Loading...
01-28-03 BZA Agenda e e e Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, January 28, 2003 7pm 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Conference Room I. . i Approval of Mmutes - November 26 and December 1 S, 2002 II. The Petitions are: 235 Paisley Lane (02-12-71) Jerry Kassanchuk, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback i .9.9 feet off the required 35 feet to a dista~ce of 25.1 feet for the proposed room and garage addition at its plosest point to the front yard property line along Ski Hill Road. i i Purpose: To allow for the construction of a propose~ room and garage addition to the existing home. : i i Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(~) Side Yard Setbacks I i i . 7 feet off the required 15 feet to a distanc$ of 8 feet at its closest point to the north side yard property line fqr the proposed room and garage addition. i I Purpose: To allow for the construction of a propose(J room and garage addition to the existing home. III. Other Business IV. Adjournment . . . Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley. Board of Zoning Appeals November 26, 2002 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, November 26, 2002, in the Council Conference Room, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Sell called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Those present were Chair Sell, members Cera, McCracken-Hunt Commission Representative Shaffer. Also present were Staff L' Recording Secretary Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes - October 22, 2002 MOVED by Smith, seconded by McCracken-Hunt approve the October 22, 2002 minutes as submitt II. The Petitions are: 31-14 Orchard Avenue North (0 Daniel and Debbie Kubes A Request: 21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback . ed 35 feet to a distance of 31 feet for the t ay at its closest point to the front yard along Orchard Avenue North. the construction of a proposed entryway addition to the home. f from the discussion and action due to a conflict of interest. applicants are proposing to build several additions to their existing only addition requiring a variance from setback requirements is the ntryway. Daniel Kubes, applicant stated that currently rain is going into the ceiling in his basement and that he needs to protect the basement and cover the spotwhere the well . used to be. Smith asked the applicant if he was planning to add a foundation under the proposed entryway. Kubes stated that they are proposing to extend the existing foundation. Sell asked the applicant if he was planning to ever enclose the proposed front entryway. Kubes said no. . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals November 26, 2002 Page 2 Cera stated that the waiver is modest, the water situation would improve and thatthe Board has been interested in front porches. MOVED by Smith, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to approve the request for 4 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 31 feet for the proposed front entrywC1y at its closest point to the front yard property line along Orchard Avenue North. 2140 Kelly Drive (02-9-59) George and Helen Peterson, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. · 9 feet off the required 35 feet to a d proposed room addition at its 6 property .Iine along Kelly D( 6 feet for the int to the front yard ~ . Purpose: To allow for the construe home. om addition to the existing Olson reminded the Board that this a time the Board asked the applica additions from their plans so th Olson then referred to the a additions proposed in Se e before them in September. At that d remove some of the proposed front yard n't ed so many front yard setback variances. vised site plans and pointed out that most of the been moved to the back of the home. Helen Peterson, app . stated that they have systems. She s variance to c st that she felt their pie shape lot is a hardship. She ng with a landscaper in order to not interfere with root has tried to compromise, but she needs the front yard oposed room addition. pplicant and stated that the way the she has proposed the room only option because of the pie shaped lot. Callista Abide, 2155 Kelly Drive stated she thinks the proposed plan is wonderful and she is fully in support of the proposal. Seeing and hearing no one, Sell closed the public hearing. McCracken-Hunt stated that this current proposal is a definite improvementfrom the one the Board reviewed in September and that the shape of the lot does pose some challenges. 2 . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals November 26, 2002 Page 3 Shaffer stated that he didn't see a real hardship in this case. McCracken-Hunt stated that if the proposed addition were an entryway and not a bedroom, the Board probably wouldn't have a problem granting the requested variance. Smith added that the variance request is a modest one and gave the applicants credit for comin,g back to the Board with a revised plan. . Sell noted that the house is on a corner lot. He stated that Gold with applicants and that this proposal is a good compromise supporting it. needs to work be Smith asked the applicants if they are planning to sell t Peterson stated that they are not anticipating movi their home stay salable. Shaffer clarified that he was not picking on thl really the hardship issue. He said the that this proposal is beyond his level I. He thinks the problem is build elsewhere on the lot and Smith added that he thinks ther e terrain issues. MOVED by Smith, seconde the request for 9 feet off t room addition at its close Shaffer voted agains ken-Hunt and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve feet to a distance of 26 feet for the proposed to the front yard property line along Kelly Drive. e request. licants aiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback · 9.5 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 25.5 feet for the existing home at its closest point to the front yard property line along Elgin Place. Purpose: To bring the existing home into conformance with front yard setback requirements. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(8) Rear Yard Setback · 9.5 feet off the required 16 feet to a distance of 6.5 feet for the proposed room addition and deck at its closest point to the rear yard property line. 3 . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals November 26, 2002 Page 4 Purpose: To allow for the construction of a deck addition to the existing home. ' Olson stated that the applicants are proposing to build a room and deck addition to the rear of their existing home, both of which require variances from building setback requirements. He added that the existing home also requires a variance from the front yard setback requirements. Cera asked the applicant what she considered the hardship to b applicant stated that the existing deck is rotting and the traffic, small family room. Cera asked if there was anything regar . be considered a hardship. Watkins stated that the lot lin "Watkins, isoad in their :\~~f1f that could que. McCracken-Hunt asked the applicants if they had consi additions. Michael Watkins, applicant stated that t room space. native layouts for the ing to use existing family Shaffer asked the applicants if they had consl and then adding new garage space. P ,for that much reconstruction. red .ilIW' g garage space for living space mSistatedthat they were not looking The Board reviewed the plans s e applicant. McCracken-Hunt stated th variances and that she d t of area that is buildable and wouldn't require and what the hardship is. Shaffer stated that h variance request yard setback. are other options in this case. He said this is a huge erned about how close the addition would go to the rear e different options with the applicants and talked about acken-Hunt, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to approve the quest for 9.5 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 25.5 feet for the existing home at its closest point to the front yard property line along Elgin Place and to table the request for 9.5 feet off the required 16 feet to a distance of 6.5 feet for the proposed room addition and deck at its closest point to the rear yard property line to no later than March 4, 2003. 2560 Kyle Avenue North (02-11-70) Gary Hansen, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7 (C)(1) Side Yard Setbacks 4 . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals November 26,2002 Page 5 · 5 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 10 feet at its closest point to the north side yard property line for the proposed deck. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a deck addition to the existing home. The Board decided to discuss this request before the 2485 Regent request. Olson stated that the applicants are proposing to build a ro existing home and that the deck part of the addition woul requirements and would be right on the edge of a 10-fo ddition to their et.. 'e yard setback dii" "'lne. Shaffer asked the applicant if he had considered btlfl . property. Gary Hansen, applicant stated that t ro is the view of the marsh. the east side of the and the beauty of the lot Cera asked what conditions of the lot w that the house is built on 40-foot pilin didn't want to encroach on the side , ered a hardship. Hansen stated erned about the footings and he ment. Smith stated that he is not con adjacent property. Shaffer were a room addition, rat this case is the topograp ecause it is very well screened from the added that he would be against this proposal if it oposed deck addition. He said the hardship in MOVED by Shaffer s request for 5 fee the north sid addition is :Wby Smith and motion carried four to one to approve the quired 15 feet to a distance of 10 feet at its closest point to y line forthe proposed deck. Also, the proposed deck pen structure. Cera voted against the variance request. (~,f85 R .~n Avenue North (02-11-69) '~.Ti::____ )? Sa!'ndy and Mark Bartel, Applicants '\i{iwmf0ff;f.0' Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7 (A) .Front Yard Setback · .3 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 34.7 feet for the existing home at its closest point to the front yard property line along Regent Avenue North. Purpose: To bring the existing home into conformance with front yard setback requirements. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7 (C)(1) Side Yard Setbacks 5 t . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals November 26, 2002 Page 6 · .7 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 14.3 feet at its closest point to the south side yard property line for the existing home. Purpose: To bring the existing home into conformance with side yard setback requirements. The Board decided to discuss the 2560 Kyle Avenue North requ this request. Schaffer removed himself from the discussion and action du 0 of interest. Olson suggested as a condition of approval that the ap shed that is currently on the property so it meets the req uired to move the of the Zoning Code. MOVED by Smith, seconded by Cera and moti request for .3 feet off the required 35 feet to home at its closest point to the front yard pro .7 feet off the required 15 feet to a dista side yard property line for the existing located on the property be move s nimously to approve the f 34.7 feet for the existing long Regent Avenue North and t at its closest point to the south e condition that the shed currently he requirements of the Zoning Code. III. Other Business The Board discussed det 6 . . . Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals December 16, 2002 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Monday, December 16, 2002, in the Council Conference Room, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Sell called the meeting to order at 7 pm. II. " Those present were Chair Sell, members Cera (7:40), McCrack and Planning Commission Representative Shaffer. Also pre Olson and Recording Secretary Lisa Wittman. :05), Smith Liaison Dan I. Approval of Minutes - November 26, 2002 The November 26, 2002 minutes were not avail approval at the January 28, 2003 meeting. val. They will be ready for The Petitions are: 235 Paisley Lane (02-12-71) Jer Kassanchuk A Ii Request: on 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback re uired 35 feet to a distance of 25.1 feet for the m and garage addition at its closest point to the front line along Ski Hill Road. w for the construction of a proposed room and garage n to the existing home. aiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setbacks . 7 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 8 feet at its closest point to the north side yard property line for the proposed room and garage addition. Purpose: To allow forthe construction of a proposed room and garage addition to the existing home. Olson reminded the Board that this property received a variance in July of 2002 for a proposed room and garage addition. He stated that the applicant has revised his building plans by moving the location of the addition and now he requires further variance requests. He stated that the applicant's proposed addition shows a total of . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting December 16,2002 Page 2 1,260 square feet of garage space and that the City has a policy of not exceeding, more than 1,000 square feet of garage space. He said that the applicant has indicated that he will convert some of the existing garage space into living space and suggested making that a condition of approval. Shaffer asked the applicant if had updated plans to look at. Jerry Kassanchuk, applicant stated that the main difference is that the proposed addition is bein tatedby 25 to 30 degrees so the rear of it is parallel to the street. He said the pro ition will be three stories and that the third story would be the same level a g house. Shaffer asked if he had looked at putting the garage add' . house. Kassanchuk stated that the addition would be t other side of the house and that this was the most unob er side of the neighbors on the to build the addition. Sell asked the applicant ifhe owned part of Lot and 245 Paisley Lane. Sell suggested adding wouldn't need any variances. Kassanchuk st but withdrew his application because the k stated he owned 235 t 3 ( 45) to Lot 5 (235) then he had applied for a subdivision ess is faster. . ~. Shaffer stated he is concerned becau in the front facing Ski Hill Road, Kassanchuk said his contractor during the construction of th ealize the garage addition would be ave a major impact on the neighborhood. hat he won't lose any significant trees Shaffer stated that the 10 of the trees would be t d first variance request property. He sai is built, there woul presence. H too many I lot is going to change greatly and that a good portion e said that he never would have voted to approve the uly if he would have known about the impact to the i ng that Ski Hill Road was a side yard and if this addition street presences and one would be a three story street comfortable with the whole proposal because it is pushing here is no hardship. variance granted in July 2002 was granted and has to stand but he r a variance on the north side. He suggested the applicant look at doing the su Ivision he had originally applied for, or try building the proposed addition eight feet to the south so no variance requests would be needed. Shaffer added that conceivably the applicant could build this addition elsewhere on the lot without requiring variances. He suggested tabling this request for three months to allow the applicant time to redesign the proposed addition. Smith stated he agreed that going through the subdivision process would be the best way to do this proposed addition. He said that it seemed to be the Board's inclination to vote against this request. . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting December 16, 2002 Page 3 MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Smith and motion carried unanimously to table for three months the request for 9.9 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 25.1 feet for the proposed room and garage addition at its closest point to the front yard property line along Ski Hill Road and for 7 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 8 feet at its closest. point to the north side yard property line for the proposed room and garage addition. 4101 Glencrest Road (02-12-72) Brant and Debra Pallazza. Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd · 1.6 feet off the required 35 fe existing home at its closes along Glencrest Road. · 5.6 feet off the required proposed entryway property line alon ance of 33.4 feet for the ont yard property line distance of 29.4 feet for the losest point to the front yard Road. Purpose: To bring the requireme entrywa e. into conformance with setback o allow for the construction of a room and front o the existing home. Request: Section 11.21, Subd. 7(B) Rear Yard Setback e required 29.9 feet to a distance of 25.6 feet for the home at its closest point to the rear yard property line. Ing the existing home into conformance with setback equirements. Olson" d t the applicants are proposing to build a new room, deck and front entryway n onto their existing house. He said that all the proposed additions conform to setback requirements except for the front entryway. The existing home also does not meet setback requirements and needs front and rear yard variances. Brant Pallazza, Applicant stated that they want to replace the flat roof currently on the front entryway with a peaked roof and that they would not be encroaching more than what is already there. Shaffer stated that this proposal is a vast improvement over the entryway that is there now and that the Board promotes front entryways. . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting December 16, 2002 Page 4 " MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Smith and motion carried by unanimously to approve the following requests: · 1.6 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 33.4 feet for the existing home at its closest point to the front yard property line along Glencrest Road. · 5.6 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 29.4 feet for the proposed entryway addition at its closest point to the front yard property line along rest Road. · 4.3 feet off the required 29.9 feet to a distance of 25.6 feet fO!: 'ng home at its closest point to the rear yard property line. 6620 Olympia Street (02-12-73) Shaun Graham. Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, . ~ . . 18.6 feet off the required proposed garage and ro yard property line a a distance of 16.4 feet for the at its closest point to the front e Avenue North. . Purpose: To allow for the addition to t f a two-story garage and room me. Request: on 11.21, Subd. 7(8) Rear Yard Setback e required 28.7 feet to a distance of 24 feet for the age and room addition at its closest point to the rear line. w for the construction of a two-story garage and room Ion to the existing home. oard that the applicant submitted the same variance requests in that time the Board asked the applicant to revise his plans and provide e s for the proposed addition. He said that the footprint of the proposed garage and room addition are the same as they were in May. . Shaffer asked the applicant what has changed in his proposal. Shaun Graham, applicant stated that he hired a designer per the suggestion of the Board. Shaffer stated that he did want to see elevations of the addition, but it would be so imposing on the street front. He asked the applicant if there were any way to move the addition back. Graham stated he could not move the addition back because of an existing stairway in the garage. Shaffer told the applicant that he could make the proposed garage smaller and that these plans haven't really progressed from the previous time the Board has seen them. . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting December 16,2002 Page 5 Graham stated that when he left the last Board of Zoning Appeals meeting, he was under the impression that the Board just wanted to see what the addition would look like. Shaffer stated he was clear at the previous meetings that he wanted to see some plans and that he didn't want to make the situation it the front yard worse. " Smith stated that the proposed addition would not go any closer to property line than the existing home already does. He said that i improvement to the house, the site line on Hampshire wouldn't would be ih favor of the proposal. front yard an that he Cera asked the applicant what he thinks the hardship i his work easier. Cera explained that hardships have to said that the current garage is only a single stall g lot. ted it would make e property. Graham ith stated that it is a corner Cera asked Olson if the applicant's drywall b Olson stated that he couldn't store mat n allowed home occupation. age. Sell stated that he didn't have a pr and that the plans looked better e garage addition being 32~feet wide had envisioned. Shaffer stated that he could a regular size garage is 2 far into the front setback. garage were smaller. the applicant by r 0 this request because the hardships don't exist, et and the addition being proposed is way too ked Shaffer if it would make a difference to him if the . not really and that he has been trying to work with he move the proposed addition back 4 feet. MOVED by for 18.6 fe and room a Aven orth propose Member Sti ed by Cera and motion carried 3 to 1 to approve the request red 35 feet to a distance of 16.4 feet for the proposed garage its closest point to the front yard property line along Hampshire or 4.7 feet off the required 28.7 feet to a distance of 24 feet for the and room addition at its closest point to the rear yard property line. r voted against the variance requests. 4940 Markay Ridge(02.12~7 4) Richard Korab. Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback .8 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 27 feet for the existing home at its closest point to the front yard property line along Markay Ridge. \ . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting December 16, 2002 . Page 6 Purpose: To bring the existing home into conformance with front yard setback requirements. MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Smith and motion carried unanimously to approve the request for 8 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 27 feet for the existing home at its closest point to the front yard property line along Markay Ridge. III. Other Business Cera discussed hardships and suggested that they be ex applicants or maybe separated from the variance appli inadvertently being lead to think incorrectly about hards IV. Adjournment The meeting adjourned 8: 15 pm. to Brookvie party. oroughly to .cants aren't . ~. ity Center for their holiday " . 235 Paisley Lane 02-12-71 ,I . Jerry Kassanchuk . . . . Hey Memorandum Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) To: 'Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Dan Olson, City Planner Subject: 235 Paisley Lane (02-12-71) Jerry Kassanchuk, Applicant Date: January 22, 2003 This item was tabled at the December 16, 2002 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. Attached is the original request given to BZA members at that time, as well as a copy of the unapproved meeting minutes for this agenda item. Mr. Kassanchuk has made no revisions to his original request and has stated that his architect will attend the meeting to further discuss his building plans. ;, . . . Minutes of a R gular Meeting of the Golden Valley Bard of Zoning Appeals December 16,2002 I. Th vember 26, 2002 minutes were roval at the January 28, 2003 mee val. They will be ready for " II. The Petitions are: 235 Paisley Lane (02-12-71) Jer Kassanchuk A Ii Request: on 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback r uired 35 feet to a distance of 25.1 feet for the m and garage addition at its closest point to the front line along Ski Hill Road. w for the construction of a proposed room and garage n to the existing home. Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setbacks · 7 feet oft the required 15 feet to a distance of 8 feet at its closest point to the north side yard property line for the proposed room and garage addition. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a proposed room and garage addition to the existing home. Olson reminded the Board that this property received a variance in July of 2002 for a proposed room and garage addition. He stated that the applicant has revised his building plans by moving the location of the addition and now he requires further variance requests. He stated that the applicant's proposed addition shows a total of . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting December 16, 2002 Page 2 1,260 square feet of garage space and that the City has a policy of not exceeding more than 1,000 square feet of garage space. He said that the applicant has indicated that he will convert some of the existing garage space into living space. and suggested making that a condition of approval. Shaffer asked the applicant if had updated plans to look at. Jerry Kassanchuk, applicant stated that the main difference is that the proposed addition is bein tated. by 25 to 30 degrees so the rear of it is parallel to the street. He said the pro ition will be three stories and that the third story would be the same level a g house. Shaffer asked if he had looked at putting the garage add' . house. KassanchLik stated that the addition would be t other side of the house and that this was the most unob r side of the neighbors on the to build the addition. Sell asked the applicant if he owned part of Lot 3 . and 245 Paisley Lane. Sell suggested adding ,:art 0 wouldn't need any variances. Kassanchuk st tha but withdrew his application. because the k stated he owned 235 t3 ( 45) to Lot 5(235) then he had applied for a subdivision ess is faster. ," Shaffer stated he is concerned beca in the front facing Ski Hill Road, Kassanchuk said his contractor during the construction of th ealize the garage addition would be have a major impact on the neighborhood. hat he won't lose any significant trees Shaffer stated that the 10 of the trees would be ut d first variance request property. He sai e is built, there woul presence. H too many It . s lot IS going to change greatly and that a good portion e said that he never would have voted to approve the uly if he would. have known about the impact to the ng that Ski Hill Road was a side yard and if this addition street presences and one would be a three story street comfortable. with the whole proposal because it is pushing there is no hardship. e variance granted in July 2002 was granted and has to stand but he would no t r a variance on the north side. He suggested the applicant look at doing the su ivision he had originally applied for, or try building the proposed addition eight feet to the south so no variance requests would be needed. Shaffer added that conceivably the applicant could build this addition elsewhere on the lot without requiring variances. He suggested tabling this request for three months to allow the applicant time to redesign the proposed addition. Smith stated he agreed that going through the subdivision process would be the best way to do this proposed addition. He said that it seemed to be the Board's inclination to vote against this request. . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting December 16. 2002 Page 3 MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Smith and motion carried unanimously to table for three months the request for 9.9 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 25.1 feet for the proposed room and garage addition at its closest point to the front yard property line along Ski Hill Road and for 7 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 8 feet at its closest. point to the. north side yard property line for the proposed room and garage addition. Brant Pallazz nt to replace the flat r urrently on the front ent with a peaked roof and that ey would not be encroaching more than what is a ady there. 4101 Glencrest Road (02-12-72) Brant and Debra Pallazza A Ii Waiver from Section . Purpose: front Request: i '.9 feet to a distance of 25.6 feet for the oint to the rear yard property line. to build a '!" room, deck and front ,e said that a " e proposed additions e front entryw \Jheexisting home also ds front and rear d variances. . stated that this proposal is a vast improvement over the entryway that is there nd that the Board promotes front entryways. . . . Hey Memorandum Planning 763-593-8095/ 763-593-8109 (fax) To: ' Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Dan Olson, City Planner Subject: 235 Paisley Lane (02-12-71) Jerry Kassanchuk, Applicant Date: December 11, 2002 Jerry Kassanchuk, with property located at 235 Paisley Lane, is requesting variances from the Residential zoning code (Section 11.21). The applicant has approached the City to build a garage and room addition to the east side of the existing home. This addition requires variances from building setback requirements. Below is the requested variance request: · The first requested variance is from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback. City Code states that the front yard setback shall be 35 feet from the front yard property line. The variance requested is for 9.9 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 25.1 feet at its closest point to the front property line along Ski Hill Road for the proposed room and garage addition. · The second requested variance is from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setbacks. City Code states that the distance between any part of a dwelling or structure and the side lot lines shall be governed by the following requirements: In the case of lots having a width over 100 feet, the side yard setback shall be 15 feet. The requested variance is for 7 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 8 feet at it closest point to the north side yard property line for the proposed room and garage addition. Previously, this property received a variance. In July of 2002, a variance was granted for this property for a proposed room and garage addition. The minutes from the July 23, 2002 BZA meeting are attached for your review. Now, the applicant has revised his building plans by moving the location of addition, which requires further additional variance requests. According to the applicant, the building plans call for 836 square feet of proposed garage space. The applicant already has 370 square feet of garage space. Therefore, after the addition is built the applicant would have 1, 206 square feet of garage space. The City has a policy of limiting a property to 1,000 square feet of garage and accessory building space. The applicant has indicated that he will convert some of the existing garage space to a music studio. . . . If the Board of Zoning Appeals approves this variance, staff suggests that the Board add the following condition of approval: 1. After the addition is built, the applicant have no more than 1,000 square feet of garage space. The City's file on this property reveals that a permit was pulled in July of 1950 for the construction of the home. No other pertinent information was found in the file. " . Subject Property: 235 Paisley Lane Jerry Kassanchuk, Applicant N I: ~ \! t .: o n '" ... .... e ,N -.D ,or> ,00 210 /U.s:5 '1.lt . , \ \\ I", ,,'''' . . :, 16S 1- 1'& 4 I '1.00 \;. '" . ; 4 .-1'11.. -4> "':'- g: '411 ", I , ........ g "- E> . 6100 GLENWOOD '0 ~ '0 .8 o ITI 0 -\00 16 6030 o o .7 131. 6 1 " " AUE v . Industrial . Other . . (Revised 1/99) Petition Number o~. -I;}- 11 Date Received "I ~J.,/ D? Amount Received 5" D "OD ($50 residential - $150 other) PETITION FOR ORDINANCE WAIVER CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 1. Street address of property involved in this petition: :L ~~ ?"'-l S Ie') L3V\~ 2. BZA Petition Date 3. Petitioner: K@ 55 d~~\r~~~ ?a-t $ L~ L~v'-~ ~~~Val~J S1'f~<. -::J ,dty/State/Zip 9' -Z&3 5"4 ( -.. C(' to Home Phone 4. If petitioner is not owner of all property involved in this petition, please name property owner and describe petitioner's interest (legal and other) in this property: 5. Legal Description of property involved in this petition (found on survey): L19+ 5""'l G loc- k ~ _l-\~~e-p~ Cov-4J J 6. Type of property involved in this petition: Residential: ~_ Single Family _ Double Dwelling _ Multiple Dwelling Commercial Institutional Bus. & Prof. Office :' . . 7. 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 issued. A .-+{,ureP - lelle_ \ Add'~t l~. 01I\..-h, -tke Vt.e-ttkea;f- e"\Acl 0+ -eke. e.r:- l~S*~"'-J ~O\L..5:a.., '"R.e. ('Owes 1- leve{ (~a.~l-.t s -h-ee+ lel#l) wov.-\.d \>e '}l'~C:- space _ 'Top level (5~lM..e (as e:.-1f-\':>-t\."v...j).O wc~id (oe c...... """'-.CLs-{-eQ- lJ,edr-oc'wV\..... 8. (Staff will complete this item) Waiver of Section Subd(s). Subd(s). Subd(s). Waiver of Section Waiver of Section 9. Please attach a brief statement of the reasons. necessity. or hardship which provide grounds for the granting of this waiver. Attach letter, photographs, or other evidence, if appropriate. 10. A current or usable survey of the property must be attached~ Proposed surveys are not acceptable. The survey must be prepared by a regis- tered land surveyor licensed in the State of Minnesota. The survey must show all property lines. buildings. and streets. The distance from the house and all other buildings to the front and side property lines shall be shown. The rear distance of any buildings from the property line will be needed. if in question. Also. the survey should show an approximate location of any buildings on adjacent properties relative to the side(s) where the construction will take place. If the survey is larger than 11" x 17". the applicant will supply seven additional copies of the survey for use by the Board. 11. To the Applicant: To the best of my knowledge the statements found in this application are true and correct. Attached herewith is my check in the amount of $ SO representing the Board of Zoning Appeals Application Fee. CA..A-t ~ of Applicant UNLESS CONSTRUCTION OR THE ACTION APPLICABLE TO THIS WAIVER REQUEST, IF . GRANTED, IS NOT TAKEN WITHIN ONE YEAR, THE WAIVER EXPIRES. The applicant will need to obtain the signatures of all adjacent 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. .. NOTE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: This petitipn is applicatipn fpr Waiver pf Ordinance(s) of the City Zoning Code. Please be aware of any possible effect the granting of this waiver could have on your property. All property owners adjacent to the subject property will receive a notice of the Board of Zoning Appeals hearing, at which they may present their views. Your signature is required only to verify that you have been told about the request and gives the adjacent property owner opportunity to comment. (Comments can contain language of agreeing with the project,objecting to the project or other statements regarding the project) PrinlName EU~c-IJG v.-Il/J'.$ (rMGDowff <!Il. Comment A./o A..J e Signature (iffT~ Address 2,<;0 :#n$LE1.~rP' Print Name Sic l/l ~ . (J~f dert J1.S" c h... omment WI:.. {'It!.-( ;f W Ii! t( j) cI 1-1 ~ 1/, (4-c o( ~17I"1e . Signature sp~r. Address :0-' 1!t'5k{ L"",.., Print NameD i'a hJL IZ /c (qr J Comm~nt. G: ooi. iJ ect ~ Signature t~GA'C.P ---L-1 1) Address .JA t PalS ~y La:.<.~ Print Name-.tJ~ LL ()DL.e-t1/\. Comment Signature ! VvA.A.1T \~ Qr' ~ ..Q,1ri:V\.[ ph; () \ .... I- ". I t 1-' 1'-.);'.,-, ~ ~ ?tk Address 2} i r AIA'[ If LtJ j r- . I I I I I I I I I I I t . / () .;, I . 920.,7' ./ /' "~} , I. ~ _ -.- \ \ -, -"'----------- -r I I I I I I I L I ~ -, --. - -- --.;. - ~ o \; ,\ ":'" a92.10 5 00 ,;..,,,/ ... R=3 . L=29.08 \\ . fJ21 ~ / \ I I I } , I ..f.. t I '" I- I } \ \ \ \ I l . 1~:J.7 I , ,." 9~8d ':' i . .I.J , / . t! \ / \.~ ' .\~ UV : '~. \ \.~" ''" t:..\ S .". , . ....9'~____ \ ./ / / \ .' f" 917.;' / ,.e/ ... 9'8.6 ..~ ./ \ ./ - -- - - - -..;.9200 " . ~~2'J ,,\ ~ >>.. oOK \-... ... '.,/f'O.6 \."" \ ,( tl90.7) Bge J 6 , ",-- \ /' / / / / / '0 ;' . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting July 23, 2002 Page 2 a arage addition, but would still like to go forward with the variance requests for th exis I home. Olson stated that he recommends approval for the existing home varianc quests and denial for the proposed addition requests because the ap is plannin changing his plans for the addition. Sell stated that I e Board denies the requests for the proposed additio en the applicant could no me back with further variance requests for a ye Olson stated that varianceapprova are valid for one year but that an applicant esn't have to wait a year to reapply for a v . nee request that has been denied. S h stated he thought that an applicant couldn't e a request for an identical varia e waiver for a year, but if the request were changed t could. Shaffer stated the applicant should bmit something i riting to withdraw his variance requests for the proposed addition. 0 n had the licant write a note requesting withdrawal ofthe variance requests deali proposed addition. McCracken-Hunt suggested voting on the v a e requests dealing with the existing homes and not voting on the requests de g wit e proposed addition. She asked the applicant if he was willing to withdr his varian equests for the proposed addition. Shaun Graham, applicant ated yes, he'wan to withdraw the variance requests for the proposed additio MOVED by Sell, seconded Cera and motion carried unanim Iy to approve .2 feet off the required 35 feet t distance of 34.8 feet for the existing heat its closest point to the front yard perty line along Olympia Street, 30.1 feet 0 e required 35 feet to a distance 0 .9 feet for the existing deck at its closest point to t front yard property line alo ampshire Avenue North and 19 feet off the required 3 eet to a distance of 16 etfor the existing home. Shaffer r: erated that the Board is only addressing the variance requests for the existi ome and that they are not addressing the variance requests for the propose ad on. 235 Paisley Lane (Map 12) (02-7..35) Jerry Kassanchuk. Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback · 10.4 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 24.6 feet for the proposed garage and room addition at its closest point to the front yard property line along Ski Hill Road. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage 'and room addition on the property. 2 . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting July 23,2002. Page 3 Olson stated that the applicant is proposing to build a garage and 3-story addition on the east side of his home, which would require a variance from the front yard setback requirements. Jerry Kassanchuk, applicant stated that because of the way the house is sitting on the lot it is hard to add any additions except to the east. He stated there are only two neighbors .that this addition would affect and that the east side of the lot is very heavily wooded. Shaffer stated that this proposal seemed logical and the addition wouldn't affect any of the surrounding neighbors. He added that it is going to be hard to even see the new addition because of all the trees on the lot. Cera asked if there is also a north side yard setback issue. Olson stated that the applicant has redesigned his plans and that the north side yard setback requirement of 15 feet would be met. MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Smith and motion carried unanimously to approve the request for 10.4 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 24.6 feet for the proposed garage and room addition at its closest point to the front yard property line along Ski Hill Road. aiverfrom Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setbac · et off the required 35 feet to a distance of 34 eet for the existl home at its closest point to the front property line along No Corti awn Circle. · 4.1 feet off t equired 35 feet to a . ance of 30.9 feet for the proposed deck a ition at its clo point to the front yard property line along h Co n Circle. Purpose: Request: Section 11.21, Subd. 12(A) A feet off the required 10 feet to a distance of 5 existing shed at its closest point to the home. To bring the existing shed on the property into conformance wit Accessory Building setback requirements. 3 . 4'<'",' 44 :P-'~' 4.(f', F:-.-':_'- '"'~. ,. ?'" '~' ~ " . . . . . . . www.'i~Um~lt~ Y 12-6-02 HEARING NOTICE Board of ZoninQ Appeals 235 Paisley Lane Jerry Kassanchuk, Applicant Jerry Kassanchuk, with property located at 235 Paisley Lane, has petitioned the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance from the Residential zoning district. The applicant is proposing to build a garage and room addition onto the existing home. These proposed additions do not meet building setback requirements. Below is the requested variance: . Section 11.21, Subd. 7 (A) Front Yard Setback. City Code states that the front yard setback shall be 35 feet. from the front yard property line. The variance requested is for 9.9 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 25.1 feet at its closest point to the front property line along Ski Hill Road for the proposed room and garage addition. . Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setbacks. City Code states that the distance between any part of a dwelling or structure and the side lot lines shall be governed by the following requirements: In the case of lots having a width over 100 feet, the side yard setback shall be 15 feet. The requested variance is for 7 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 8 feet at it closest point to the north side yard property line for the proposed room and garage addition. This petition will be heard at a regular meeting to be held Monday, December 16, 2002, beginning at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. If you have any questions or comments about this variance request, you may contact the Planning Department at 763/593-8095. Adjacent properties require notification.