03-25-03 BZA Agenda
Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, March 25, 2003
7pm
7800 Golden Valley Road.
Council Chambers
I. Approval of Minutes - February 25, 2003
II. The Petitions are:
9015 Elgin Place (02-11-68)
Paula and Michael Watkins. Applicants
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7 (B) Rear Yard Setback
. 8.2 feet off the required 16 feet to a distance of 7.8 feet for the
proposed deck at its closest point to the rear yard property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a deck addition to the existing home.
1566 Rhode Island Avenue North (03-03-04)
Doua MacLauahlin. Applicant
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C) (1) Side Yard Setbacks
. 12 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 3 feet for the
proposed deck at its closest point to the north side yard property
line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a deck addition to the existing home.
532 Cloverleaf Drive (03-03-05)
Kal Hoqenson and Carolvnne Trout. Applicants
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C) (2) Side Yard Setbacks
. 3.3 feet off the required 11.7 feet to a distance of 8.4 feet for the
proposed garage at its closest point to the east side yard property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage addition to the existing home.
7950 Wesley Drive (03-03-06)
Brian and Margaret Hoefer, Applicants
Request: W~iver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback
. .7 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 34.3 feet for the
existing home at its closest point to the front yard property line
along Wesley Drive.
. 5.4 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 29.6 feet for the
existing garage at its closest point to the front yard property line
along Wesley Drive.
Purpose: To bring the existing home into conformance with building setback
requirements.
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 12 (A) Accessory Buildings
. To allow the existing detached garage to be located beside the
existing home, instead of behind the home.
Purpose: To bring the existing garage into conformance with accessory
building requirements.
III. Other Business
IV. Adjournment
2
,.
11>
.
.
.
.
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
February 25, 2003
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Monday,
February 25,2003, in the Council Conference Room, 7800 Golden Valley Road,
Golden Valley, Minnesota. Vice Chair McCracken-Hunt.called t~e meeting to order at 7
pm. '
Those present were Chair Sell, members Cera, McCracken-Hunt, a
Commission Representative Shaffer. Also present were Staff Liai
Recording Secretary Lisa Wittman. Member Smith was absen
d
I. Approval of Minutes - January 28, 2003
MOVED by McCracken-Hunt, seconded by Cera and
approve the minutes from the January 28, 2003
The Petitions are:
1501 Zealand Avenue North (0
Brian and Karen Zais A Iica
Request:
, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback
ired 35 feet to a distance of 16.4 feet for the
losest point to the front yard property line
e Str North.
he required 35 feet to a distance of 21.1 feet for the
and proposed second-story room additions at its
o the front yard property line along Winsdale Street
ow for the construction of a proposed room addition to the
existing home and to bring the existing home and garage into
conformance with building setback requirements.
t the applicants are proposing to build a second story room addition
over the ex Ing garage which would not meet front yard setback requirements. He
added that the existing home and garage also do not meet building setback
requirements.
Brian Zais, applicant, showed a survey of his property and discussed his proposed
plans. He stated that there is a steep hill to the east, a former septic tank to the north
and a few trees they don't want to cut down to the west.
.
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
February 25
Page 2
McCracken-Hunt asked the applicant if he had considered doing an entire secon9 floor
addition instead of just an addition over the garage. Zais stated that there would be a lot
of wiring and make construction more difficult and that they don't want more steps and
elevation changes.
Cera asked the applicant if he is tearing the existing garage down. Zais stated no, they
are building above the existing garage.
Cera explained to the applicant that the Board h
sort of hardship with the lot. Zais reiterated that
steep hill, to the north because of the former se
because of some trees.
pprovals to some
ild e east because of a
ted there, or to the west
Shaffer noted that the current roof has a hip style roof and the propos
gable style roof. He said that it would look better and would be less i
neighborhood if the proposed addition were to have a hip style r
they looked at house styles they noticed a lot of houses with p
roofs. Karen Zais, applicant, said that their house is the onl
with a hip roof. McCracken-Hunt stated that she thinks it wo
if it had a hip roof.
. Shaffer stated that part ofthe hardship
MOVED by Shaffer, seconded
request for 18.6 feet off the
home at its closest point t
13.9 feet off the require
proposed second-story r
along Winsdale Str
it is a corner 10 and
n carried unanimously to approve the
et to distance of 16.4 feet for the existing
property line along Winsdale Street North and
nce of 21.1 feet for the existing garage and
ions a Its closest point to the front yard property line
use the existing conditions are not being made worse,
hill on the lot.
roads North (03-02-02)
licant
Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback
. 27.5 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 7.5 feet for the
existing garage at its closest point to the front yard property line
along Woodstock Avenue.
Purpose: To bring the existing garage into conformance with building setback
requirements.
.
Olson stated that the applicant is proposing a room addition which would conform to
building setback requirements. He added that the existing garage does not conform and
requires a variance from front yard setback requirements.
.
.
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
February 25 I
Page 3
Cera asked why the survey said proposed lot split on it. Olson explained that previously
this same property was submitted to the Planning Commission as an application for a
Minor Subdivision but was recommended for denial. Now the applicant is just going to
fix-up the home and not subdivide it.
MOVED ~y Cera, seconded by McCracken-Hunt and motion carried unanimously to
approve 27.5 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 7.5 feet for the existing
garage at its closest point to the front yard property line along Woodstoc enue.
211 Paisley Lane (03-02-03)
Team Properties, Applicant
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, subd. 7(
· 4.1 feet off the required 35 feet to
existing home at its closest point t
along Paisley Lane.
Purpose: To bring the existing home
requirements.
nce with building setback
Olson stated that the applicant is pro
home all of which conform to buil
home does meet current setba
sides. He stated that a previ
the existing home to rem .
Lane. Olson explained t
additions it showed e e
this new variance a
eral additions to the existing
qUi ents. However, the existing
nd has 35-foot setbacks.on three
this p perty received variances in the past for
of 33.5 feet to the property line along Paisley
s was submitted to build the current proposed
me being 31.9 feet from the property line. That is why
eexisting home is required.
ding as a condition of approval that an existing shed
or moved to a conforming location and that the applicant
ne of the reasons the current survey may be different than the one
some surveys are to the cantilever and some are to the foundation.
t he believes the City's requirement is to the foundation.
David Kaplan, applicant, stated that it was also a surprise to him to him to find out the
existing home didn't meet setback requirements. He stated that he does intend to
remove the shed from the property.
Sell asked what the size of the proposed garage will be. Kaplan stated it would be 23
. feet by 25 feet.
.
.
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
February 25
Page 4
Cera asked if the existing garage would become living space. Kaplan stated that part of
the existing garage would become a mud room.
Sell asked if there would be four garage stalls. Kaplan stated there would be 3 garage
stalls so that he would be staying under the 1,000 square-foot maximum garage space
requirement. Olson confirmed that the. proposed new garage would meet setback
requirements.
Shaffer asked why the proposed new garage isn't being built where th
addition is being built. Kaplan stated that that room is a professionall
studio so they don't want to tear it down to build a garage. Sell cl 'e
story addition would be built above the sound studio and that t w
built in front of that. McCracken-Hunt stated that it is within
Board's only jurisdiction.
"
Diane Richard, 217 Paisley, stated that she is concern
interim owner and he is not taking into considera .
neighborhood and that when the addition is buil
said that it is a shame that this part of Golden V
this proposal presents aesthetic concern
t e plicant is an
ok of the
d her house. She
sideredhistorical and that
I of the neighbors.
. Sell explained that what the applicant i
ordinances and that the setback v'
Richard said she understood th
neighborhood.
ild fits within. the City's
n the house was originally built.
oicing her concern for the
Cera asked Richard if th
make a difference in her
proposed garage b
thinks from a sale p
to build a one-story addition if that would
. She ated that her concern is more about the
the round about. McCracken-Hunt stated that she
the existing home that has the overwhelming nature.
. ley Lane, stated that he recently applied for a variance and
this proposal is very overpowering and that two big oak
he past week. Kaplan stated that one of the trees was cut
that it will be replaced. Sell stated that the big difference with this
dditions are within setback parameters. Kassanchuk stated that
roposed addition is an eyesore.
Sell asked e applicant if he intended to live in the house. Kaplan stated no.
Kassanchuk said that he just wished residents had some say in these types of
proposals whether a variance is requested or not.
Shaffer reiterated that this particular request is difficult because the proposal meets the
. setback requirements and all the Board can do is address existing conditions.
.
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
February 25 i
Page 5
.
Richard asked if there is a way to make sure that the garage space stays under the
1,000 square foot requirement. Shaffer explained that the project would have to go
through several inspections and that the applicant would not receive a certificate of
occupancy if anything didn't conform to Codes or policies.
MOVED ~y McCracken-Hunt, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to
approve the request for 4.1 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 30.9 feet for the
existing home at its closest point to the front yard property line along Pai Lane with
the condition that the existing shed be moved to conform with setbac ents or
removed from the property.
III. Other Business
Sell discussed staff not requiring the applicant to appear at t
variance requests are for existing conditions. He said at he
and that in the request they just discussed he would h
the applicant hadn't been there.
.
Olson discussed proposed draft language he h
He said that administrative variances will
and have been a long time in coming.
meetings if their requests are for existi
concern from neighbors. McCrae
because that way people woul
dministrative variances.
yforthe Board and Staff
the applicant to attend BLA
Iyif there have been calls of
s e ught that would bea good idea
bout their concerns.
IV. Adjournment
.
if their
with that
delaying it if
~
"
... I
.
.
.
9015 Elgin Place
02-11-68
Paula and Michael Watkins
.
Hey
Memorandum
Planning
763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax)
To:
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
From:
Dan Olson, City Planner
Date:
March 19,2003
,I
This item was tabled at the November 26, 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 approved
meeting minutes for this agenda item. The original request in November, 2002 was to
construct the deck to be 6.5 feet to the rear yard property line. The Watkins have now
revised their deck plan and would like to request that it be built in the same location as was
. done in 1980, which is 7.8 feet to the rear yard property line.
Subject:
9015 Elgin Place (02-11-68)
Paula and Michael Watkins, Applicant
.
3/7/03
. Dan,
.
.
What we would like to accomplish at the next BZA meeting is to address a prior owner's
construction of a back deck that did not conform to their 1980 petition for waiver obtained by the
Board of Zoning Appeals. Per the petition on file, the prior owners were given approval to
construct a deck to a distance of 9 feet from the rear lot line to the deck at its closest point.
In pursuing our inital petition and variance requests, we obtained an updated certificate of survey
of our property (October, 2002). As noted in the survey, at its closest point, the deck is 7.8
feet from the lot line versus the required 9 feet. We would like to request a variance that would
bring our property in conformance with the actual deck that a prior owner had built.
At the November 26 BZA meeting, our first requested variance (Section 11/21, Subd. 7(A) Front
Yard Setback) as noted in your memo to the Board on 11/20/02) was approved. While our
second requested variance (Section 11121, Subd. 7(B) Rear Yard Setback was not approved and
the variance tabled pending our exploration of other remodeling options.
At this time, we are completely scrapping any plans to pursue the building of a room addition to
any portion of our existing home. Our plans include replacing the existing, poorly constructed
deck on the north side of our house with another deck and patio combination. We will pursue a
final design, construction and the required permits at a later date and intend to complete the
project without the need for a variance from the city.
In the meantime, to meet the deadline of our extension to our variance application, we would
simply like to obtain approval for the current deck that a prior owner was responsible for having
built.
Thank you again for your assistance with this request.
Sincerely,
Paula Watkins
763-545-3882
9015 Elgin Place North
Golden Valley
.
.
.
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
November26, 2002 -
Page 3
. h added that the variance request is a modest one and gave the applicants credi
for c . g back to the Board with a revised plan.
Sell noted th e house is on a corner lot. He stated that Golden Valley
witn applicants a hat this proposal is a good compromise and he w
su pportingit.
Peterson stated that they are not an
their home stay salable.
, they are just thinking of making
Shaffer clarified that he was not picki n this p osal. He thinks the problem is
really the hardship issue. He said applicants cou uild elsewhere on the lot and
that this proposal is beyond hi vel of comfort. "
Smith added that he t' s there are also some terrain issues.
MOVED by S.' ,seconded by McCracken-Hunt and motion carried 4 t 0 approve
.the reques r 9 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 26 feet forthe osed
room ion at its closest point to the front yard property line along Kelly Drive.
Sh r voted against the variance request.
9015 Elgin Place (02-11-68)
Paula and Michael Watkins. Applicants
Request: Waiver 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.
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.
3
.
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
November 26, 2002
Page 4
Cera asked the applicant what she considered the hardship to be. Paula Watkins,
applicant stated that the existing deck is rotting and, the traffic pattern is bad in their
small family room. Cera asked inhere was anything regarding the lot itself that could
becons,idered a hardship. Watkins stated that the lot line is very unique.
McCracken-Hunt asked the applicants if they had considered alternative layouts for the
additions. Michael Watkins, applicant stated that they are trying to use existing family
room space.
Shaffer asked the applicants if they had considered using garage space for living space
and then adding new garage space. Paula Watkins stated that they were not looking
for that much reconstruction.
The Board reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant.
McCracken-Hunt stated that there is a lot of area that is buildable and wouldn't require
variances and that she doesn't understand what the hardship is.
MOVED by McCracken-Hunt, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to
approve the request 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.
.
Request:
Section 11.21, Subd. 7 (C)(1) Side Va
· 5 feet off the require
point to the north side
tto . nce of 10 feet at its closest
o line for the proposed deck.
e Board decided to discuss this request before the 2485 Regent Avenue North
request.
4
_CERT~ATE OF SURVEY_
FOR:
HIKt: t/ PAut-A WATkINS
'1015" E/..G/N PLAC.tS
Got-DeN VALLey, MN
- - -- ~-
$'e.ele : I lnclt '" 20 "'c~f
TJIr.I.,u~
LOT 7~ l:uaCK 2.)
Me DOllGA LL -JlIR I S ADDITION
,~,
.
P~norco: iron /77.:lrKt!r FOund
D(!nof~s s,P/tC~ set
o
I
I
I
,:'-
~/I' "
/
.
......
'.....
....,
/AO~
,
-- -
~~11{
, . -----
~
'"
'1. ~
~,~
'l-~
,.,()
$!')
~Q)
"j...
~
~ ,10
~.~
...ta
..l'o
o .....
~~
- . - - -'-2-:;:
-...--..--......-
,
\ ------
\J_ .---
,.
-'
--
---
--
",",,>f,"
\ \
\
,
,
V
",'
0.'
--
l. "'It. 1. r."
i...
~
~
........
,;
~
~
..: ~
..
t.... .
~ '"'
\: ~
~t'- e.
~t'-
...., 0
~I ''- l\l
'.... ~
,I
I'
I
I
",t..
\0.
""
...
I
.
,
'"
>.
<(
l
\\
:Ii.
~
1.8.1
~
~
I"l
{./OV~e
37
'0.1/.
-z:15
:t-
_':.~!.._-- --
-- _...-....
I
I
I
"',
~:
\-~ - -
,
~lt
<:It-
...,
~.-:
; \'" <i
\ I
\ I
, ~c~"
NedOdli''113''1V IS',!. i4,z M
A'aO' , . -~(!'.:!I'S".
"'" O~ 19 IV /'I..,/- I~/. $"/ P/".,.
CJ:Il'l1inClTlOH
----
IHfJlEllY com THAT 1HI$ $Uft'ofY WAS I'Ra'NlED BY
1lE' OR UNDOl MY DR;CT llUPtIt'>lSlOll, M) THAT
I HI A OULY llEGlS1'EllG l.NoIO $UR~ UNllE/l
lIE LAWS Of THE $TAn: OF lIIlINESOTA.
IO-21(-()z-
Date
~~"
Roy- . Hansen, Reg. No. 6274 -
Memorandum
. Planning
763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax)
To: ' Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
From: Dan Olson, City Planner
Subject: 9015 Elgin Place (02-11-68)
Paula and Michael Watkins, Applicants
Date: November 20, 2002
Paula and Michael Watkins, with property located at 9015 Elgin Place, are requesting
variances from the Residential zoning code (Section 11.21). The applicants have
approached the City to . build a room and deck addition to the rear of existing home. This
addition requires a variance from building setback requirements. Also, a survey was
submitted for the property and it was discovered that the existing home does not meet
building setback requirements. The following are the requested variances:
.
. 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 requested variance is for 9.5 feet off the required 35 feet to a
distance of 25.5 feet at its closest point to the front property line along Elgin Place for
the existing home.
. The second requested variance is from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(8) Rear Yard
Setback. City Code states the required rear setback shall be 20 percent of the lot
depth. Staff has determined the rear setback requirement to be 16 feet for any
structure to the rear year property line. The requested variance is for 9.5 feet off the
required 16 feet to a distance of 6.5 feet at its closest point to the rear yard property
line for the proposed room addition and deck.
Previously, this property received a variance. In May of 1980, the BZA approved a variance
for a rear yard deck to be located to a distance of 9 feet to the property line. The minutes
from that meeting are attached for your review. Since the current variance request is to
replace the deck to a closer distance to the rear yard property line than was previously
granted, the applicant is required to request a new variance.
.
A review of the plat for this property shows a 5-foot drainage and utility easement along the
rear yard property line. Therefore, the proposed deck would not be located in the easement
area. The City's file on this property reveals that a permit was pulled in November of 1968
for the construction of the home No other pertinent information was found in the file.
.
Subject Property: 9015 Elgin Place
Paula and Michael Watkins, Applicants
.
I
I
21
, I
1(1l
~l"' I
~~l
;Z~i\.l- .!!'I.'"
,I
...
.
10
.II
G'e. ,
IJI~~ /
A 4<-
.U
.4
4'Q
---.~. _.~-
.
.
.
.
(Revised. 1/9~)
Petition Number 0 ~ ... n - " a
Date Received
1'15/0)"
Amount Received 5 0 ,cD
, ($50 residential - $150 other)
PETITION FOR ORDINANCE WAIVER
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
1. Street address of property involved in this petition:
qlJl5. C: IglVl P/ac€- AJdYth
2. BZA Petition Date N6veVl1 ber zt, I 2-lJo 2-
(
3. Petitioner: :PtU.t~ ,t.{lct1I1f:,~IVtL::>
Name9D 15 .~~ 11'1 l' tau Alm1h GoktmVtl'!~IMJJ
Address .. <J . . City/StatelZip. t)'S'!'2-i
Vll2--2--LD-011I?Jj 0 7h?:J- 5Lf5-};E!:/217
Business Phone Home Phone
4. If petitioner is not owner of all property involved in this petition, please name property
owner and describe petitioner's interest (legal and other) in this property:
5. legal Description of property involved in this petition (found on survey):
Lor '1) BlO~ 1-
Me Dou~~ I' - Jurl~ AMlh~
6. Type of property involved in this petition:
Residential: X Single Family _ Double Dwelling _ Multiple Dwelling
Industrial
Commercial
Institutional
Bus. & Prof. Office
Other
;
.
.
7. Detailed description of building (s), addition(s), and alteration(s) involved in this petition.
The site plans c;lnd drawings submitted with this petition will be the basis of any
variance that may be approved and cannot be changed before or after the building
permit issued.
.:I:h;$, peh-b6vl lMch,(,cie~ ~ (eqUiL.kfnr~ VtLVlaVlGe.- it> fe-glatt O~y~
. bm tt~ w~ Thva.~ pYD~fl;~{~ voom eJ}(k-vl~~~nd4ea ~~Sl
B. (~;:I~:~~ht~r%) ~~~~~~~~~~~i:
Waiver of Section Subd(s).
Waiver of Section
Subd(s).
Subd(s).
UNLESS CONSTRUCTION OR THE ACTION APPLICABLE TO THIS WAIVER REQUEST, IF
. GRANTED, IS NOT TAKEN WITHIN ONE YEAR, THE WAIVER EXPIRES.
Waiver of Section
9. Please attach a brief statement of the reasons. necessity. or hardship which
provide grounds for the granting of t"is waiver. Attach letter, photographs, or
other evidence, if appropriate.
1 O. A current Of 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 hOllse
and all other buildings to the front and side property lines shall be shown.
The rear di$tance 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) wher~ 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 $ 50 representing the
Board of Zoning Appeals Application Fee.
~M.~
Signature of Applicant
..
The applicant will need to obtain the signatures of all adjacent property owners. This includes
all properties ~butting the applicant's property and directly across the street. If on a corner, this
means across both streets.
.
NOTE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: This petition is application for waiver of
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)
Signa~;/h d~/-..-
Address f?tt'J2,Q 7)/-1L.G17'7JlJE ~
~~(/~y; JI'1N ..("""C'c.,?-,?
Print Name J;la~~r- ;/ar/ an
,
. Comment
Signature/~V~
Address 902S-Elq/J, ~/
" v
~~ (/C4~ h7N S-S-Y.2?
Print Name
Comment
'-- .
I
j 'n,
-...J i
<- 7;;(j b.\ 1/1/\
'-
SignatureQ,." ..~~
PrintName !~/;1'-1. (H/4RJ
Comment
Address <t 00 I e:.!jI"V\ PI au- IJ
~ V <<./'9- S54Z7
~~~
Address 9ctJ3C/ -D.:?~7A >r-
$0/l/' J4//Py I /?tV ss-</y
Signature
.
RE: 9015 Elgin Pht.ce North
Before we purchased this home in the fall of 1997 we had an inspection done that revealed the
deck on the back, north side of the house was not up to current safety standards. Per the
inspector's report, the deck had not been properly attached to the house, the lumber had not been
properly treated, and the beams and joist tops were rotting. The condition ofthe deck has
worsened and is increasingly unsafe. Removal and replacement of this deck has become our top
home maintenance priority.
.
Knowing we need to remove our current deck, and after living in this house for several years, we
have also realized the limits of our small family room for our growing family needs. Therefore,
we are requesting a variance that would allow us to replace our current deck with the enclosed,
proposed family room expansion that would greatly enhance the family room floor plan while
adding some privacy and additional sun light to our home. In addition, to maintain some
enjoyment of the outdoo~ the variance request includes the proposed small deck extension to
the west side of the proposed family room expansion and current deck.
,I
Due to the odd, limiting configuration of our lot and the resulting lack of privacy, the attached,
proposed design was deUberately created with angles that move away at the comers in line with
our unique back property line.
The last survey on record with the City of Golden Valley for the property located at 9015 Elgin
Place North was completed on April 30, 1980 and fIled related to a variance request for a
proposed back deck by one of the former homeowners. With the enclosed updated survey, and
our petition for a proposed expansion to our current family room and deck extension, we are also
requesting a variance for the existing house.
We appreciate your thoughtful consideration of our petition and variance request and look
forward to reviewing our petition with the Board of Zoning Appeals on November 26, 2002.
Respectfully submitt~,
~~
Paula Watkins
Tn\~~\J0~.
Michael Watkins
.
.
.
.
Board of Zoning Appeals
May 13, 1980 '
Page 4
ing house is placed at an angle on the lot and the proposed
not be any than what now exists. The required ?Ol separation
house and the detac age would be maintained.
Mahlon Swedberg moved to approve
corner lots with the 351 setback
cap for any further construction
by Art Flannagan. During d' Ion on the motion, Mike Se
reflect that the re ouse to garage separation be retained an
posed struc I l.not be beyond the line of the existing house at its clos
poi ormandy Place. Upon vote, motion to approve carried unanimously.
, noting in doing so, that
most cases, an inherent handi-
e moti on was seconded
that the minutes
pro-
80-5-17 (Map 19) Residential
9015 Elgin Place
Thomas M. Rootness
The petition is for waiver of Section
3.07(2)
of the Zoning Code, rear setback, for 91 off
the required rear setback to a distance of 9'
from the rear lot 1 i ne to the proposed deck at
its closest point.
Mr. and Mrs. Rootness were present; consent had been obtained from all adjacent
property owners. No others ~ere present to be heard on this proposal.
Mr. Rootness explained the proposed deck at the rear of his house. The Boa.rd noted
the configuration of his lot which was wide but a minimum in depth and lot lines
that were angled both front and back.
Mahlon Swedberg called attention to the low profile of this deck, that it was
designed to parallel the angled lot line and that it was not a significant intrusion
into the required yard area.
Upon further discussion of alternatives, Mahlon Swedberg moved to approve the deck
as proposed. It was seconded by Art Flannagan and, upon vote, motion carried unani-
mously.
(Map 18) Industrial
oulevard
The petition is
7.051
of the Zoning Co rd areas, for
required 35' yard requl t alo
Avenue to a yard area of 15'
Present for the meeting was
adjacent property
All
This request is f building and area on the east side of Louisiana
Avenue at W Boulevard. This is the former service station which was recently
grant aiver of the moratorium to allow construction of a temporary addition
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~d~Umlt~y
11-8-02
HEARING NOTICE
Board of Zonina Appeals
9015 Elgin Place
Paula and Michael Watkins, Applicants
Paula and Michael Watkins, with property at 9015 Elgin Place, have
petitioned the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals fpr variances from
the Residential zoning district. The applicants are proposing to construct
a room and deck addition 10 the rear of the existing home. Thisaddition
requires a variance from building setback requirements. Also, a survey
was submitted for the property and it was discovered that the existing
home does not meet building setback requirements. The following are
the requested variances:
,I
. 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 requested variance is for 9.5 feet off the
required 35 feet to a distance of 25.5 feet at its closest point to
the front property line along Elgin Place for the existing home.
. Section 11.21, Subd. 7(B) Rear Yard Setback. City Code states
the required rear setback shall be 20 percent of the lot depth.
Staff has determined the rear setback requirement to be 16 feet
for any structure to the rear year property line. The requested
variance is for 9.5 feet off the required 16 feet to a distance of 6.5
feet at its closest point to the rear yard property line for the
proposed room addition and deck.
This petition will be heard at a regular meeting to be held Tuesday,
November 26, 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.
..~
,
..
.
1566 Rhode Island Avenue
,
North
03-03-04 "'.
,I
.
Doug MacLaughlin
.
. .
.
Hey
Memorandum
Planning
763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax)
To: I Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
From: Dan Olson, City Planner
Subject: 1566 Rhode Island Avenue North (03-03-04)
Doug MacLauglin, Applicant.
Date: March 19,2003
.
Doug MacLaughlin, with property located at 1566 Rhode Island Avenue North, is requesting a
variance from the Residential zoning code (Section 11.21). The applicant's contractor began
construction of a deck attached to the north side of the existing home without a building
permit.. When the Inspections Department discovered that no permit had been issued for the
. deck, a "Stop Work" Order was issued. Inspections also explained that a variance would be
necessary in order to keep the deck at its present location. Also, Planning Staff explained to
the applicant that the deck, due to Fire Code regulations, could not be built closer than 3 feet
to the property line. Therefore, if the requested variance is approved, the deck would have
to be moved to a distance no closer than 3 feet to the property line. This project requires a
variance from the following sections of City Code.
· The 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 12 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 3 feet at it closest point
to the north side yard property line for the proposed deck addition.
The City's file on this property reveals that a permit was pulled in January of 1967 for the
construction of the home~ No. other pertinent information was found in the file.
.
.
.
.
Subject Property: 1566 Rhode Island Ave N
Doug MacLauglin, Applicant
..J:::.... .. u.. ..-. nnd4 N."~l''44.E. ... {~?4.Z2 Re-
I Till ~.:q Ill- ~";;5! -~. ~~~..!I.~ ...~f:;J .~~....,w.:.::-s~..~...;~ '~~_.,. ........., ",~ Ji4''',~:'.II''''; ~
I ~ ~ t ....'t: I -.... ". .. .We'.m _, ".-71 " 'il! ...... Jopo
,;... Ie . II! .1': : l! 'i~ Ie ~ I.~:i; ;~: ~~ . I ~~ ~ ..$ '-24 ~, · I ;
I · 112'~'- .;i! r~~"~ . ":., ~~ji "~. "'.I,t.".. ~""f~,"~.",,;;:," 1.lL.<; '"
! · ,...,. 1 ~..:.~,1,z~~~"'; I"" ~4~~ ~ o.zoW ~ili1l~~~~.~ '.};.~r ~~. .' ;:-:~~.~" ..:;t
teIT l i ~~ el7i ~ 2. · : zaj. 2.",.' \",.23!!~ 2.;:js ~
.IZUS ..... ~ >~~"'Io' .~~.". :>.~".:?' .. "'.. il! . _~'.,..~~.." n... 1 s
~IJl"Z.j:.!!t . " 'of IU"'" tZ-'le; : ~:a _If v.. -..... ~~;l '!~'4 ...
'. 18 r ~ 3;lj_ ,',' ~,.,:r lell: 3~: ..., l: 2211;- n '$. i~ '2R ! 3. ~ '
UL1I - -w-Z: ~-.: . f!.. ~U~: .. . i; !! ... . ~ ~ .. ...
.,. "., -',~~ '1 j.. ......,. "H' --.-- "if' '>Il...' ..... " I--
l JILl., nltZ ,.71 Il"~ IJI.J4 /lOP J ',. 'm.o I
. !.. ~ i ~.: _ .~5 i t .:~~V.21 ~ 4 .J.~~ !.21; 4e~~ I
~,. 0; .~~~ ~ .. \ "IF":; ...~j,i.~; .~~,~
di,i= '.13 e. .~: '.", .13}_~.\~&.. ."9' ~. . ~.",
!;it . to . ~ ~ 1'~.. 6.., ~ '.19 ' ~. ~l 1~
~ .' ,0 .' '1#." ~t-: __.
0: '.. :- 'I '~ ,-." It.o ;~ ,., JIIR .J. .l:li ~
"I;~i~u""'.e.'~;~Il_!_'~_' ~. :l~._:.' 1'1' ~ ~
Ir.. ~\; e. ~ '~l. 11:; e.':;, c
!$1-.1O ~ .,.ill!_ ~ 9.,~J..~' oIIlIl!IJ' '.... If'''''' i~
I.~ "'...il".. ~ .1<:1<> <>, .~:;;
~. "..: ..... ." .l'W ~ AU' ':l4!' I " 9. bol )~e' 9~'!l130
:.~':~ :"Ij._ ~~--e:,,-e..-:'ll>.L"-_l! ~ . '~\'1 IJ".~;
l..~~!~:l v..i~ ~ _ ~. 7 .~. ~ ~.IS 10. , , .;5 10..... '--m::
Ir.~ : j I m.lZ ~... .zt~
~.. It 3.!i Sl.6 3.!~:!l" . ~2 .
Inn '...,.'. ~ - 13m Itm ~ i ~ i · 14 ~ " .;: . ~ ;;.14;' II . ~;: ::: l!
!if ) ~ . ' ADDI'O~~! "'" .n.. ,) .n... In... l! ,,J!~ '
~ ~..:. 4.1~J~~5 $ 4.J~.h.eI3 ~ I~.)l!!h.13 11. 12..i~~ll.
~ ~, ...... ~ ".1 r" r: h"",tI.ll~ .",J*. "';'" ,....,~...,. _.~. '"i~ """.. ....,,-', lo';::l!
!'<'i II'" , m... "'.... L. . :;.. 'H.. '/U. r .. okJ
~ ~ ~'850 .u"u'c.' '",9...DLY.MPI4 ...J y:. m..!tt. \j m_, ~ ~ '.I~~
. ~! '~t~~~ ~ "j.~ 40 ~ ."4 ~ 'i.'.~ !1~:!1 '14' ~ 'r~. ~ 40 ~ ~14";!; '5of~ ~.;;;t.
1 i" ----. - f:: '" ... ...... ... .. '~.'t:: ~ .~ ~.
~~.t-j f..:ll!! ~.15 ~ __~~~ ~~.. I~~' Z ~~~f1l .,~ ~ t.~~ .1:1 ~ ,,~
:1Ii.-.,.!. z' A<(~-t-e--J- ___~..l! ~ ~
....J1l. "e, 'r!-ju{T-lt-;$-! U.~.lt. 3.tla~" ..,..,'
. ---AT _s_;-e--~~...;,_~ w if . . !C).... ~ \J"
"Sf-ruM_= 4e, .. 1/ ',) 4- ~~ \&1= ~ 1/ .~ 4 l!.;:1, /I . jL4~ j(~~
. ~ .- t----- 0 ~ ~f1r..
'" Ca ............ p _.... .::( ------~-----..-'" ;~p.4.
,I
City of Golden Valley
Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
Zoning Code Variance Application
I,
1. Street address of property involved in this application:,
I S-l.o ,(0 ~ ~ 0 d e..Is 1 a V\. d A \t e.:- N () (+-~
2. Applicant: ~?OU-J MCtcLauJ~\ IV\
J S-lo to IGhode- Is lctV'&
. Address .
1-- caoo-~J.'iS - '13/<t
e~ I- C \ to '3 9 '
Business Phone
Gol J~ Va I/~ I MI\J '
City/State/z1p' Ss<1:l '"7
lto~ - "l9/-'L{ <1 d- . ~l?--;l\oI-.2I~'-{
Home Phone Cel! Phone
Alt-e- .N
3. 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
To the best of my knowledge the statements found in t pplication are true and cQrrect. I also
understand that unless construction of the action appli abl to this variance request, if granted,
is not taken within one year, the variance expires.
c..
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.
~ 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 ~ignatures 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 t\1'/O attempts, owner not home" and then
write their address. City staff will also send a written notice informing these property owners of the .
time and place of the BZA meeting. .
Note to surrounding property owners:
This is an application by your neighbor for a variance from the City Zoning Code. Please be aware of
ny possible effect the granting of this variance could have on your property. You will also be
eceiving a written notice informing you of the time and place of the variance meeting. By signing
this form, you are only verifying that you have been told about the project, not that you
necessarily agree or object to the project. If you wish, you may comment on the project.
Comments can contain language of agreeing with the project, objecting to the project or other
statements regarding the project.
Print Name Du. V Ow \ .) R auhae.. {
Comment SOUJlld') ,;(,., 01 gr<a.t- iof(tA
Signature ~ VJ
Address J 5(0 S' ~~od~ I~ /("(h
Print Name }/\ CA.un. de., J j Um<-S
Comment Vt?"/j4 fJe-chl
ignature
Address \ tD 0 (
~kode.. Is If!!\.
" .
· /Print Name Jd 0. VY\: 1+0 r\ J D c.",,, ~
omment Go 4#kl7? //.JW;/ ZiP 77/8' $O~/
Signature~j ~~ Address 1000 g.hoJ<-J's(t'{l"d
Print Name
Comment
Signature .
Print Name
Comment
Signature
Print Name
Comment
Signature
Print Name
Comment
ignature
02er} ,R,-~
5"" ~ 0 \c1 \ o,(? k f".e- ~. 't-,~.-.-..:Q~ .
Address
15" (oS-
Qu.~~e c..
~y*
Address 7 5~ C
RK~J~-/-kIGr-j
.
Address
Address
- r)-3- o~
I of;;L-.
:- ._~_~_C-,~f- Go l d~ \JQ.1Le.~Q aJ~~-=f1l:pp:eo-l~___
'~_~__W'''-'~____~'' _.. '. . '_'___~__~'___---'-_'_______"_""""',__,_,~~__.""""""""__~__,,.,_~,~~__~_..
-'-------------..-.--__In~rY\-~- of_ 0 ~-O.QJr_Co_k\ft'~_~~-c,~-~-t:----__
~---~--\n~~f-fuJsk"L\m1bL'1--goC1Lsp-C>t<sJ..-~-"~-
------.----c-------.6o~--rC-VOd:.dL~,--..S-1,:)g-'<<:lhC.CL;~CO..~.:-.----fi:J-C"~~---f'txbo!Je.czk..
--------,-~~+---UL~-~-la~tU::-.1.)f:E:~___S" Ict:~.~~tE: O-~__beL{..S€.
_________J:.\,e..,. -th~ (A~ ~_~~_9_.l'.\O-_S_ct t& ---h:e..-.--c~-~.<L___JH.aIJ--^'-
--------::\h-.:~dJ~~~~Ldc~ l~ C<. C-~_~I!:1___,_~~___akM:.9..__~--
--------------.~-~y~1r~Z~-.-~ /f'I t-t_jle..f::--~~_______._______,____.____._________________.~'_
. _~~Ly;~-h~~.i b~-_cl-D,~t'~-~-<lln:e-~<:s_ro"'1-
~vt \ cl ~ ~___~~ ~l '^ \ ~-w-~~~~g..----.-fr:~-~.r~.:H.~J--~q-Yi-t.9...~-.-.----:----
~__~~~\~r;~~~-~~~-~--
_~,_--'-_;__~o +- (3. *" +h l5i\, ~ t Lv t~ +k. Co~i!~-A------
--____----D~~eL'0~ 6v D ~N!- .~.~l~J:hrb.J~-~~----tdseJl-_<>------
__________~CA....~b \ ~ ~___~~ - det-e~ k------J.O~V\~--+;. !:_~________.
~ "S~ ~ l\"'" 6v.r. ~_o.,,~.cl~-L . __________
-,-"------ A~ -t\-L. ~_____P~~-vM---Qn--O-~---~CQ_d-:e..ut.--J--~---
.
------------C6-~~ o'u.4~ c.o~ -to _~___~.!..b---_~- i,.k..~r~~~~.~-
oV\d Wov\.J l..uoY'I'- LJS(J~ I ('J----~ Oi--l L~, 0... ~~_______
_____..___.~___\r\ ~ i As _ () F- DeceV\f1._~ ---j--___b!L__.d.L.d..----.n~~t:____________
____.____ r~+VvV'\. ~.r +0 __~\s__..h~ _j___~ __O-ls~~,-~~--__---
-----___ \r\ l'VV\ j l..o~QO__ +Ol->O-rds __ +k (2-'()-.J~c.J::..~- ___________
AbOv.-t- ~~-ti ~ J!:~~~~~~---_-
_______ '., u ~ (::\.1-' 0 vv h9t'"'rt- Ct/.t\. d S Ol ~___ u...-<-. ____ r\-ee.J -t".J:.__~__~_____...:..
----.--------- bV l ld " v~~ 'Lt-:-:iP_ ~~~__~_~. ____,__________
.--~~~ \-\- 1A.>C<~ o.t ~\S 1I\^r<... _~""+- k _.:6~L~ Lc.s_~~~--
----------~~-~<\<..\ _~__5~v~ ~_~V\_ d --:tE>--~~~1:~--~-~!~~~
-~~=-~=~~v~~;=~~c:~~:~~=(-;~~;..~4-
'~-'6-0:)
:;{ o.t= d-
-.~~AL~<--~-'L~?-'<1t~~(j~t~~J~<1-<P<f~~~_~~
--~,-------of -J'Y.\:o~~--_O.~~.__:f::h~1>---f'fl.,j~___~_~~___+==::a~sL,-_~(j~l4 h~~Vf,.....;___
..---.----....,------~---~~.d.----9-u.J.k.--..-L\..~.~:t-..--fu,Q~-..~-::\o____J.....C~L___.g:.(.L~---~~~f--..-.
.~.---~--.------.-~~ ~-~.---~f2.L-L~~-.:T.J.~.r~.. ~___._ft~/( 1~~....-.::fY'C--9::-~y O-f.l~~:!'J_<:.&._-.-_
. ~ T
___"____~___.:t'O -c;~<.UYl.pk-k:---fu~____P.0_d__-e,gl:-,..~~n.--~J.d-l.:t-i..QO-J..~~Y.1.h-~.-..---____.Oo_
'------'-- ~ib ,'J:> ~cl_._j_-~l--5.-..-~itL--.ncl- 0 ~--------'2-d:~--\l9-L~-"t9.-~.---..-...-
_____________Y"\o ~t-b-u. + lo ri hO.-Jl q,L~-;::bL~--.-.11~tat:t.b-().L&Q-Q ~_.__~_~_'_______
______.___ w.~iJ_____________________.__._.__._.______._..__.._.___..
.-.-------.-.---~-..-.-.-----.-.-----{lL.n~~Ldi_--------_____._.______...._.~_.._____._..__.______._
--..--.--~==~==~~~=~~-=~~=~~~~J -~~~j ~~~~~~~j-~~'~!r:_~~~~~~~~.~~_~=~~~~:__~~.~__~_~___:=__
--_._-_._----~---------'~---~-_.,--,_.-...-^-_.__._----~---'.-------------_._-~--_._._-_.__.__..._..~....~~-.....~._._----~.__.__._--~--"._----".._-_._-~
--~---------_.__.._..._..._-~..._--------_...._-~.._-~._---_.._--...--..----.--....----.-.....------...........-..----".-..-.......---,
,--,-_.~~---_._-'._-----~_._~----_.._--_.._-------._.__._--_._-.;.._._...-------~--_._~-_.------._---_.~-------~.""'---------~~."-"~------'-~----~~'------~~-~.__.----,--_..~~.~-_.,.._-
-...-----'---.-.-..-.-----~---..,...-~-----.._----.----~-.--~---,---.--------------------------_"__~.__.___..___..______,_-.-___-:__._~..___~__..._.M.___~'___..._
._------------------------.....:-.-~._-----------_._------_.~------_..----~-_.~._--
-_._._---~---_._------_._._--~-----~._~---_._----
---------.------:--"-."'----_______A____.-.....___------"_.___~____.~___~__,_~_~~~~._.._._.._......._.~._.---'___...._,...__.___._."___._~___.__._..,.........~...__.__~__~
--.-.--_._._---~~.~-_._-..--,....-----_.~~----------------_...-._----~.-._-'----._--...;.-~._--.,...._----~--~
..-----;---.----...........-----.-.----.--------.-.----.---.---..._....-_....._--,-----_...__......~_...__._..._.._-
,. -.--.-. --~---~._.-.".....~~-----,-<--.:,.."--.._--..._._,,-_.._... .__...,~._..- -~_.__.._...._~--_._-,;-----_... -.- .~--..._--.-. . ---...'-- -.... --..........,---.. ..---...-.------.- .--.-----------...
San. 'MH 61 8/9 Blk. 2 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
FOR: Douglas 3& Catherine MacLaughlin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 15, Block 3, VAL-WOOD ADDITION, HENNEPIN COUNTY. MN.
~I
~i
I
~I
~i
~I
~!
~I
I
~I
~I
~I
I
I.
I
~
.!
~
u
c
8
133.54 Plat
S 89059'55" Jf 133.79 Meas.
K 932. 1
K 932.3
x 931.3
x 928.4
926.4
ow oj
QS QS
a:~
Cl'-.
Cc
t\i.
c~
........
~
39.1 I 28.6 I
lilt) O! I ' waR
".- J~ Deck ~I~
9JO.91x I
931.1 x K 928.0 x 926.5
28.6
Deck ~
<0 ~
oi ~.~ x 927.8
:;: :;)~
II
.., ~ ~ '\;.
".- ~ ~
"
,I
oj """
QS QS
~a:
O)c
QC
C\iC\i
Cc
........
~
..
..
..
lQ
~
-.
~
l:::l
C
~
~
.~ Conerel. Dnv,
.
l:::l
l:::l K 925.6
~
'~
I
IX 928.2
101
I";
1-
K 926.0
".-
x 927.8
I
-.. ~I
III 1
28.6 -I
K 925.7
38.9
K 925.7
925.4
S 89059'34" W
133.84 Meas.
133.54 Plat
926.0
Adjacent House
. Denotes iron monument foond
X 000.0 Denotes existing elev.
- Denotes surface drainage
BENCHMARK: Invert Son. MH Lot 8/9 Blk. 2
Elevation=9.30.30/Rim Elev.=939.7
DEMARS-GABRIEL
ND SURVEYORS, INC.
3030 Harbor Lane No.
Plymouth, UN 55447
Phone:(763) 559-0908
C:\EP\ORAW\ 1 1972.0WG
File No.
11972
I hereby certify thct this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under
my direct supervililon and that I om 0 duly Registered Land Surveyor under the
luws of the eState of Minnesota.
Q:.Qc;;, Go--
David E. 'CroOk
Dote:. .J/I'I ;"3
8ook..,.Poge
411-49
Scole
1"=30'
Minn. Reg. No.
22414
.
.
.
WWW.d.~Um-lt~y
3-7-03
HEARING NOTICE
. .. . Board of Zonina Appeals
1566 Rhode Island Avenue North
Doua MacLauahlin. Applicant
Doug MacLaughlin, with property located at 1566 Rhode Island Avenue
North, has petitioned the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals for a
variance from the Residential zoning district. The applicant is proposing
to build a deck addition onto the existing home. This proposed addition
does not meet building setback requirements. Below is the requested
variance:
. 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
12 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 3 feet at it closest
point to the north side yard property line for the proposed deck
addition.
This petition will be heard at a regular meeting to be held Tuesday,
March 25, 2003, 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.
..
,
ell '
.
532 Cloverleaf Drive
03-03~05
.
Kal Hogenson & Carolynne
Trout
.
.
.
.
Hey
Memorandum
Planning
763--593-8095/763-593-8109 (f,ax)
To:
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
From:
Dan Olson, City Planner
Subject:
532 Cloverleaf Drive (03-03-05)
Kal Hogenson and Carolynne Trout, Applicants
Date:
March 19,2003
,I
Kal Hogenson and Carolynne Trout, with property located at 532 Cloverleaf Drive, are
requesting variances from the Residential zoning cod~ (Section 11.21). The applicants have
approached the City to build a second stall garage addition to the existing home. This project
requires a variance from the following sections of City Code.
· The requested variance is from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(2) 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 between 70 and 100 feet, the side yard setback shall be 15% of the lot
width. The requested variance is for 3.3 feet off the required 11.7 feet to a distance of
8.4 feet at it closest point to the east side yard property line for the proposed garage
addition.
'The City's file on this property reveals that a permit was pulled in April of 1953 for the
construction of the home. No other pertinent information was found in the file.
.
Subject Property: 532 Cloverleaf Drive
Kal Hogenson.& Carolynne Trout,
Applicants
~
{:"
.~--
~.,;~.
,~..~~ .
'0.,0
5201
~~.;
I"
t;
_rL,
I, _'La>
'1"""1'
I
't..
...
"...f"
~
.
. z".zz
~
It:
4
0..
r"'~
t., ~
r
(':;") J
r- [
. \ Il-
o~ '\ ~
\
I."
.
'. Q
w
l&.I
'" U
"to u..
~u..
OIl 0
"'.
o
o
.'0
.' ~
o
z
o
0..
.
.
..
, City of Golden Valley
Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
Zoning Code Variance Application
..':1 ..
Street a.ddress of property involved in this application:
63~ tlt1vevJeaf. lKlVG
2. Applicant: ' Kat M ocoeYlSCM T- G:..rd14Vlv\(' 1kvi-
Name
. 5~;;l (' ,~ ea'- .Dr.
Address
(1Qjd~ Va ~ 55422-
City/Statel ip
"'d-.-h01-b2>SI. J bla f.2?>-.;n, I 7b3 5L/'1 en,
Business Phone Home Phone
Cell Phone
3. If the applicant is not the owner of all property involved in this application, please name the
owner of this property:
J(g,\ HPjektsoVl J.(~f{~
Print Name of owner Signature of owner
I l
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.
J{..l~ ~ h~
ignature 'Of Applicant
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:
-A- Completed application form, including signatures of surrounding property owners.
-L A current or usable survey of the property must be atta.ched. See the handout on survey
requirements.
~ A brief statement of the reasons, necessity, or hardship which provide grounds for the granting
of this v . ee Frequently Asked Questions for an explanation of a "hardship"). Attach
letter photographs, r 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
.
'1 .
, Signatures of Surrounding Property Owner~
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 th~m
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 meantonly 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
y possible effect the granting of this variance could have on your property. You will also be
eceiving a written notice informing you of the time and place of the variance meeting. By signing
this form, you are only verifying that you have been told about the project, not that you
necessarily agree or object to the project. If you wish, you may comment on the project.
Comments can contain language of agreeing with the project, objecting to the project or other
statements regarding the project.
Print Name :Pf\I~~AlAe:L
'Comment Pr-O K
Signature
'?g'ffKL
Address )1'-1 CL()otl1\.fA-y \)(2,
Print Name
Address 5LIO (!j<J\tfy(PJ bv.
Comment
.nature
~ .
Print Name
\\~ ~ c.hGL<.. L_
N : \-<,0 \G:-S
omment
~)._.O -I..i
Signature ~ \ _I~' \t hr~/t&;'bJ
Address :)1)" elcuv('{/fli0t'v-'Z-.
Print Name ---.JY\~.. ~ \il'lh P~"'ct.
Comment2o...tt..e..VVlf~ - OWY\..2..r nof- cJ- 11~ 3/1 o..V\oI 31a.. (!;1lMsf-
Signature
Address51-~ ~(J\JC,Cle(At Dr.
"
.
Print Name ;(/;;1)I/-/E ..~!/f); :oi/w /1( a.8l:?2/li ~I<'y
(
Comment
,
Signature ;?ded~
Address 520r tJie;<< /fw. #wy
/
Print Name
Comment
Signature
Address
Print Name...
Comment
egnature
Address
~l.
.
.
.
I
532 Cloverleaf Drive- Request for Variance on east side setback
Current garage is 16.4 feet from lot line. We are proposing to rebuild our garage 8 feet
wider. 8.4 feet would remain to lot line.
Reasons for requesting variance:
In 1954 when our house was built, it was common to only have 1 car or 1 driver per
family. We both have cars and need to use them daily to get to work. We want to update
our house to make it more usable by today's standard of living. It is a hardship to have to
park outside, especially during the winter. Since we both have to park in the driveway,
there is no room for visiting family or friends. to park and someone must park on the road.
Parking on the road can be unsafe and unsightly.
2 car garages are the standard in our neighborhood, which is located just east of Highway
100 and just south of Highway 55. 41 of the 43 houses in our neighborhood have 2 car
garages. We want our house to conform to the standard of the rest of the homes in
neighborhood and improve property values for us and for our neighborhood. We believe
that "this change is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the city's zoning laws and does
not substantially change the character of Golden Valley or the neighborhood."
The house next door to garage is set back at least 30' from their lot line. There should be
ample room for emergency vehicles if necessary. Since we are only increasing the width
of our garage by 8 feet, there should be a minimal difference visually (see photos). The
usefulness of our property, however, will be greatly increased.
~
wwmd.goWmll~y
, 3-7-03
HEARING NOTICE
Board ofZoninQ Appeals
532 Cloverleaf Drive
Kal HOQenson And Carolvnne Trout. Applicants
Kal Hogenson and Carolynne Trout, with property located at 532
Cloverleaf Drive, have petitioned the Golden Valley Board of Zoning
Appeals for a variance from the Residential zoning district. The
applicants are proposing to build a garage addition onto the existing
home. This proposed addition does not meet building setback
requirements. Below is the requested variance:
,I
. 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: Inthe case of lots having a width between 70 and
100 feet, the side yard setback shall be 15% of the lot width. The
requested variance is for 3.3 feet off the required 11.7 feet to a
distance of 8.4 feet at it closest point to the east side yard
property line for the proposed garage addition.
This petition will be heard at a regular meeting to be held Tuesday,
March 25, 2003, 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.
.
74.0 MEAS
NEL Y. COR. LOT 8
..
L 0
~
lD
..,.
N
o
<0
0'
-.....J
(J
\...:...
~
,,'
rv
-
8
:/
N
-/
ISf
/
/
I
/
/
I
CLOVER
co
c>>
N
~~fC'
1,8.<
v
cv;:":'\
()
-......J
<J
'C
~
co'
~
-
LOT
..~
..
';;f-
..~
.~
R
V;
3!
~.
:>"//-
....; 11)'
tiil _
9
"
Cl')~
i~
!2
<<>6
:it
!2
Del t.
0:::::17.
L:::::7 46'
R~.8..j 0,3"
':::::J6~
( 4. 33
CAJ..C)
<0.0
BEARING SYSTEM ASSUMED
<0.0
o
.....
f.-
a
-......./
N
SCALE IN FEET
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
AS-SURVEYED DESCRIPTION:
THAT PART OF LOT 8. BLOCK 1, CLOVER LEAF TERRACE, HENNEPIN COUNTY,
MINNESOTA, LYING EASTERLY OF A LINE DRAWlNFROM THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER
THEREOF, TO A POIINT ON THE SOUTH LINE THEREOF, LYING 15.00 FEET WESTERLY
OF THE SOUTHEASTERL Y CORNER THEREOF. MEASURED ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE.
TOGETHER WITH THAT PART OF LOT 9, SAID BLOCK 1,
L YlNG WESTERLY OF THE EASTERLY 20.00 FEET THEREOF,
MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLE TO THE EASTERLY LINE THEREOF.
CONTAINING 10,800 S.F. MORE OR LESS, AND SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS OF RECORD.
LEGEND
. IRON MONUMENT FOUND
o IRON PIPE SET
liQIE;..THIS SURVEY IS FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF
THE INDIVIDUALS. CORPORATIONS. AND/OR PARTIES NAMED THEREON.
AND STANDARD OF WORK FOR SURVEYOR BASED UPON
"NORMAL" STANDARD OF CARE REQUIRED BY LAW
o
~..II 111.1 I
40
60 CAROLYN TROUT
532 CLOVER LEAF DRIVE
GOLDEN VALLE~ MN 55422
612..,.607-6351 (W)
00 :::.t.1 II-' vvt.t< IVI'" 35.3 MEAS
N90.00'00"E 90. . ,""ED I ROO. --d'>----e
rt."....t. 8 · 31.4 L 7'
_ ~ _ _1-fT-"nLlTY...':"'."T_ __ _ _ _____ _-"'- _ _ _ _ _ _/___
1
/
/
/
1
/
0,1
CONe
............""
("" /[} ""-
.[} ,. "-
"'~"'ls
""-..
C&:G
LEAF
DR/ VE:
o
<0
@
Y & MAPPING SPECIALISTS
T10N PROHIBITED '.
20
""-..
""-..
"'.
767
~~[l
)f\ ~STS
. LAND SURVEYING . LANO DESCRIPlIONS
· CONSTRUCTION STAl<ING . SUBDIVISION PlATS
rou.. FREE (a77) 727-0171 I'AX (320) 854-0171
CENTRAL I/N (320) 255-0171 P.o. BOX 414
NW -~o (7.'", .,~_n'71 c....t' D.l.Dln.C!: u.. iIta...,.."
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
~
~.~
.
7950 Wesley Drive
,
03-03-06
.
Brian & Margaret Hoefer
.
.
.
.
Hey
Memorandum
Planning
763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
To:
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
Dan Olson, City Planner
From:
Subject:
7950 Wesley Drive (03-03-06)
Brian and Margaret Hoefer, Applicants
Date:
March 19,2003
,.
Brian and Margaret Hoefer, with property located at 7950 Wesley Drive, are requesting
variances from the Residential zoning code (Section 11.21 ). The applicants have
approached the City to build a deck addition to the rear of the existing home. This deck
meets building setback requirements. However, a survey was submitted for this project. and
it was discovered that the existing home and detached garage do not meet setback
requirements. This project requires variances from the following sections of City Code.
· The first requested variances are 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 variances requested are for .7 feet off the required 35 feet to a
distance of 34.3 feet at its closest point to the front property line along Wesley Drive
for the existing home; and for 5.4 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 29.6 feet
at its closest point to the front property line along Wesley Drive for the existing garage.
· The second requested variance is from Section 11.21, Subd. 12 (A)' Accessory
Buildings. City Code states that a detached garage shall be located completely
behind the principal structure. The existing detached garage was built in a location
not completely behind the existing home.
The City's file on this property reveals that a permit was pulled in October of 1959 for the
construction of the home. No other pertinent information was found in the file.
.
Subject Property: 7950 Wesley Drive
Brian & Margaret Hoefer, Applicants
.
. .
.
\
\
~
II<
~
~
~
t.;;
I
j
.
.
.
(Revised 1/99)
Petition Numbe r
03- 03- 0'
Date Received
;J II 8/0 '3
I
Amount Received S-P. Ob
($50 residential - $150 other)
PETITION FOR ORDINANCE WAIVER
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
1. Street address of property involved in this petition:
795'"0 (d ~~I~J 'bY" \ \1e....
2. BZA Petition Date 3/ /)5 I~ 3
3.
Petitioner: BY"{e...V\, 4- W\.~j~ I-+oe~'
Name
71 &b we.!>lea 'Do" v.....t%"IJ-. tf/..,!.e... "'4. ~y "'-7
AddressC<.ity/StaiE:liZlp
(fS:1 ) 1./&13 - Cj (,$ ,)( llf~' 2.. . . (7 G, 3) s it S - () ~ 9 7
Business Phone Home Phone
4. If petitioner is not owner of all property involved in this petition, please name property
owner and d~scribe petitioner's interest (legal and other) in this property:
5. Legal Description of property involved in this petition (found on survey):
Lot: <t J H/oc.K.') ~o/tll!!,n Oo..K.s
? ~ .#dd;.l:u"tYY1) H~ne.;PI'V1 ~/~~?) mAl
6. Type of property involved in this petition:
Residential: VSingle Family _ Double Dwelling _ Multiple Dwelling
Industrial
Commercial
Institutional
Bus. & Prof. Office
Other
.
7.
Detailed d~scription 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 maybe approved and cannot be changed before or after the building
permit issued~
6.... t,.. J ..h-..J...-.... h' I h~ ~,. '/'.k"!:!.;H ~d .... ,,~e... 4:-~.... ....,$.....
b~ ~;~ ./~~~.
I
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. Proposec;l
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 th~ house
and all other buildings to the front and side property lines shall be sllown.
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 $ $" o. _0 representing the
Board of Zoning Appeals Application Fee.
~h-II. >
, ,'I
Si · eofApplicani ~~
UNLESS CONSTRUCTION OR THE ACTION APPLICABLE TO THIS WAIVER REQUEST, IF
RANTED, IS NOT TAKEN WITHIN ONE YEAR, THE WAIVER EXPIRES.
~.
The applicant will need to obtain the signatures of all adjacent property owners. This.includes
all properties abutting the applicant's property and directly across the street. If on a corner, this
means across both streets.
. NOTE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: This petition is application for waiver of
Ordinance(s) of the City Zoning Code. Please be aware of any possible effect'the granting of
this waiver could have on your property. All property owners adjacent to the subject property
will receive a notice of the Board of Zoning Appeals hearing, at which they may ptesent their
views. Your signature is required only to verify that you have been told about the request and
gives the adjacent property owner opportunity to comment.
(Comments can contain language of agreeing with the project, objecting to the project or
other statements regarding the project)
p.
-
Jo 5 ~O t..
I
f . :Dale- JtJ r,
Signature
,I
Address 7
Print Name
. Comment
Signature
Ac;tdress ~ I ~ L~ 1>~,
Print Name~ fJv.tc
~~ Comment ~
f(~
~"':";1
Signature ~Jt.
Address ~n~1J.
Print Name
Comment
Signature.....
."
Print Name
Comment
Signature
Print Name
Comment
Signature
rint Name
Comment
Signature
Print Name
Comment:
Signature
Print Name
Comment
, Signature
Address tj ~ ~OC12.$
Address
Address
Address
Address
.
.
.
Brian & Margaret Hoefer
7950 Wesley Drive
Golden Valley~ MN 55427
763/545-0297
Legal Description of Property: Lot 9, Block 1, Golden Oaks, 3rd Addition
The house, as built in 1962, has been determined by city inspector, Jerry Pavel, as
non-conforming. He stated in a plan review, "West comer of house does not appear to
meet set back. Advise survey / variance required". We purchased the property on June
27, 2002 with no knowledge of this issue, but have been working to resolve thi~ matter
since discovery. .
We are requesting the variance in order to resolve an issue that initially began
when the house was built 40 years prior. We feel that since the house was permitted by
the city of Golden Valley to be constructed in its' existing footprint and that correcting
this issue would be a significant hardship that we should be granted this variance.
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
:Z
w
::>
z
w
>
<(
Vl
e::
w
o
..J
<(
>
6 0
"
."
15.48C
5/16" RESAR FNO
"':
.....
ClO
==
"
o
o
'b
g
o
z
35.0 TO FND
4
15.38C
CONffiACTOR NOTE:
PROPOSED SffiUCTURES SHOWN ARE
GENERAL REPRESENTATIONS OF A PLAN
PRO~DED BY CUENT AND ARE NOT
INTENDED TO aE COMPLETE NOR ACCURATE.
CONSULT ARCHITECTUAL PLAN FOR ANY AND
ALL PROPOSED DESIGN FEATURES.
DIMESNIONS. ETC.
llQIE;.lHIS SURVEY IS fOR lHE SOLE BENEFIT Of
lHE INDI\IIDI,IALS. CORPORAllONS, AND/OR PARTIES NAMED lHEREON.
AND STANDARD Of WORK fOR SURvEYOR BASED UPON
"NORMAL" STANDARD Of CARE REQUIRED BY LA~
~
41.5
liJ
~<9I
ERTIFICAT~F
8
AGENT OR COUNTY ~~l,f~~T.
NO llllE RESEARCHCONDUClED.
UNLESS NOlED
.,
::i
LOT AREA: 12.960::1: S.F.
IMPERIOUS AREA: 2875::1: S.F.
COVERAGE: 22%
PROPOSED BUILDING AREA: _ S.F.
PROPOSED IMPER~OUS AREA: _::I: S.F.
PRoPOSED COVERAGE: ---"
TRACT
"1"
e
.~
N
~
It)
ad
o
...
w
"
o
It)
;...
P T R ACT .. J"
~8
z
..;- APPAR[NT 1M) FENCE
i/ ENCROAOIAENT
BEARING SYSlEM~
SCALE IN FEET
e
~
e
~
o
20 40
LEWIll
X SPIKE (NAlL) SET
. IRON MONUMENT_ rOUND
o IRON PIPE SET
...8:. NAIL Be BRASS DISK SET
X25.0 SPOT ELEVAllON
ASSUMED DATUM (EXCEPT MlERE NOlED)
60
l
e
2
~
?'
S!
f;l
de
.,
..
.,
e
N8S"46.1O.W 106.7
t 1;;:-iPF- --- - _ _
j>
BRIAN &: MARGARET HOEFER
7950 we:SLEY DRIVE
GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427
763-545-0297 (H) 1061
o
CD
WESLEY
DRIVE
. UHD SUInOM . LNI) lJElSICMl"ROMS
. CQfC51RUC1IOIf STAIGNG- SIBJMSI(IN . PLA 1$
::-.::"..t== =='~"
___ (JIS).........,.. ,.............".
~
SURVEY-
SPECIALlSl'li
@ 2002 SURVEY It MAPPING SPEOAUSTS
REPRODUCllON PROHtllITED
--
~ecreation
Parkway
MN55426-1364 '
W_d.goUm_vll~ Y
.
3-7-03
HEARING NOTICE
Board of Zonina Appeals
7950 Wesley Drive
Brian and Maraaret Hoefer, Applicants
Brian and Margaret Hoefer, with property located at 7950 Wesley Drive,
has petitioned the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals for variances
from the Residential zoning district. The applicants are proposing to
build a deck addition onto the existing home. This proposed addition
meets building setback requirements. However, a survey was
submitted for the property and it was discovered that the existlng home
and detached garage do not meet building setback Iequirements. Below
are the requested variances:
. 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 f<?r .7 feet off the
required 35 feet to a distance of 34.3 feet at its closest point to
the front property line along Wesley Drive for toe existing home.
. Section 11.21, Subd. 12 (A) Accessory Buildings. City Code
states that a detached garage shall be located completely behind
the principal structure. The existing detached garage was built in
a location not completely behind the existing home.
This petition will be heard at a regular meeting to be held Tuesday,
March 25, 2003, 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.
.