lE . - \ ~ f. a . 10\; " ~- I i---c: --- ""-'-"- ~ . . -~~~-'."",.__.">>-""",,,~,~", Z11 -"'" Lf) " t'~ 1'') ~, ,,0 I.e. } I' , " .. ........ City of Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Zoning Code Variance Application 1. Street address of property involved in this application: ,48fl J(lttA.-RNtl !>K. II &i-jIJYE:N "I4U-t::~ ~'5S-4.z...z 2. Applicant: 1)O()6LAS \IV. DP,y Name 494 f jL 1 LLAI< 1\j.E Y DR:. Address G:Jt..bsN VA- L-Lt- '1~ M/J 55 City/State/Zip ~iz-,,~4 78.r1-8 ':::f{,3,S-e8f(Y3c Business Phone Home Phone Em~~~.j~i' IQ)-- Om t\ . edu 61~ ROZ55Z4- Cell Phone 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.. .. . I ,}.. ;:;ftf:: S6T." '" 7#6 j,<.Mt/tL) I/Jt? (j ....v "-' ' '1 ' , AIJ tJ:) CO-f\-<\PL. W ! TH ~!~. /t~.A I 't't't.:::.. r..::1~ I ,,/\ \} 4. 6\1 012/0751 A brief statement of the reasons, necessity, or 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 r WC'lV!- b LJ~6 7~ gV/t."O k Z (14e J;>E7A-Cllt:Z) e:ifAI:d466II-J/t1Y g~CIC If!:D t /rl}1 C;'K-/S ;r;,;(j6~~,16'fF (:7Yc4 A) :5110t05 7#/1/ 7116:: ~/~li; CL$t;;;/"' ;A./ ,.;t"y (::JOS,6 "I(f(;]'V,.tf/.L - ~-7J{;? /'/v7b me:: ~6G ,A.'1-4oAJG 17- L)/FIC/(!tJL-" , .' ,/.,' -Ace I?:) GI!J:i?;.e' /!oo>6,,' 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. 5. . 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, including signatures of surrounding property owners. /' A current or usable survey of the property must be attached. See the handout on survey requirements. 2.. A brief statement of the reasons, necessity, or 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: $50 - single family residential; $150 - 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. .Ilote to surrounding property owners: ~is 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 tatements regarding the project. Print Name Sie;ie;;, /( d,lenrc'W Ii ~ /ltp '~4~ ~~~M&v (5.1 / ) .-" A/,-- fiJ(' / " ? io? '" tY. (if ,,/ !i\ -", r..::; i- ,V ,1.;::.7/\ ,/~ l.? v ~Cl__{./! Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature int Name Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature Address '157'0 tt~ ~ {/,/) 1/1/ J') Ih.. L 67 It,? ,II' ~~< if f~' I; /~ .r- 1/1 "~ c!L/'...ettQ/ /(-.../crt'~~ , Address 'ff'cf() kd2lk_Pz,~ lJ-t.A~(,*_ '16cha.rd.- Ar,'x No fl' 0 /wI e !Y) ~~,Ad 'tA1u- / ....,L. /' 'C) Address if I 00 IcPO%, .S"Vj e,ff1cie/) S(7)-) No A,~l.) b Iv.}', &C1~ ;::-- .---C " )4.1;16:S (J( 00H /.../50,," Address i/-'12o 1<,lla/\.-l7ey PI"-, /' /1' ~ ,/ /, j {t\' :j Address <-r7(o /e; / /(jr/l.L'v' . ..,:', Is,- I _ "c./ ~ /' ! / , f .....M V ~. / / /'1' !) /) (." ~Ti:<2,(\ K .1:ehj)~;',YI s A I '. J / ~,~. 4?tC{b (ivn C!; Wit /},d' . ~. 1\' 7 . '..,,' .-f . h N-ti.....e./.v I _ r\>{;~ Address f;tRi 7t/~4'0~ 19---/) ( .J.. .'. -.I -;ZJr-i3,5T~ Print Name ~:;~joPI) ,ML-t)(JIJ ~mment l&g~~)nn~ Signature ~/}:? ~~ Address L/ t5 /}! 1rt//ttrl1~;I/;J /1/ ~ ~/JfJ- . J . . . vat & Cindy Levey 1601 Gettysburg Avenue North Golden Valley, MN 55427 (763)542-8839 October 16, 2004 Mr. Dan Olson/City Planner City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Dear Dan: Due to extenuating circumstances and additional medical problems (shoulder surgery, three stints placed in my heart and a ruptured disk in my neck) I am forced to request a one-year extension of the variance I was granted on October 31st, 2003. Our addition plans are completed and we wish to proceed. The project and its' upgrades will spur additional improvements by others in our older neighborhood. I thank you for your support and consideration. Sincerely, ~Jtt~ 9 Val and Cindy Levey, . ~ VL/dm f . . . Val and Cindy Levey .1.6Ql Gettysburg Ave N Ooiden'VaHey, MN 55427 CoI 2-701- Sl.a J ~ October 8, 2003 Dan Olson! City Planner City of Golden V a11~y 7800 Golden Valley Rd Golden Valley, MN 55427 Dear Dan: Due to unforseen circumstances (female surgery for my wife requiring 3-4 months of convalescing and a. shoulder injury sustained by myself) I am forced to request an extension of the variance) was ,granted on October 21, 2002 (then extended to October 31, 2003) until October 31, 2004. We were in the process of submitting documents for pennit.;;, hut will be forced to temporarily hold off on the addition! remodeling project. We thank you all for your help and understanding. Sj~J~~l~, I~'\ (' :.. .//' ~ . \) / d~; Md t!Kdy LCVQY . '