08-26-03 BZA Agenda
e
e
e
Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, August 26, 2003
7pm
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chambers
I.
Approval of Minutes - July 22, 2003
II.
The Petitions are:
6610 Glenwood Avenue (03-07-30)
Scott and Erika Charlesworth-Seiler, Applicants
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C) Side Yard Setbacks
. 7.4 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 7.6 ft. at its closest
point to the east side property line for the proposed construction of
a garage and mudroom addition.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a proposed new garage and
mudroom addition.
401 Sunnyridge Lane (03-07-34)
Lvnne Gaardsmoe, Applicant
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 12(A) Accessory Buildings
. 3.90 ft. off the required 5 ft. to a distance of 1.1 ft. at its closest
point to the south side yard property line for a proposed garage
addition.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a second garage stall on an existing
single stall garage.
120 King Hill Road (03-08-40)
Thomas Berscheid, Applicants
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(B) Rear Yard Setbacks
. 9.18 ft. off the required 25.18 ft. to a distance of 16.0 ft. at its
closest point to the west side (rear) property line for the
construction of a deck addition.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a proposed new deck addition.
7955 23rd Avenue North (03-08-41)
Amv & John Dahle, Applicants
e
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 12(A) Accessory Buildings
. Detached accessory buildings shall be located wholly to the rear of
the house or main building to which it is incidental.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a conforming addition which when
built would make the existing house become out of conformance
with accessory building requirements.
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setbacks
. 1 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 34 ft. at its closest point
to the front (north) property line along 23rd Avenue North for the
existing home.
Purpose: To bring the existing home into conformance with building setback
requirements.
1300 France Avenue South (03-08-42)
Steve Mever, Applicant
e
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setbacks
. 18.45 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 16;55 ft. at its
closest point to the front yard property line for the existing home
along Wayzata Boulevard.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a proposed new bedroom addition
above the existing garage.
3321 Scott Avenue North (03-08-44)
Jan Van Oppen, Applicant
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setbacks
. 2.3 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 32.7 ft. at its closest
point to the front yard property line along Scott Avenue North to
replace an existing deck.
Purpose: To allow for the replacement of a conforming existing deck on the
rear of the home.
e III. Other Business
IV. Adjournment
2
1
,
.
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
July 22,2003
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Monday,
July 22,2003, in the Council Chambers, 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, Smith and Planning
Commission Representative Shaffer. Also present were Director of Plan. and
Development Mark Grimes and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman
II. The Petitions are:
rried unanimously to approve the
I. Approval of Minutes - June 24, 2003
Shaffer referred to page 3, second paragraph and stated th
to the word "talk".
Shaffer referred to page 4, second paragraph and statt*
"and that" were used need to be deleted.
Shaffer referred to page 5, first paragraph and s
sentence needs to be deleted.
.
MOVED by Smith, seconded by Shaffe
June 24, 2003 minutes with the a
ection 11.21, Subd. 7(C) Side Yard Setbacks
the required 15 ft. to a distance of 7 ft. at its closest point to
t side property line for a deck and screened porch addition.
To allow for the construction of a proposed deck and 3-season
porch addition.
Grimes the location on a site map and explained the applicant's proposal. He
stated that the existing deck did not receive a variance when it was originally built and
that he believed it was built without a permit.
.
Smith asked if the proposed new deck addition would have the same setback intrusion
as the current deck there now. Grimes explained that the proposed addition would be
smaller in size than the current deck, but that the intrusion into the setback would be
the same.
Shaffer asked if a portion of the proposed addition would be a deck. Wally Langfellow,
applicant, stated that six feet of the new addition would be a ground level deck.
.
Minutes ofthe Board of Zoning Appeals
July 22, 2003
Page 2
Smith asked the applicants if they lived in the home when the original deck was built.
Mr. Langfellow stated yes they did.
Cera stated that he did not see a hardship in this case and asked the applicants to
define the hardship. Mrs. Langfellow said that the hardships are the set-up of the
house, the slope, the fact that the back of the house is two stories, the living room and
two bedrooms are in the back of the house, and that the natural flow of the house is to
put the addition where they are proposing it to be located
Shaffer suggested
it would be ab t
lie stated that after
for the proposed addition
ing the existing deck
explained that the size of
be built for a dining room
Idn't work and noted that this
k requirement. Schmidt stated that he
ing door to a sliding door and that the
. Sell stated that the proposal now sounds
asual 3-season porch that he thought it was
McCracken-Hunt asked if the proposed addition could be made narr
have less of a setback intrusion. Mrs. Langfellow stated that they n'
and they are planning to use the space as a summer room an
would spend most of their time.
McCracken-Hunt suggested rotating the addition to save two
Langfellow said they would then have to build around . c
.
Tom Schmidt, Tomeo Company, Inc., Contracto
listening to the applicant's wants.and needs the
would be where the current deck is locate
space hasn't been obtrusive to neighbo
the proposed addition is the smallest
table for six. Sell asked why a 12
variance request is for more th
had already changed the door
setback for the table to a
more like a formal dinin
proposed to be.
,.;[oposed addition around the chimney and stated that
1r footage. Schmidt said that would work.
oard is trying not to affect neighbors and the neighborhood
n porch has a bigger impact than the open deck that has
racken-Hunt, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve
ired 15 ft. to a distance of 9 ft. at its closest point to the west side
property II or a deck and screened porch addition. Cera voted against the proposal
because he felt there was no hardship.
.
6610 Glenwood Avenue (03-07 -30)
Erika & Scott Charlesworth-Seiler, Applicants
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7{C) Side Yard Setbacks
.
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
July 22, 2003
Page 3
. 7.4 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 7.6 ft. at its closest
point to the east side property line for the construction of a garage
and mudroom addition.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a proposed new garage and
mudroom addition.
Grimes explained the applicant's request to build an addition on their existing garage,
which received a variance in 1978. He said that if the proposal is appr Building
Official is going to require that the applicant prove where the east pr line
located.
Shaffer stated that i
the Board of Z
would have a g
erty
he lot in
ked if they
e yor's stakes
a fence. He stated
t erty line. He
ddition to act like a buffer
Scott Charlesworth-Seiler, applicant showed the Board som
and stated that he and his neighbor pulled a line along the
order to determine the location of the east property line. McC
found the irons. Charlesworth-Seiler stated no, but th
that were on his neighbor's property from recentl
that there is 9.3 feet between the existing garag
explained that they have a need for the propos
against the cold air that enters right into t
.
Cera asked what the hardship is in reg
the spot they are proposing to put
work because there is no other
itse . Charlesworth-Seiler said that
n is the only spot that would
orne from the garage.
Shaffer explained that if t
foot wide garage left on
able to fit in a garage tha
to approve this proposal, there would be.an 18-
~racken-Hunt added that two cars wouldn't be
ever sold the house the new owner could come to
a request for a side yard variance because they
ould not be usable as a two car garage.
that they are trying to stay with the style of the neighborhood
ay is right on the property line.
d building the garage addition to the front. Charlesworth-Seiler stated
ng on building the garage addition to the front and clarified for the
wing on his survey, where he intended to build the garage addition.
.
Shaffer said that he is concerned about this proposal because the applicant would be
taking out a two car garage and setting up a situation for more variance requests in the
future. He suggested denying the request or tabling it to allow the applicant to come up
with another option for the garage addition. Charlesworth-Seiler stated that he had
been working on these plans for two years and that the back of his lot drops down a
story and a half and this is the best way to do the proposed addition.
.
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
July 22, 2003
Page 4
Sell stated that he agreed with Shaffer that there are just too many other options for a
different location for the proposed garage addition.
MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to table the
applicants request for six months.
30 Jersey Avenue South (03-07-31)
James Bunin & Marcia Kohn-Bunin, Applicants
.
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(B) Re
. 6 ft. off the required 27 ft. to a distance
to the rear yard property line for the exi
. 6 ft. off the required 27 ft. to a dis
to the rear yard property line
closest point
new deck addition.
Purpose: To allow for the constructio
existing deck.
Request:
.
a distance of 14.6 ft. at its closest
rty line for the house and deck.
Purpose:
ome into conformance with building setback
ection 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback.
ff the required 35 ft. to a distance of 34.8 ft. at its closest point to the
roperty line for the existing house along Western Ave.
0.2 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 34.8 ft. at its closest point to the
east property line for the existing house along Jersey Ave. S.
To bring the existing home into conformance with building setback
requirements.
.
Grimes discussed tf1e history of this property. He stated that a deck addition was built in
1991 using a survey that didn't show that a house addition had been added on to it in
1980. Therefore, the deck addition in 1991 did not receive the variances it should have
so the above listed variance requests take care of all of the non-conforming issues on
the lot.
.
Minutes ofthe Board of Zoning Appeals
July 22, 2003
Page 5
Shaffer stated that it was almost the City creating the hardship in this case. He said that
the deck being proposed isn't imposing any further into the setback area so he doesn't
have any issues with it.
MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Smith and motion carried unanimously to approve the
following requests:
.
. 6 ft. off the required 27 ft. to a distance of 21 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard
property line for the existing deck.
. 6ft. off the required 27 ft. to a distance of 21 ft. at its closest p
property line for the proposed new deck addition.
· .4 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 14.6 ft. at its
side property line for the house and deck.
· 0.2 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 34.8 ft.
line for the existing house along Western Av
· 0.2 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of
for the existing house along Jersey Av
Request:
n 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setbacks
uired 5 ft. to a distance of 31 ft. at its closest point
rd property line for the existing home along North
w for the construction of a new front porch addition.
applicant would like to add a covered open porch to the front
typically the Board has been allowing five feet into the front yard
setback n porches. He explained that the Planning Commission is considering
allowing five feet into the front yard setback for open front porches in the Zoning Code
updates they are working on.
.
McCracken-Hunt asked the applicant if he would like to change his r.equest to 5 feet off
the required 35 feet to a distance of 30 feet at its closest point to the front property line.
Marc Nanne, applicant said that he appreciated the Board offering one foot more than
he is requesting, but that he didn't want the proposed front porch to look like a car port.
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
July 22,2003
Page 6
.
MOVED by McCracken-Hunt, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to
approve 5 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 30 ft. at its closest point to the front
yard property line for the existing home along North Cortlawn Circle (realizing there is a
curve along that street).
6510 S. Cortlawn Circle (03-07-33)
Joan Thompson & Drew Hamre, Applicants
Grimes explain
new deck in th
property t t i
to be m
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C) Side Y
. 0.1 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance
point to the northwest side yard prope
replacement.
st
Purpose: To allow for the reconstruction of
same location.
Request: Front Yard Setbacks
.
. 2 ft. off the require
to the front yard p
of 33 ft. at its closest point
a deck replacement.
to a distance of 34.94 ft. at its .closest
r the existing house.
Purpose:
struction of an existing deck to built in the
ts are requesting to replace an existing deck with a
o e added that he is concerned about a shed on the
utility easement and recommended that the Board require it
of approval of these variance requests.
nt's contractor, explained that the shed in the utility easement
nd will be replaced by a 4-season porch that conforms to setback
.
MOVED by haffer, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to approve the
following variance requests with the condition that the existing shed located in a utility
easement will be removed. McCracken-Hunt noted that the hardships are the angles of
the lot and the fact that the deck had been permitted to be built in the same location in
the past:
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
July 22, 2003
Page 7
.
. 0.1ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 14.9 ft. at its closest point to the
northwest side yard property line for a deck replacement
. 2 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 33 ft. at its closest point to the front yard
property line for a deck replacement
. 0.06 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 34.94 ft. at its closest point to N.
Cortlawn Circle for the existing house
401 Sunnyridge Lane (03-07-34)
Lvnne Gaardsmoe, Applicant
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 12(
. 3.90 ft. off the required 5 ft. to a
point to the south side yard
addition.
its closest
roposed garage
.
Purpose: To allow for the cons
single stall garage
garage stall on an existing
The applicant was not present. T
26, 2003 Board of Zoning App
bled the request to the August
ection 11.21, Subd. 7(C) Side Yard Setbacks
the required 15 ft. to a distance of 9 ft. at its closest point to
h side yard property line for a proposed room addition.
6 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 9 ft. at its closest point to
the north side yard property line for the existing home.
Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd, 7(A) Front Yard Setbacks
. 5 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 30 ft. at its closest point
to the front yard property line along Angelo Drive for the existing
home.
.
Grimes stated that the applicant's home was built in 1910. He referred to the survey
and explained how the proposed room addition would fill in the area behind the house,
north of the garage.
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
July 22, 2003
Page 8
.
Shaffer asked if the Board should also be granting a variance for the existing deck in
the front as well. Grimes stated that a variance for 5 feet off the required 35 feet to a
distance of 30 feet at its closest point to the front yard property line along Angelo Drive
for the existing deck was mentioned in his staff report and should also be added to the
above list of variance requests.
Cheryl Scruton, applicant showed the Board pictures of the property and pointed out
how the house has four different roof lines. She stated that the neighb her is
up on a hill and has a pool with concrete surrounding it which cause off
and ends up causing water problems in her basement. She expla' d e
proposed room addition would help alleviate the water run off R ems.
.
ft. to a distance of 9 ft. at its closest point to the north side
roposed room addition.
e 5 ft. to a distance of 9 ft. at its closest point to the north side
for the existing home.
quired 35 ft. to a distance of 30 ft. at its closest point to the front yard
e along Angelo Drive for the existing home.
. 5 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 30 ft. at its closest point to the front yard
property line along Angelo Drive for the existing deck.
Ission
side
or every 1 0
c;ade at all. Grimes
e so imposing.
Shaffer discussed the possible Zoning Code changes that t
has been considering. He said this proposal is a good examp
setback rule of increasing the side setback after 40 fee .
feet to discourage houses being 60 feet long with
stated that in this case it is only a one story add'
.
Smith stated that he thinks this lot certainl
added that the addition is not going anYc
scale.
sues. McCracken-Hunt
y line and that it is lower in
Roger and Kathy Bortnem, 113
their support in allowing the a
what has been done to the
encouraged to keep ma .
ated they came to the meeting to. voice
ro her property. Mr. Bortnem stated that
r is marvelous and the applicant should be
ts.
MOVED by Smith,
following variance r
era and motion carried unanimously to approve the
.
.
.
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
July 22, 2003
Page 9
335 Burntside Drive (03-07-36)
Jon Brusven. Applicant
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C) Side Yard Setbacks
. 1.1 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 13.9 ft. at its closest
point to the south side property line for the existing garage.
MOVED by Shaffer, sec
ft. off the required 15 ft. t
property line for th . ti
7810 Ewald Terrace (03-07-37)
Audre Zibelman & Jan LeSuer A
Purpose: To bring the existing home into conformance with
requirements to allow for the replacement of an
MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Smith and motion carried un
ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 13.9 ft. at its closest
property line for the existing garage.
Request: Waiver from Section
. . 2.4 ft. off the requ'
point to the ea
Side Yard Setbacks
nce of 16.6 ft. at its closest
for the existing house.
Purpose:
"of a conforming family room addition.
l()lfnd motion carried unanimously to approve 2.4
ce of'6.6 ft. at its closest point to the east side
e.
Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setbacks
. 0.9 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 34.1 ft. at its closest
point to the front property line along Kyle Avenue for the existing
house.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a conforming expanded breezeway.
.
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7C Side Yard Setbacks
. 1.1 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 13.9 at its closest point
to the side north property line for the existing house.
.
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
July 22,2003
Page 10
,
Purpose: To bring the existing home into conformance with building setback
requirements.
MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Smith and motion carried unanimously to approve 0.9
ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 34.1 ft. at its closest point to the front property
line along Kyle Avenue for the existing house and 1.1 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a
distance of 13.9 at its closest point to the north side property line for the existing house.
IV. Adjournment
III. Other Business
No other business was discussed.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 pm.
.
.
,t
.
6610 Glenwood Avenue
. Scott & Erika Charlesworth-Seiler
03-07 -30
.
.
.
Planning
763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
August 18,2003
To:
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
From:
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject:
6610 Glenwood Ave. (03-07-30)
Scott and Erika Charlesworth-Seiler, Applicants
Staff has revised the site plan to indicate how the new garage will be constructed on the lot. Staff
has not discussed the revised site plan with the applicant.
~I IW ~y. yvyur
AND
Civil Eneineer
~LA-r Uf- SURVEY
Hopkins, Minn. 55343
Telephone 938-5678
LOCATION
(;,(,.lO
Daniel
~'ll>\~ K.. 0' 6rie~
G\enwoo& A\Je. Go\c:lel"\ \Jd\\ey .., l't\n
Th~t ?ar1" of Lot q \';1 iV\.q ~ou.*\;. of"
.A.u..cli +or)s SUbdiv \s\ D~ No. ~L '-
'H~ noMn 4~"2.. feet -there.of
OF PROPERTY OF
!.
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS
I
}
I
I
---y-
----
: ,J
~~
I
(""
, f :
.-' ~
--I
l'
I
, ...
,
U I. \
". ,
,
,- --
.
.." ...,
\ I
, ".'
J
0-
r
R€d.o;. P(oPCS-ed. Aok~\'{;Qn
Blue,; eX'Stir'\j <jcx/CA'je
..... ...,'
r1 2(" ,
-t
..g 4-1. "
. "l.t: 0
~
'" ~
~ov ('l
~ oj ('J
..:+." ~ 1"1
I ~ I
':J
.1 i I
'-......
" I
.........\
....,
'?
~
,
,
00,
"be::: f'\O*~'S, lr-o", mot'\u.meV\t
'Sc..al.e', \. '= 40'
o
I
1
I
I
CERTIFICATE OF LOCATION OF BUILDING
~~
~ ,.,"'1 "
~ CERn~JCATE OF SURVEY
I hereby certify that on ~ 17 192L
I surveyed the property dcscnDcd a 've and that the above plllt
is a correct representation of said survey.
"-
"
I hereby certify that Oll.- 19_
l made II survey of the location of the building(s) on the above
described property and'that the location of said building(s) is
. correctly shown on the above plat.
~- Jl. ~
'.
July 28th, 2003
Jo Whom It May Concern:
At the July 22nd Zoning Commision meeting, our request for a variance was
tabled when the Commission indicated that they did not believe that our
proposal allowed for enough interior garage space to meet possible needs of
future owners, thus setting up a situation where a future owner of the property
may request a further variance to remove the hardship of an unduly small
garage. We appreciate the Commision's cooperation in offering to table the
request rather than vote it down in a way that would have led us to need to refile
from the very beginning.
OUf request for variance remains to move four feet closer to the property line on
the east of the garage, to a distance of 7' 6". This allows us to keep the interior
width of the garage within the suggestions of reasonableness offered by the
commission. We have changed our plan for an 8 foot wide mudroom to a 4 foot
entry way and stairwell. We have am mended our plan to try to meet the
concerns that the Commision voiced.
.
Though the new plan does not satisfy all of the hopes we had for this project, it
does address most of them. Given the placement of our kitchen in our house
(and where the house sits on the property) it provides for the best option (in
terms of cost and maintaining the character of the home style) for enlarging an
out of date and unsatisfactory kitchen by incorporating the current basement
stairway into the kitchen after the completion of a new stairway. It accomplishes
the attachment of the gargage (currently there is no direct access), to the house
without having to sacrifice a bedroom. And, it provides some space for entry
from the garage and outside that will reduce the hazard of having the outside
door directly at the top of the basement stairs. The plan also accomplishes the
added benefits of improving the backyard space, and providing some much need
additional storage at the back end of the garage. This extra storage is a result
of moving the garage forward and lengthening it, not from the additional width for
which we are asking for a variance.
Please note the ammended drawings showing our plans. Thank you for your
attention. We will gladly answer any questions which remain.
S~~-r~~
~"., ~~ ~
.
Scott and Erika
Charlesworth-Seiler
6610 Glenwood Avenue
542-9366
.~
.-b
~~
~~
o~c::
>i
,i-r
~: i
;. !
. .
. .
. ,
._.~ i, i
i !
!
I
II
! I
~
I..J Ii
~
! I
I
I
,
I
,-
I!
II
ili
il!
!!'
~
~.
({J' "-
I..
." I '1\
~A
-t.
~I~
I
!
;
i
;
I'~
i ~
l~
I
!
,
I
I
!
I
:::-l
~.
~I
~
\'(
: ' ~ \
'.~i 01t~;;-
I :. _ __ ~"=' r. rl
, ., v
I, "~ .~. L-C:i
t
:.. ........."." i
I ~ 'r:~f:'", · I
.tJY--[- ~..-x ...~ 1
'1'/ f
~h /
.. I
.1
'~'-~-
I '
I
!
- .;.j
-q-
~
"\
1 :
i .
I
I;
I:
! .
. T--O-"'';---',-,- -
-r -
I
i
I
"
i:
; .
I,
! .
__ 0-')
I ,,'
>1
,
i
I
I
I
I
I
: .~
--- rf.J"~ \
~ I .
r ~-
I? 'ftfl? ':;;/"P/;
,., --:. ,.r.. p..= J./l :?
()rt~r~D 7- .,....-
! I
i
C:>
z-.r-?""?{'T ~"lIWf-:'FIft'7 r~
:tl. 'V /y NY r"I"1I(~/9 C?I.~~
& ~ ~ b - ;;;";'S-$~t ../~/.';P f ~t? I'?s:;>/~r.y!J ~~.,;i.K??,.ftP-::>:;
04t:>:f-
City of Golden Valley
I ,
Board Qf Zoning Appeals (BZA)
Zoning Code Variance Application
For Office Use Only: ,
Application r-.lo.
Date Received'""\... \~b$o,
BZA Meeting'Date 1~-z..'to'6'
Amount Received..... 50 .'
1. Street address of property involved in this applicatiory:
4.d..e,J D '61f'~/I (, 'opJ Av-~~
2. Applicant: I E?"Y'\ ' k fA ~ S l 0 H- Cl1ilid e SL 1DvTt; - \(7 I') e r
Name
{P h J D& Ip (/)(.( J oct) A\I R~
Address .
('XJ ld€v1 ~J i I p u ,Q;?-.} 2:::;-
Cily/State!Zij1
Business Phone
-=ita 5 b-Y ?~ q .3 (0 ~
Home Phone
Cell Phone
3. Ifthe applicant is hot the owner of all property involved in this application, please name the
owner of this property:
Print Name of owner
Signature of owner
4. To the best of my knowledge the statements found in this application are true and correct. I also
understand that unless construction ofthe action applicable to this variance request, if granted,
is not taken within one year, the variance expires.
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.
-5.L./ A current or usable survey of the property must be attached. See the handout on survey
requirements.
--L- A brief statement of the reasons, necessity, or hardship which provide grounds for the granting
of this variance (see Frequently Asked Questions for an explanation of a "hardship"). Attach
letter, photographs, or other evidence, if appropriate.
~ You may submit detailed description of bUilding(s), addition(s), and alteration(s) involved in
this project. The site plans and drawings submitted with this application will be the basis of
any variance that may be approved and cannot be changed before or after the building permit
is issued.
V'.
Variance application fee, as follows:
$50 - single family residential; $150 - other
J
Signatures of Surrounding Property Owners
Note to the variance applicant:
As part of the variance application process, you will need to attempt to obtain the signatures 0"1 all
surrounding property' owners. This includes all properties abutting the applicant's property clnd
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. I
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
eiving a written notice informing you of the time and place of the variance meeting. By signing
this form, you are only verifying that you have been told about the project, not that YOu
necessarily agree or objecf 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. .
K1CWltv} ?vMt--
Print Name
.Comment
Signature
~~
L elk? '3 /I--::i! H-z
Address ~(p 70 ~UAf"))d ~ _
Print Name
.Comment
_nature
~X~
Address :l()l ~ rlPi--=~_ :
\"
~
Signature
Print Name
Comment
Signature
4~
Address
~ 0 Ll, )
jrf'{ ~l 1\ -€It~( <
~~Lf~
.,
i
..~
&V
Address P/; L:eOJ)"'CAA.x- U
Print Name#//e /?
Comment
Signature
Print Name
Comment
Signature
Print Name
Comment
,." .. ...
.gnature
4L1J('//
,I
Address
Address
cPC)~~j~.
.
~
II~ ~
I - "'/Y
If a1~
I ' "~.
I~
~
s.....
\ ,
~
I'
,-
I
I.!
r
I \
I ,
, '
~ I
I
1
I
1
!
i
I
t_
~-
-fo~
:;;4t/~2Y"',<;' (!h.r/~Sr,;,drlt': >e//~r 71,,3-S"/'Z-93 "'~
fOro/CJ (3/(:;'4/",,,"; A_# G.,V:
~~ J-~I!..fl;.l.""'~... lh,...z3~
'-i i ,
i
I I
,
I
i
L I
j I
I
I
1
- -L i -- J-
- -
C vt: -nfr~..1t fU/:dz":f
:$/0.,<. ~ I,i i VI
~~Se~e~+ j
.~r
-~, .....................------....-.:;.......--- ........--.--.--....--.-
:ao~o"
i
1-<
i
I
.
.......
".J--
--I
i
I
? I..
:1:::,0':
t:J 12:,;
~ I "'~
~ !IJ>
!~-
i'
I
1
I
I
I
I
i
--l
,.--L--!- L
/'
i
I
,
,
I
I
I
;-<
,
I
I
c:;
,~" .. I
UJ-V ~
j
!
j:'. _ '. I
""-.. ..:).(/>"'n-!
~,I
il
! !
i!
i i
~ I
! I
j I
~ I
, ;
1 :
: i
f11
, \'
ill
,>>
11{
II
i i
.1
I
-t
I
i
V
J
i
I
I i
I!
I!
i i
. !
. i
II
!
I'
i
~
~
...
'j
.
401 Sunnyridge Lane
.
Lynne Gaardsmoe
03-07 -34
.
See Large Size Plans and/or Survey in
Planning Department
~
.
.
.
Hey
Planning
763..593..8095 I 763..593..8109 (fax)
Date:
July 17, 2003
To:
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
From:
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject:
401 Sunnridge Lane (03..07..34)
Lynne Gaardsmoe, Applicant
Lynne Gaardsmoe is the owner of the property at 401 Sunnyridge Lane. The property is located
on Sunnyridge just south of Woodstock Ave. The applicant is requesting one variance from
Section 11.21 of the Zoning Code to allow for the expansion of the existing one-car garage
located at the west end of her lot. This garage has alley access only. The applicant received
several variances in 2000 when she added a second story to the house. At that time, the existing
garage received variances to make it legally non-conforming. The house also receiveda.front
yard setback variance to make it legally non-conforming. The second story addition received a
. variance in order to allow it to be built within 6 ft. of the property line rather than the required 8 ft.
(20% of the 40 ft. lot width.). The second story addition variance was required because of a
cantilever into the setback area.
Since the existing garage already received a variance for its location too close to the alley (street)
and side property line, the proposed garage addition requires a variance only for the side property
line where it will continue the same side setback as the existing garage.
The following variance is requested in order to permit the garage expansion:
. Section 11.21, Subd. 12 Accessory Buildings. City Code states that accessory building
such as detached garages must be set back at least 5 ft. from a side property line. The
variance request is for 3.9 ft. off the required 5 ft. to a distance of 1.1 ft. at its closest point
to the south side yard property line for a proposed garage addition.
A review of the City's file indicates that there is no information about when the house was originally
constructed.
h
.
.
.
.
July 3,2003
Lynn Gaardsmoe
401 Sunnyridge Lane
Golden Valley, Minn. 55422
Board of Zoning Appeals
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, Minn
Dear Members,
I am requesting a variance to add a second stall to my existing one car garage, which is
located in the back of my house near the alley.
I believe that complying with the required 8' side yard setback on the south side of my
garage represents a hardship, in that the home was built in 1923 prior to the enactment of
the current setback requirements. The existing garage was granted approval to remain in
a nonconforming location from the Board of Zoning Appeals in the summer of 2000.
The lot is already rather narrow, at 40.04 in width, making it a hardship to put a second
stall in that meets newzoning requirements. Additionally, several of my neighbors have
2 car garages located in similar positions to what I am requesting.
I request that you grant a variance of the setback requirement so that I may add an
architecturally well designed addition to my existing garage and that I may have both cars
in the garage and off the street. Thank you.
Sincerely,
~~~
LynIl Garrdsmoe
City o.lden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes - July 25, 20.
... ..-
paw of2
)
-
.Lynn Gaardsmoe, Applicant
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback.
o 14.9 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 20.1 feet for the existing house at its
closest point to the front property line.
Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(3) Side Yard Setback.
o 2 feet off the required 8 feet to a distance of 6 feet for the existing house and proposed
second story addition at its closest point to the side property line.
Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 12 Accessory Buildings
o 34.92 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of .08 feet for the existing garage at its
closest point from the alley right-of-way line; and
o 3.9 feet off the required 5 feet to a distance of 1.1 feet for the detached garage at its
closest point to the side property line.
Purpose: To allow for the detached garage to remain in a
nonconforming location on the property and allow for construction of a
second story addition.
Lang stated the request is to allow for a detached garage to remain in a nonconforming location on the property and allow for construction of a second
story addition.
Dold told the Board most of the variance requests are for existing conditions. She began with the detached garage located to the rear of the property. The
alley is considered a right-of-way and has a 35' setback requirement. The existing garage sits .08 feet from the rear property line and 1.1 feet from the side
property line. She noted that in many cases detached garages found along alleys are situated almost to the property line. Dold next explained the
variances for the existing house. The front of the house is located 20.1 feet from the front property line, requiring a 14.9-foot variance. She noted that the
subject property is very narrow at 40 feet. In determining side yard setback, the north or west'side setback is 10 percent of the lot width, and the south or
east side setback is 20 percent of the lot width. The south side yard setback is 8'. Taking the cantilever into consideration, the requested variance is for 2
feet off the required 8 feet to a distance of 6 feet for the existing structure and the proposed second story addition.
Lynn Gaardsmoe, applicant, and Christine Albertsson, architect, were. available to answer questions.
Lang stated the lot has a hardship due to its narrowness of 40 feet. The house seems to be centered on the lot. He noted the existing conditions are
administrative.
Shaffer said he would have liked to have seen an addition on the whole upstairs. He agreed with Lang the existing nonconformities are administrative
http://156.142.111.20/BoardsandCommissions/BZAlBZAminutes/BZAminutes7-25-00.htm
6/26/2003
i.
City of Golden Valley
Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
Zoning Code Variance Application
For Office. Use Only:
Application No.
Date Received.
BZA Meeting Date .
Amount Received
1. Street address of property involved in this application:
401. S~~~I~ L~
~~ ~S~
Name
2.
Applicant
't01 :5....""'~ 0;\ J.- ~ G:, \~ \/'J.t..w,- M,....., SS'i
Address ~ City/State~ip
bS\ 3\0 bo32 l~~ 3'11 $qSb 7b3 4S<e; L-.34S-
Business Phone Home Phone Cell Phone
Ei~r;,:;:~~d. & ~H-bl. C-O~
4.
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 maybe
approved and cannot be changed before or after the building permit is issued.
VARIANCE: GARAGE (8/12/03)
Description:
Add the second stall parking to the existing garage
Widen the footprint of existing garage of24x13 to 24x22
Follow the current setback conditions of the existing garage
Copy the same colors and style of the house
To the best of my knowledge the statements found in this application are true and correct. I also
und~rstand that unless construction of the action applicable to this variance request, if granted,
is nottaken within one year, the variance expires.
.
~~~~~
Sig ture of Applicant
5. Ifthe applicant is not the owner of all property involved in this application, please name the
owner of this property:
p~Name of owner
'0/4;
Signilture of owner
"
Variance Application Submittal:
te following infor.mation must be submitted by the application deadline to make a complete
plication. If an application is incomplete, it will not be accepted:
/ Completed application form, including signatures of surrounding property owners.
~ A current or usable survey of the property must be attached. See the handout on survey
requirements.
/A brief statement of the reasons, necessity, or hardship which provide grounds for the granting
of this variance (see Frequently Asked Questions for an explanation ota "hardship").Attach
letter, photographs, or other evidence, if appropriate.
/
You may submit detailed desctiQtion 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:
s part of the variance application process, you will need to attempt to obtain the signatures of all
rrounding property owners. This includes all properties abutting the applicant's property and directly
across the street. If on a corner, this means across both streets.
To obtain these signatures, you will need to personally visit each of these property owners, tell them
about your project (we encourage you to bring along a copy of your building plans) and have them
sign the area, below. The signature is meant only to verify that you have told them about your
project and gives them opportunity to comment.
If you have attempted to contact a property owner on two separate occasions and not found them at
home, you may simply write something to the effect "made two attempts, owner not home" and then
write their address. City staff will also send a written notice informing these property owners of the
time and place of the BZA meeting.
Note to surrounding property owners:
This is an application by your neighbor for a variance from the City Zoning Code. Please be aware of
any possible effect the granting of this variance could have on your property. You will also be
receiving a written notice informing you of the time and place of the variance meeting. By signing
this form, you are only verifying that you have been told about the project, not that you
necessarily agree or object to the project. If you wish, you may comment on the project.
Comments can contain language of agreeing with the project, objecting to the project or other
statements regarding the project.
rint Name CO""C\ '^ \ (. ~ \.lS( ~ ~
Comment
Ctr",_. ~ \{\>.D~
Address ~ I ~ yY\ e(l~CJw L~ N .
Signature
"
~ Print Name
.mment
Signatu~e
Print Name
Comment
Signature
Print Name
Comment
Signature
rint Name
Comment
Signature
Print Name
Comment
Signature
Print Name
Comment
Signature
rint Name
Comment
Signature
.. ~
. _ () 7v'JLcL fn'd~ tS""
i)t~~ ~.~!~ ~.t'~ ~J17
}"<L~
Address L{bG ~h
~/ -
O'a~ _ ~<-d. ~~ 'i. ~k... ,E, ~ oh ~
l> Ebfr~op l ~
Address lfbS S;~'h~.~
~ I J
:] ohM V j'ea&L.
Address (JcJ~ SUP1~;11J/c k
~
Address
Address
Address
Address
.4
, .
.
120 King Hill Road
.
Thomas Berscheid
03-08-40
.
.
.
.
Hey
Planning
763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
August 18,2003
To:
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
From:
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject:
120 King Hill Rd. (03-08-40)
Thomas Berscheid, Applicant
Thomas Berscheid owns the house and property at 120 King Hill Rd. The house is located at the
corner of King Hill and Glenwood Ave. This house was completed in 1996. He is not the original
owner of the house. He is requesting a rear yard setback variance to allow for the construction of
a deck on the west side of the house. When the request for the deck was made to the Inspections
Department, it was known immediately that a variance would be required. The City has an "as
built" survey on file. In addition, the Board granted several variances prior to occupancy of the
house. As part of those variances, a survey was required.
The other variances related to side and front setbacks due to the large eaves on the house. In
February 1996, the first variance was granted to allow the eaves to be 36 inches rather than the
required 30 inches.in width. In September 1996, additional variances were needed because the
eaves were actually wider than 36 in. and are 54 in. in width. Variances Were granted for front
and side yard setbacks that made the house legally nonconforming. There was concern by the
BZA regarding these variances. I am enclosing information from those meetings in .1996.
The applicant now would like a rear yard setback variance in order to construct a 9 ft. by 16 ft.
deck off the rear of the house. This deck would include a stairway down to the ground. Access to
the deck would be through an existing sliding door off the rear of the house. The required rear
setback is25 ft. and the deck will come within 16 ft. of the property line.
The proposed addition requires a variance from the following section of City Code:
· Section 11.21, Subd. 7(B) Rear Yard Setbacks-9.18 ft. off the required 25.18 ft. to a
distance of 16 ft. at its closest point to the west side (rear) property line for the
construction of a deck addition.
As indicated above, the house was completed in 1996 and several variances have been granted
to make the house legally nonconforming.
.
:!!7i;;nza6 ~e?0ehad
120 King Hill Road
Golden f(lIley, AlN 55416
City of Golden Valley-Board of Zoning Appeals
Sirs and Madams
Enclosedfind applicationfor a Waiver Petition of Zoning for Lot 1, Block
1, Queens Ransom with the following street address: 120 King Hill Road,
Golden Valley, MN 55416.
Theresidence in question was built in 1995-1996 and the structure's rear
(West) setback currently prohibits any structural attachment to the West
.
side of the property excepting a zoning waiver. The building constructed
on the property incorporates a patio door which would lead to the
proposed deck; stairs would lead to a walkway and patio on the home's
North aspect. The proposed deck would be quite modest in size, and
serves primarily to provide access from the existing patio door to the
ground below; the current patio door leads to a 7' drop to the ground.
The materials chosenfor the project are to be of the highest quality-
stainless-steel and Ipe (an exotic hardwood). The deck will minimally
change the percentage of hardcover on the property and increase the
residential tax base by undoubtedly increasing the home's value.
Additionally, the deck will serve a safety function as the current patio door
.
leads to a 7'fall (potentially catastrophic).
.
Thanks for your time in consideration of my project and I entertain your
queries.
Sincerely,
Thomas N. Berscheid
.
.
.
.
.
(Revised 1/99)
Petition Number
Date Received
Amount Received
($50 residential - $150 other)
PETITION FOR ORDINANCE WAIVER
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
f
1. Street address of property involved in this petition:
\~~ ~___~ ~,,~ ~\~\ \o1>~ ~~~ \ ~ SS'-\\\1
2. BZA Petition Date \S ~"'\'l \\~
3. Petitioner: ~~~ ~~~
Name ,
~~~
c-~st:~~~~'d-.~~t\ orne Phone\Q\~_~\o~ \o~e\
4. If pe~ioner 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):
~~\) .~\e~ \) ~U-tL~"'~ ~~,~~,
~~~.c--..~~~", L~~~. ,~"'~~S~
~~ ~\ "-
6. Type of property involved in this petition:
Residential:'i- 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 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.\ .". {
'\' 'i.. \F:J.~",,~S":> "':,~-Q..\ \ ~"tI ~"- '1. ~ ~ M "S. ~~~~b\'"
,
" .
~t't---~~,o. <x\ ~~~~ ~~~,\: CJ~ ~~~~.
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 showp.
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.
I
11. To the Applicant:
r
i 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 comer, 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
wil! 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.)
E I:>GN.-:'JTAD I
Print Name D~,1)e,A~~~_ ~.AL FdV'5ci t~l~IJt::1JD62-
Comment ---HJ ~{ tl.t ) to f t.1Jtl1fC (l )~1"L.---
Signature
Address III \A HJ0{t(L-l,. ~O
~11M"'J~'( tV .0J f\\) i 0 ~~ G1J C6~
Print Name
. Comment
Signature
~~
--- IV\. }i ~ Address
'- I
_/
./to KJ\JGltlW~f)
Print Name
~~/0 DA\)\0
Comment
/' J __. ...
Signature L-'yL ~ 7}&-z--t.~~ Address G, D IV (;~~ePJQQQO
/} /
/ .I
Print Name D I ^' 10 c: 1---1 {\J P
Comment
Signature ~"-t. "n'1 . .L.-v:.(/
.I ..f
Address G1 0 3 (j ./::1J'..:~f/
,
,
i
.
Print Name
Comment
GC;J<-rJON AI. H r1 IJ 01J 41-- 0
01 () IlJor I{NSLcJE:12- 77-16 LJet-X
Signature
Address I 05 /3?~/CJ::.... .Jt/5.
.
Print Name
Comment
Signature
Address
Print Name
Comment
Signature
Address
. Print Name
Comment
Signature
Address
Print Name
Comment:
Signature
Address
Print Name
Comment
Signature
Address
.
.
,,;\
<~;;, . .....
;':'~rbnd Recreation
; '~200 BrO()kvieWParkway
, . . Glllden Valley, MN 55426-1364
;.;.:J612) 5fi-5218 . . .
';FJ..X (~12) 544-0398.
.....,.(~~f)593-3968
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
Board of Zoning Appeals
Notice of Final Order
Number:
96-8-31
Date: September 9. 1996
Petitioner(s): Philip and Gina Carlson
Add ress: tt'12a;:iKin~;'lf:Vl;~;"RB~a:;f
Golden Valley MN 55416
At a regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
held on August 27, 1996
your petition for a waiver of
Section (s) 11.21, Subd. 7(A), of the City Zoning Code was
Subd. 7(C)(1) and Subd. 9
acted upon.
Attached you will find an unofficial copy of the minutes of the Board.
Staff Liaison
Board of Zoning Appeals
If waivers are not acted upon within one year from date of approval
in accordance with statutes, the waivers have expired.
4/95
.
.
.
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
Augusf27, 1996
Page Six
that the nonconformity of this lot was the eXisting house at the front setback, and therefore,
allowedth~applicants to submit a "hold harmless" letter in order to begin construction.
"il~
MOVED by"lj~f)tel, seconded by Sell and motion carried unanimously to grant a waiver of Section
11.21, Subd. 7(A}"Eront Yard Setback for 8 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 27 feett9r
the existing house;~f)d a waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback for 13 feet off
the required 35 feet to' .fiI.distance of 22 feet for the proposed covering over the front steps.
311 Burntside Drivj(~6-9-30)
Marvin Resnick '",:!,
";:;,..
Request:
Waiver of Seai~f) 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- 2.7 feet off the
required 35 feehQ a distance of 32.3 feet for the existing house; and
Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 12 Accessory Buildings - to allow for the
shed to remain 8.165 feet from the side property line and 32.3 feet from the
front property line. ' .
."l~'
Purpose:
To make the house legally noncol1forming which will allow for the
construction of a conforming three':'season porch onto the northwest corner
of the house and to allow the shed to remain where it is now located.
Staff. Liaison Grimes explained the request and the Board discussed it. Marvin Resnick was in
attendance.
"".
MOVED by Swedberg, seconded by Pentel and motion-carried unanimoLlsly to grant a waiver of
Section 11.21, Subd.7(A) Front Yard Setback for 2.7 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of
32.3 feet for tl1e existing house; and a waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 12 Acc~ssory Buildings
which will aUow the shed to remain next to the main structure on the lot.
120 King Hill Road (96-8-31)
Philip and Gina Carlson
Request:
Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- 2.73 feet off the
required 35 feet to a distance of 32.27 for the existing house facing
Glenwood Avenue; and
Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setback - 3 feet off the
required 15 feet to a distance of 12 feet for the existing structure to the
south; and
Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 9 Cornices and Eaves -- 18 inches which
are beyond the 36 inch eaves.
Purpose:
To make the house legally nonconforming.
.
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
August 27, 1996
The regular/meeting of the Golden Valley Board of ZOQing Appeals was held Tuesday, Ay~ust 27,
1996, in the' G....'.. olden Valley City Hall Council Cha.m....b......e.. rS)...7.. 800 Golden Valley Ro.ad, Gold.e.ri Valley,
Minnesota. Ohair Herb Polachek called the mef3!jl1g to O{der at 7pm.
\!?' -,,, ""~'
~~~~\- - ":/;'':{ ';;>, - - - ,-.=--,-",'
Those present w~[e: Chair Herb POlach~k;~embers Mike,Rell, Robert Shaffer, ..~t;td Mahlon
Swedberg; and PI~pping Commission Regresentative Paula"~,~nteJ. Also present were Staff
Liaison Mark GrimeS,and Recording ~~j~~tary Eve Lomaistro:;.i);;~" p. .
996
~1}{
I.
MOVED by Pentel, second
minutes as submitted.
" and motion carried unanimousl~lq~pprove the J~ly 9, 1996
II. Petition from Previous Meeting - BZA Clarification of the City Code's Definition of
Cornices and .Eaves -- Petitioner: Gina and Philip Carlson
.
Summary of February 13, 1996 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting: At the February 13, 1996,
BZA meeting the Carlsons presented an application for a variance concerning the eaves on the
house under construction at 120 King Hill Road. The variance request was for 6 inches more
than the permitted 30 inches per City Code, Section 11.21, Subd. 9. According to the survey
submitted to the Board, the eaves were only 36 inches in width. The Board granted this variance.
The Inspections Department visited the site and found that the eaves extended another 18 inches
past the approved 36 inches. Mr. Grimes wrote to the Carlsons in March of 1996 requesting them
to submit a survey showing the full extension of the eaves which may be projecting into the
setback area. The Inspections Department requested that the Carlsons stop work on the roof
until this matter was settled. As of August 20, 1996, the roof and outside of the house had been
completed.
Gina Carlson was in attendance and requested the Board to review the definition of cornices and
eaves. She further stated that the word "facia" was not in the wording of the variance granted
February 13, 1996, and that the facia is what is in question. She believes that the City Code
definition of cornices and eaves is incomplete.
Robert Shaffer read the definition from the Dictionary of Architecture and Constf1Jction which
defines cornices and eaves as anything that projects beyond the wall. The Inspections
Department and the BZA believe that the wording in the City Code is clear.
.
The Board discussed the request, commenting that this was addressed at the time the Carlsons
submitted their request for additional inches onto the eaves at the February 13 meeting. The
Board believes, that for someone who has been in the field of construction for the past 23 years,
the definition of cornices and eaves should have been understood. The Board commented that
they are not in a position to change City Code.
MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Swedberg and motion carried unanimously to deny the Carlson's
request to rewrite the definition of cornices and eaves found in the City Code.
.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
Date:
August 20,1996
To:
Board of Zoning Appeals
From:
Mary Dold, Planning and Zoning Secretary
Subject:
Hearing of Petitions Carried from a Previous Meeting
120 King Hill Road (96-2-5)
Philip and Gina Carlson
Gina Carlson presented a letter, to Mark Grimes, on August 7, 1996 requesting that the Board
of Zoning. Appeals clarify what pertains to a cornice/eave.
At the February 13, 1996 BZA meeting the Carlson's presented an application fora variance
concerning the eaves on the house under construction at 120 King Hill Road. The variance
request was for 6 inches more than the permitted 30 inches per City Code, Section 11.21,
Subd. 9. According to the survey submitted to the Board the eaves were only 36 inches in
width. The Board granted this variance. The Inspections Department visited the site and
found that the eaves extended another 18 inches past the approved 36 inches. Mr. Grimes
wrote to the Carlson's in March of 1996 to submit a survey showing how far the remainder of
hte eaves go into the setback area. The Inspections Department requested the Carlson's to
stop work on the roof until this matter had been cleared up. As of today, the roof and outside
of the house has been completed.
Ms. Carlson believes that the City's Code incorrectly defines eaves. Jay Ipsen, Chief
Inspector reads the code as saying that cornices and eaves is anything that projects beyond
the wall. Attached is the City Code and the definition from the Dictionary of Architecture and
Construction, which were given to staff by Mr. Ipsen. The Inspections Department believe that
the wording in the City Code is clear.
Ms. Carlson would like the Board to accept the 6 inch variance from the February 13 meeting.
Unfortunately, Ms. Carlson does not address what staff is suppose to consider the remaining
18 inches of the eave.
Staff requests that the Board deny Ms. Carlson's request that the City accept the 36 inch
eaves and give to them an occupancy permit. The basis for staff's request is that the
remaining 18 inches of the eaves need to be addressed.
Attached you will find Ms. Carlson's letter with her request and information from staff. The
Board will need to decide if Section 11.21, Subd. 9 needs more definement. Mark Grimes,
Staff Liaison, will be available to answer questions you may have at the meeting concerning
this request. The Carlson's will also be available for discussion.
.
.
.
Please be avised, a new survey has been obtained. Variances are needed for the existing
structure. At the February meeting, the survey submitted only showed the footprint of the
building. This footprint has changed due to an entrance on Glenwood Avenue and in the side.
yard setback.
.
;., Ulal\ce .
~r;,::~~~.i'~'-: ,..:"'
~59';:'Sor3 '. :;1::-. ;fli
~~~;~'~~;:~:~1
~j93-S020 ",_';oti. "'1
!.~~~~i~i.~.L.~
}:200 BrOOkvkWParkwa" q:,~
"..,-,-.,. '.. . ...... '.' .,..r. . J
:~tGoIlkn V211 MN 55426-i364.t
:..,'c'. ...,., CJ>. ...".".".....1
':'.i'{'6' 12) c.Jl 521S' ..~!:.:':f<;.:,;...l
~..;:. '", -~- - - - '. ~,.,~~;...!_~~~,?:~:::-.~
:;~FAX .(612r544~0398 .:~(~~:1
~_}~4~~~~~
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
Board of Zoning Appeals
Notice of Final Order
Number:
96-2-5
Date:
March 6, 1996
Petitioner(s):
Philip and Gina Carlson
Address:
..~....~...;:<Q-9t'~~.:,;.~}~~.--_-'~..~~.t:._,~,~._~
~'120,']( i n"g "H iJ l'iiiD6a a'
T'it....",;......,,..,'r..,J}"'#i,_,I" . ,~!;C."i-..t_ k;."..~'~h:""~_-
Golden Valley MN 55416
At a regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
held on February 13, 1996
your petition for a waiver of
Section (s) 11. 21, Subd. 9
of the City Zoning Code was
acted upon.
Attached you will find an unofficial copy of the minutes of the Board.
Staff Liaison
Board of Zoning Appeals
If waivers are not acted upon within one year from date of approval
in accordance with statutes, the waivers have expired.
4/95
/t
I
I
.
.
.
/
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
February 13, 1996
Page 2
Request:
aiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(l) Side Yard Setback --:J~et off the
r . red 15 feet to a distance of 11.5 feet for the existing ,I1Oi1-conforming
...'"
hous '. ,/....'
/,J
,.<'"
To make t ouse legally non-confqmimg so the applicants can construct an
addition onto ear Of~
Mark Grimes stated that the change will no' . -- seen from the street. The owners were in attendance
and asked why the variance was ne~~atf ~e:hair explained that declaring the house legally non-
conforming is for the benefit?e owners. ~ .
MOVED by McCrack _ ~t, seconded by Shaffer, an~', otion carried unanimously to approve the
request for a wav' fSection 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(l) side y - etback for 3.5 feet off the required 15
feet to a dist of 11.5 feet to make the existing structure Ie non-conforming.
Purpose:
Ite
-2-5 was taken at this time due to Mark Kuhnly's tight schedule.
120 King Hill Road (96-2-5)
Philip and Gina Carlson
Request:
Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 9 Cornices and Eaves -- cornices an.d eaves
may not project more than thirty inches into a required open space or setback
-- 6 inch variance for the eaves facing King Hill Road and Glenwood A venue.
Purpose:
To allow 6 inches of the 36 inch eaves to remain in the setback area so the
applicants can obtain an occupancy permit.
Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspection, explained that the original plans submitted to the
Building Department did not indicate the size of the overhangs. Inspections did not find the non-
conformity until they visited the site. The Board discussed the request in detail. Mr. Carlson stated
that when the land was first subdivided, it was difficult to meet the set back requirement and the
house was designed to the edge. Originally there was no overhang over the entrance. Engineers
designed the overhang to make architectural sense without checking the City code. The Board
questioned him about the situation.
Mark Grimes and the Board pointed out that there are other options to make the house conform. The
Board stressed that this was bad planning and should never have happened.
Mr. Carlson, both the owner and the builder, plans to live in the house. He thought the eaves were in
compliance until the survey was completed. The house is also tipped a bit although it was not
planned that way.
jl
.
.
.
Miputes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
. February 13, 1996
Page 3
MOVED by McCracken-Hunt, seconded by Pentel and motion carried unanimously to approve the
waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 9 to allow for 6 inches of the 36 inch eaves to remain in the setback
area, even though the Board found this situation unfortunate.
1446 Rhode Island Avenue North (96-2-3)
aul vensson
Purpose:
Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- 22.9 fe!t off the
required 35 feet to a distance of 12.1 feet for the proposed upper ievel
addition; and /.f
r'
....~ Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 12 Accessory Buildings:- 32.3 feet off the
~ . . . . ~.
:~,reqUlred 35 feet to a distance of 2.7 feet for the play nouse on Winsdale; and
~ /
"~~er of Section 11.21, Subd, 17 AccessoryJ3-6'i1dings -- 3.3 feet off the
req1i~ed 5 feet to a distance of 1.7 feet for tlJe" play house to the rear lot line;
and'h "
~;~ ,.
~. ,
Waiver 0 'Section 11.90, Subd. 2 Non':Conforming Uses -- City Code states
~\: .
that a non-cgnformmg use shall nO,t be enlarged, expanded, extended, or
otherwise alt'eTM in scope, character, or in physical dimensions.
\\\;.
\'*~, .-
To make the plai1lp.~se legally non-conforming; to address the potential
impact of ~he ~rop~~.u~per level addition ~~y have o.n the neighqorhood;
and to reVIew If the pr~sed upper level addItIOn may Jut out over the
required setbacks. '
~'.
Mark Grimes gave a brief summary of y the v .~ ~'ances are being requested for this piece of
property. A variance in 1981 was gr ed with the" ~dition that the detached garage be removed
when the proposed attached garage as built. The o'{: ;eFs are requesting variances to make the play
house legally non-conforming an " dd a second story a , i,tion to the home.
The Board asked questions 7oftowner, Paul svensson~' ;~scussed the issues,
,\
Regarding th~ second .stoJladd~tion t.o the house, the owner ei~~ine~ that Winsdale is a hill and the
rear roof of hIS house I~ level WIth Wmsdale. All the houses aro~ hIS are two-story except one
house to the south, which is one-story. The addition would not affe t the sun or space of the
neighbors. // ,\
MOVED by Spat-fer, seconded by Polachek and motion carried unanin\~~IY to approve the request
for a waiver?f Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Setback for 24.0 feet of~ required 35 feet to a
distance of .1'1.0 feet for the proposed upper level addition; and to approve a request for a waiver of
Section 11:90, Subd. 2 noting that the proposed upper level addition should not have an impact on
the surnding neighborhood. .
Established in 1962
LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC.
LAND SURVEYORS
REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF MINNES<JIA
INVOICE NO. 42054
F. B. NO.
20'
SCALE I" =
7601 73rd Ave. No.
560-3093
o Denotes Iron Monument
o Denotes Wood Hub Set
For Excavation Only
xOOO.O Denotes Existing Elevation
o Denotes Proposed Elevation
... - Denotes Sur face Droina~e
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428
CARLSON INTERSPACE
.i?urbeporf) (tCertificate
Proposed Top of Block
UAS BUILT SURVEYu
Proposed Garage Floor
Proposed Lowest Floor
Type of Building _
Survey IIA"
.~
..
6LEN\NOOD AVENUE.
88<').')( ,e..
..' ...... ., '-----"-:-'=::.:::.::'::.
.. . -..:...;-.:.:..;::.=.:.::..:'.:-=..:::..::::..:.:..:.=...;....::::.
88S,<:.<:. T
_.. - :.::=:::-;." ,,~~J?.::::~t:::::...o.,,-; :: 00.00. .:::~. _____ <...
. :'2>~.% .__~~?' ~L_:_.. '.
LoNe..' ~ .
. \N AL\l-. .
..
)C 8'J1.8
\
I
\
I
884- '3
--"c.. .,
~.b
,-
04...,2--
"'N
L.
1'~',.7 ...--..... . '--.. '. i
~.- .:>.:,.;.....
w t'~ "":L -----, - . ^886.7 I \2
! J< BIP, ~ / roo',. ."" ::J,'- Uo.IE;\Z(O ':1-(efl? -- ...........
I.tl J : ....... I ft-q c,F'/'..//E.. A~ ~
~ rriiii--':::-COC-=-=-: , ' ... ~2..o ~ -~--J1s :n.ol
~ II 35.0 b.O, 11'''OLnc,\~;-~J+--*-
~I!' fL!'M:1.. ~
<! I 0 ~ -". ~-+- !t.t; 0'>
l\Il ~ ~,
D ~~!~ISI bO ~~~~~r~.:
2.8. c~, 0 881'7. "1
~ t{) "1 r:. r--J
'2. ~ \.D-....,
l~'-=-:-'=----=,l I.D '" gll;---
::J C'~ ~I r - - --=-__ -=~J . <)
\. '~" . I '- - =-==-= =.:I:..::. ~ v:l 0
'1' '~- -'- ..__1-__._ .-- -.!II " -
. __00.'- _ ~.~---- ii3 - ~
/ -~ -...... i -
I
. -,"-',
<I" NI
'I. 891,1\. ~:~:
~
-r'-
\ i
~
,
I
o
o
o
o
-;
IJ
<C
3-
..J
.J
-
:c
I
,
\
~
-
j!
!
i
J '
'BgS.1c;
I Tc.
o
Z
'-J
88"l.~-
&81.0
I
11..'7.09 -
886,'
88
S'
',9
II
Top of Block
Garage Floor
Lowest Floor
g/s/l, 0
~6'ff~ S
5t!o.o
./ ~ r:r.e eL.A t-J III.:; 2.0 I . r
-M{~~~LrJ:E:~!~
Lot I, Block 1, QUEENS RANSOM
Proposed building information must be checked with approved building plan
before excavallon and construction.
~~~I?:~r easements shown are from plats of record orinformation provided Ii 0
We hereby certify that this is a true and correct repr~sentation o'a survey I t { cz J
of the boundaries 0' the above described land andlhe:c.calion 0' a!! buildings
and ~slbl. .ne..aehmants. II any.I,Offl.' on sa;d land. .//:... '''~J.;I. ., y -- ~ -</'''?'J d.'
2nd day 0' November 1.9 95 Signed.. ; ~(,.-~:''1rn'~~~'~~r~s:i,-'~~~Reg.'-N~~'674-;t:' "'!:.. .
Surveyed by us this
f2F-\/10(:..t) ,AU~~~I~I~~.~.~,~Z~....."_.._,.~,..........,.~..~~,,...._.___ ..__~.=_ _, ... __"_'" .. __ ..
.
~~~
120 King Hill Road
Golden Valley,MN 55416
August 26, 2003
Board of Zoning Appeals members:
A petition exists before the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
(B.ZA.) relating to a setback variance concerning construction of 144 sq.
ft. of deck space to the Western perimeter of a home with address noted in
the letterhead
On August 18, 2003, Mark Grimes (current director of planning and
.
developmentfor the city of Golden Valley) constructed andforwarded a
letter to B.Z.A. individuals briefly outlining historical developments of
said parcel. The memo Mr. Grimes circulated to B. ZA. members notes
the numerous variances previously granted to Phil and Gina Carlson (the
, '
developers and builders of the property currently under variance
consideration).
The 3rd week of August Mr. Grimes telephoned the petitioner.
Conversational intimations by caller suggested the likely possibility of
variance denial; curiously, an employee of the Planning Dept. reviewed
my proposal and "as built survey" (upon submission and prior to Mr.
.
Grimes telephone call), commenting that my building proposal is one
which is typically approved
.
I possess copies of B.ZA. minutes dating to 1995-6 as relates to the
question at hand B.ZA members present during '95- '96 may harbor less
than charitable feelings toward Phil and Gina Carlson (the designlbuild
team responsible for 120 King Hill Road). Person(ll conversation between
the petitioner and Ms. Carlson in conjunction with perusal of the
aforementioned minutes leaves me with this: The residence in question
was forced upon you by rude individuals, fortunately I enry not their
tactics but their results-how did this come to be?
Digression: The Carlson's added a ledger board to said house andfootings in-
ground (to support a deck), undoubtedly assuming approval of their final
variance submittal. They never acted on that proposal, and their home fell into
. foreclosure two years post-construction. Upon departure, the cash starved
Carlson's raped the home's interior (all light fIXtures, cabinets, appliances, etc.
were removed),. sold in foreclosure, the subsequent owners established basic
interior living accommodations but little else. In 2001 I purchased the dwelling
and have been working diligently to improve the property.
My primary problem with the home is one of water. Prior to my purchase of the
home, gutters did not grace the eaves. Consider an oversized house without
gutters on a small lot with an enormous earthen berm extending the whole of the
North aspect of said lot. The basement of the home has had (at times) standing
water to a depth of 2 feet and as a result mold has been a problem within the
house. I've corrected the water drainage and mold issues but at a cost of nearly
.
~t"\. ~ ~
~'t~~ JL
~~~'L~~
.
.
.
$50,000. The giant berm, (approved by whom?), has been the most difficult and
expensive obstacle to overcome.
My point, you ask? Who's at fault here, and do I suffer because of it. An
arrogant builder ignores all B.ZA. decisions, builds what he wants and
gets approval anyway. A Golden Valley Dept. approves construction of
an enormous berm on a propertY with a drainage! easement, contributing
to moisture and mold problems. Under my stewardship, the home and
property at 120 King Hill Road are improved- moisture problems have
been eliminated and favorable comments extended me by friends,
neighbors, and strangers on the improvements to the home's exterior. The
house is built, but incomplete. It needs a deck. The ledger board on the
house is too conspicuous, my deck proposal completes the house and we
move on. I've queried my neighbors, incl~ding Mr. McDonald (the
resident on Brunswick who expressed concern at the home's size); I've
heard no antipathy toward my project, indeed, several profess relief that
the proPerty has finally fallen into the right pair of hands.
As you peruse my treatise remember this: Previous B.ZA. members
approved the development of a private residence condemned to failure by
poor planning. I am an innocent preemptively resurrecting the dead
Carry on.
Thomas N. Berscheid
..
.
7955 23rd Avenue N.
.
Amy & John Dahle
03-08-41
.
.
.
.
lIey
Planning
763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
August 18,2003
To:
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
From:
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject:
7955 23rd Ave. N. (03-07-41)
Amy and John Dahle, Applicants
Amy and John Dahle own the house and property at 7955 23rd Ave. N. Their property is located
several houses west of Winnetka Ave. They are requesting variances from two requirements of
the Residential Zoning Code (Section 11.21) that would permit the construction of a 14 ft. by 20 ft.
bedroom addition on the rear of their house. As part of the process to apply for a building permit,
it was determined by staff that the construction of the addition on to the rear of the house would
cause the garage to be located in a nonconforming location. (Detached garages must be located
wholly to the rear of the house and be separated by at least 10ft.) Therefore, a variance from that
provision of the Zoning Code would be necessary. As part of the variance process, a new survey
was submitted. This survey also indicated that the house is located 34 ft. from 23rd Ave. rather
than the required 35 ft.
The proposed addition requires variances from the following sections of City Code:
. Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback. City Code requires that all structures be
set back at least 35ft. from a front property line or street right-of-way. The variance request
is for 1ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 34 ft. from the front property line along 23rd
Ave. N.
. Section 11.21, Subd. 12(A) Accessory Buildings. City Code states that all accessory
buildings such as garages shall be constructed wholly to the rear of the house or main
building to which it is incidental. After the construction of the proposed bedroom addition,
only about one half of the garage would be located behind the house.
A review of City files indicates that the house was built in 1948. There have been several
additions made to the house. The existing garage was built in 1993 and replaced a garage
originally built with the house. There is no indication that variances have been issued to this
property.
.
1000& Amy Dahle
7955 23rd Avenue North
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Ph.(763)593-1268
August 5, 2003
To The City of Golden Valley,
.
We are applying for a variance for the following reasons. Our family is expanding and
we are in need of more space in our home. We would like to stay in our current home in
Golden Valley, so we have chosen to try and add a bedroom. The location of the garage
on our lot makes this somewhat difficult. The only area that we are able to build on is the
area located in the back of the home as indicated on our building plans. The prior owner
built the garage too far forward on the lot, limiting the space available to build according
to the setback requirement. We feel that the improvement of our home will add to the
value and beauty of the property in the area.
Thank You,
~~
.
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
John and Amy Dahle
FOR:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 3, Block 1, E. A. ANDERSON'S ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
-._----._--------------~--
23RD A VENUE NORTH
concrete curb
" 905.0
P uti/ity pole
N 89035'14" W
102.56 meas. 102.00 pl tIC 904
Jc 90.3.2
906.0
sel iron \
904.8
found iron
too
'"
0,
~
o
utility pole
909.8 x x 909. f
M~~~ 34.7 x 906.8
'- 16.0 ow t.-.
~ fF'f~911.2 (U
EXISTING ....
~ too Q"
0
C :... HOUSE too GRAVEL
VI QI ~~
C/l"'-.l 17955 :...
9fO.fx Ct3 DRIVE 0):
CeD 16.8 14.1 t'JCO
Cl s:D porch .....~ X 906.9
CfIJ 910.1 x ~~ QI
0 lQ
LOT ""'!. .~ 0
~ .lQ
~t.; tg ;:2 907.4 flJCl
4 o .It D [ C K. 24..3 ~C
tlQ, lbC
~CO 17..3 14 a:t?:;
t:tj~ 907.8 ""
909.4 x ... GARAGE
~ (.. CO
"a CO
- oi
s:D 906.9 x t'J
LOT C"'Io
909.7 x .....
0
4 LOT rO
3 LOT
2
909.2 . utility pole 905.7 x sel iron
set Iron 100.04
S 89014 '50" E
o Denotes iron monument
x 000.0 Denotes existing elev.
BENCHMARK: Top Nut Hydrant at 23rd Avenue No.
and Voiders Ave. Elevotion=90B.05
c: \EP\DRAW\ 112168.DWG
DEMARS-GABRIEL
ND SURVEYORS, INC.
3030 Harbor Lane No.
Plymouth. MN 55447
Phone:(763) 559-0908
I hereby certify that this survey,
my direct supervision and that I
Lows of the State of Minnesota.
\DJ(. ~
::~:~ E. cro& /21l{03
pion or report wos prepored by me or under
om 0 duly Registered Land Surveyor under the
File No.
12168
Book-Page
414-45
Minn. Reg. No.
22414
SCale
1"==30'
.1
City of Golden Valley
Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
Zoning Code Variance Application
For Office Use Only: ~
Application No.
Date Received
BZA Meeting Date l ~ 'Zl.a
Amount Received So
1. Street address of property involved in this application:
d (1 5 s ~ 3,.,t ,AvQ.' ;tJ
2. Applicant: Am" J- :::::h:b..... ~h\Q
Name . r
iCfSS .)30.Avl,J (7oiAih l!(A/~'~ tiJ,.) R542..7
Address City/State/Zip
J lc 3 -~13- j Jt.o9 f.ci 1,;1- 3 &:6,,3 J 3l.(
Business Phone Home Phone Cell Phone
Email Address
Detailed description of building(s), addition(s), and alteration(s) involved in this petition. The site
plans and drawings submitted with this petition will be the basis of any variance that may be
approved and cannot be changed before or after the building permit is issued.
\NL L~T)1l \ C\ \,\G. t-r) c^-i1c\ G ~' I- I U I bed r 6oj'~ -to iI--e Qe._c...l o~
OJ l,if \~~.
4. To the best of my knowledge the statements found in this application are true and correct. I also
understand that unless construction of the action applicable to this variance request, if granted,
is not taken within one year, the variance expires.
~ D"
,,/i '. . __ Jll
Signatur~APPlicant
5. If the applicant is not the owner of all property involved in this application, please name the
owner of this property:
Print Name of owner
Signature of owner
Variance Application Submittal:
.e following information must be submitted by the application deadline to make a complete
"'plication. If an application is incomplete, it will not be accepted:
\/// Completed application form, including signatures of surrounding property owners.
/'
/' A current or usable survey of the property must be attached. See the handout on survey
requirements.
~ A brief statement of the 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: .
s part of the variance application process, you will need to attempt to obtain the signatures of all
rrounding property owners. This includes all properties abutting the applicant's property and directly
across the street. If on a corner, this means across both streets.
To obtain these signatures, you will need to personally visit each of these property owners, tell them
about your project (we encourage you to bring along a copy of your building plans) and have them
sign the area, below. The signature is meant only to verify that you have told them about your
project and gives them opportunity to comment.
If you have attempted to contact a property owner on two separate occasions and not found them at
home, you may simply write something to the effect "made two attempts, owner not home" and then
write their address. City staff will also send a written notice informing these property owners of the
time and place of the BZA meeting.
Note to surrounding property owners:
This is an application by your neighbor for a variance from the City Zoning Code. Please be aware of
any possible effect the granting of this variance could have on your property. You will also be
receiving a written notice informing you of the time and place of the variance meeting. By signing
this form, you are only verifying that you have been told about the project, not that you
necessarily agree or object to the project. If you wish, you may comment on the project.
Comments can contain language of agreeing with the project, objecting to the project or other
statements regarding the project.
rint Name
Comment
Signature
Address
1
-. Print Name
omment
Signature
Print Name
Comment
Signature
......
Print Name
Comment
Signature
A IV 0 E fi-S P j\JJ
Address
2- 7---~'J-P-- ~/(~L
etA.. /'t1\/( r-: c::n- 1 ( r- Yi -
J-. /I. ~ "JlJ 'fr L ,~ ) / A
,~. /-
U!,\'
m~~ ~AJbk Address,~-~~')fdYJ;/w/ (vv~ f/ f
() 5... . 0'
.. IX (je It'i c( K vi
jI - J., /
o/<- .
/1
:;/ /) &')
'71~!YJ/~C
!./
r/ (l _____-t" / \
I .J,/1 \ ',I-~-.'
f i,' _ )
rintName ~dwlled
~11/ c; z Y --v S.-f"'/
. Comment
.~
. . /7 . ./
SIgnature Q_. ... 'i~
Print Name
Comment 5 --\Y~ v ,\ -\L:: \f\~~lY\ -\-k~ h'\ [W\
Signature
Print Name
Comment
Signature
rint Name
Comment
Signature
Address ,;; 3 OC~ lkU~ X?f {2/&'-e.~tJ
Address 7>' /.5--;23 ~/?~~_
<if h? . I ,,<! ;5 t- <;;:} (( r ~\i'>V.e LL.@ 11(; Qh)~L..(r
J ! f f
Address (roo
.C) ')/.1 ~ )
,'/,~ /. A
./
Address
Address
..
1"
,
.
.
.
/
1300 France Avenue S.
Steve Meyer
03-08-42
See Large Size Plans and/or Survey in
Planning Department
.
.
.
Hey
Planning
763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
August 18,2003
To:
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
From:
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject:
1300 France Ave. S. (03-08-42)
Steve Meyer, Applicant
Steve Meyer owns the house and property at 1300 France Ave. S. (The property is located in the
far southeast corner of Golden Valley at the intersection of France Ave. S. and the south frontage
road along 1-394.) The applicant is requesting a variance from one requirement of the Residential
zoning code (Section 11.21) in order to allow for the proposed addition to be built above the
existing garage. When the applicant came to the Inspections Department with the proposal to
build above the existing garage, a current survey of the property was not available to determine
the setback of the existing structures on the lot. It was obvious that the existing house does not
meet the setback requirement along the 1-394 frontage road. The applicant supplied the City with
a survey that indicates that the house is 16.55 ft. from the frontage road.
Prior to the construction of 1-394, the lot on which the Meyer house is located did meet the 35 ft.
setback requirement along the frontage road. (In fact the house was setback about 42 ft.) In
order to provide for additional right-of-way needed for 1-394 and the frontage road, the state
purchased a portion of the lot now owned by Steve Meyer around 1990. (Mr. Meyer purchased
the house in 1995, after the 1-394 construction was done.) This narrowed the setback from 42 ft.
to about 16.5 ft.
Mr. Meyer would now like to build a second story addition above the existing garage. It would not
increase the footprint of the house. Because the house does not currently meet the 35 ft. setback
along the frontage road, a variance is needed to make the house legally nonconforming.
Additions can only be made to conforming on legally nonconforming houses. If the Board would
decide not to allow the second story addition, the Board could decide to make the existing house
legally nonconforming on its own. This would allow other future additions to the house to be made
that meet setback requirements.
The proposed addition requires the following variance from City Code:
· Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback. City Code requires that all structures be
set back at least 35 ft. from a front property line or street right-of-way. Thevariance
request is for 18.45 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 16.55 ft. at its closest point to
the front yard property line for the existing house with proposed second story addition
along Wayzata Blvd.
A review of the City address file for this property indicates that the house was built in 1940 and
the garage was added in 1958. No other variances have been granted or applied for at this
location.
.
Steve Meyer
1300 France Avenue S
Golden Valley, MN 55416
DATE:
July 31, 2003
TO:
City of Golden Valley
Board of Zoning Appeals
RE:
Variance for 1300 France Avenue S
My wife Kathy and I purchased our house in October 1995.
The home consists of 2 bedrooms and a den and because we have eight (8) year old twins
(boy. and girl) we are in need of another bedroom.
.
I have attached plans to install a master bedroom atop of our garage.
This plan fits perfect into the current structure of our home and will not change the foot
print of our current structure.
We do not meet the current setback requirements because the Highway Department took
a piece of the original lot for the service road (Wayzata Boulevard) on the South side of
394.
We need a 3 rd bedroom, are not changing the foot print and believe this addition will also
provide an asset to the neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Steve Meyer
.
HEYER INVESTMENT INc..
. 1841 WA YZA T A BLVD. #102
f'MINNEAPOLl5, MINNESoTA, 55426
STEVE MEYER (,{52) 545-1520
R4C
DRAFTIN6 '{441} GREEK RIDGE LANE
. . SAVAGE, MH. 55318
AND (612) 'l65-B'f'lti
ESTIMATING
f
f
J
BCl5TlN& GaUNIS UtE
ROOF PLAN AND ELEVATIONS
MEYER EXPANSION
1300 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH
GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA 55416
CHECKED BY DRAWN BY DATE SGALE SHEET NO. -
RPe ,/1/03 i/161=t'-0" 1
ftOOR UN:
fEE 11 B
6RADI:
~ I'\.OOIt LItE
ODD
. ~ f\.OOR LINE
B B
1/16"=1'-0"
WEST ELEV
1/16"=1'-0"
NORTH ELEV
.
City of Golden Valley
Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
Zoning Code Variance Application
1. Street address of property involved in this application:
} 306 r: r<J. r"- L~ W l<- So
2.
S+euc (V) t tj -<- r
Name
/ SOd r:-r 0 ^~ I}lA So
Address
Applicant:
Application No.
Date Received. . 1:,.... S .
BZA Meeting Date . "B ~Zb
Amount Received So
G o/J~~tJ~ 11'<11 S5~l0
City/State/Zip
(0 J:2 ~ J4'C:, -LIe' 5 7 Jh3-S? 7- % 9 Cj 0/';{8'ldB '15 C/>:
Home Phone Cell Phone
Business Phone
S t-t'tI e- a.. fr1 f 1.( ~ -r <!?- /h S -'\J.. c: cJ ~
Email Address
Detailed description of building(s), addition(s), and alteration(s) involved in this petition. The site
plans and drawings submitted with this petition will be the basis of any variance that may be
approved and cannot be changed before or after the building permit is issued.
T () ~ tJ 1- ~ yY)a.S r}-~ r [J~J,-o CJ ~ ex -J--op
0'0- ~ C U -I r -# /'- +- d L 0- -r- GOt -r- ~5--<--
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 wtlhin one year, the variance exp~
Signature of Applicant
4.
5.
If the applicant is not the owner of all property involved in this application, please name the
owner of this property:
Print Name of owner
Signature of owner
Variance Application Submittal:
he following information must be submitted by the application deadline to make a complete
plication. If an application is incomplete, it will not be accepted:
~omPleted 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.
.L. A brief statement of the reasons, necessity, or hardship which provide grounds for the granting
of this variance (see Frequently Asked Questions for an explanation of a "hardship"). Attach
letter, photographs, or other evidence, if appropriate.
~ou may submitdetailed 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
$150 - other
Signatures of Surrounding Property Owners
Note to the variance applicant:
As part of the variance application process, you will need to attempt to obtain the signatures of all
rrounding 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
projectand gives them opportunity to comment.
If you have attempted to contact a property owner on two separate occasions and not found them at
home, you may simply write something to the effect "made two attempts, owner not home" and then
write their address. City staff will also send a written notice informing these property owners of the
time and place of the BZA meeting.
Note to surrounding property owners:
This is an application by your neighbor for a variance from the City Zoning Code. Please be aware of
any possible effect the granting of this variance could have on your property. You will also be
receiving a written notice informing you of the time and place of the variance meeting. By signing
this form, you are only verifying that you have been told about the project, not that you
necessarily agree or object to the project. If you wish, you may comment on the project.
Comments can contain language of agreeing with the project, objecting to the project or other
statements regarding 'he project.
rint Name
Comment
Signature
Address
i ..
.
Variance Application Submittal:
he following information must be submitted by the application deadline to make a complete
plication. If an application is incomplete, it will not be accepted:
Completed application form, including signatures of surrounding property owners.
A current or usable survey of the property must be attached. See the handout on survey
requirements.
A brief statement of the reasons, necessity, or hardship which provide grounds for the granting
Qflbl~_~'-~Iianc~J~E:lE:l Frequently Asked Questions for an explanation of a "hardship"). Attach
letter, photographs, or other evidence, if appropriate.
You may submit detailed description of building(s), addition(s), and alteration(s) involved in
this project. The site plans and drawings submitted with this application will be the basis of
any variance that may be approved and cannot be changed before or after the building permit
is issued. .
Variance application fee, as follows: $50 - single family residential; $150 - other
Signatures of Surrounding Property Owners
Note to the variance applicant;
As part of the variance 'application process, you will need to attempt to obtain the signatures of all
urrounding property ownets. 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 b.ring along a copy of your building plans) and have them
sign the area, below. The signature is meant only to verify that you have told them about your
project and gives them opportunity to comment.
If you have attempted to contact a property owner on two separate occasions and not found them at
home, you may simply write something to the effect "made two attempts, owner not home" and then
write their address. City staff will also send a written notice informing these property owners of the
time and plage of the BZA m~eting.
Note to surrounding property owners:
This is an application by your neighbor for a variance from the City Zoning Code. Please be aware of
any possible effect the granting of this variance could have on your property. You will also be
receiving a written notice informing you of the time and place of the variance meeting. By signing
this form, you are only verifying that you have been told about the project, not that you
necessarily agree or object to the project. If you wish, you may comment on the project.
Comments can contain language of agreeing with the project, objecting to the project or other
statements regarding the project.
rint Name ~ ~
Comment
iJ~Jb--
Address /801 ~ROt 'TIA4l..
Signature
"j
Variance Application Submittal:
.. folloWing information must be submitted by the application deadline to make a complete
lication. If an application is incomplete, it will not be accepted:
Completed application form, including signatures of surrounding property owners.
A current or usable survey of the property must be attached. See the handout on survey
requirements.
A brief statement of the reasons, necessity, or hardship which provide grounds for the granting
QfJnj~_ y~rian~~J~E3.E3 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~
.s part of the variance application process, you will need to attempt to obtain the signatures of all
.rrounding property owners. This includes all properties abutting the applicant's property and directly
across the street. Ifon 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 b.ring along a copy of your building plans) and have them
sign the area, below. The signature is meant only to verify that you have told them about your
project and gives them opportunity to comment.
If you have attempted to contact a property owner on two separate occasions and not found them-at
home, you may simply write something to the effect "made two attempts, owner not home" and then
write their address. City staff will also send a written notice informing these property owners of the
time and place of the aZA m~eting.
Note to surrounding property owners:
This is an application by your neighbor for a variance from the City Zoning Code. Please be aware of
any possible effect the granting of this variance could have on your property. You will also be
receiving a written notice informing you of the time and place of the variance meeting. By signing
this form, you are only verifying that you have been told about the project, not that you
necessarily agree or object to the project. If you wish, you may comment on the project.
Comments can contain language of agreeing with the project, objecting to the project or other
statements regarding the project.
~.
<lj 5 G · t rt A ,- N d IC
OK -.
{(~ tf J~ Address
rint Name
Comment
Signature
l~?(~~~
l/ "Nt (\/ ~S- 'i Ih
.
3321 Scott Avenue N.
\
.
Jan Van Oppen
03-08-44
.
See Large Size Plans and/or Survey in
Planning Department
.
.
.
Hey
Planning
763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
August 18, 2003
To:
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
From:
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject:
3321 Scott Ave. N. (03-08-44)
Jan Van Oppen, Applicant
Jan Van Oppen owns the house and property at 3321 Scott Ave. N. The property is located just
north of the intersection of 33rd Ave. N. and Scott Ave. N.He is requesting one variance from the
requirements of the Residential Zoning Dode (Section 11.21). The applicant came to the
Inspections Department proposing to replace the existing deck on the rear of the house. The new
deck would include a storage shed underneath the deck. A survey provided by the applicant
indicated that the existing house that was built in 1956 does not meet the front setback
requirement of 35 ft. Since the proposed deck does meet the current Zoning Code requirements,
city staff has allowed the applicant to sign off on a "Hold Harmless" agreement form in order to
receive a building permit for the construction prior to the issuance of the variance to make the
house legally nonconforming. (Much of the deck is already complete.) The city staff agreed to the
"Hold Harmless" agreement only after the applicant submitted the required survey and application
materials. The signed "Hold Harmless" agreement is attached.
The following variance is requested:
. Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback. City Code requires that the front yard
setback shall be 35 ft. When this house was constructed in the mid-1950's, it was placed
to within 32.7 ft. of Scott Ave. N. The variance request is for 2.3 ft. off the required 35 ft. to
a distance of 32.7 ft. at its closest point to the front yard property line along Scott Ave. N.
for the existing house. This variance makes the house legally nonconforming and,
therefore, allows the deck replacement to go ahead.
A review of the City address file for this property indicates the house was built in 1956. The
garage was added in 1958 and space above the garage was completed in 1966. No other
variances have been granted or applied for at this location.
.
.
.
07/15/2003 10:00 753-757-5217
..lP TORMA
PAGE [:1:.
..
.33(::1) ~c" 077 Au E N
Street Address
"HOLD HARMLESS'
I, ~T AfV VA IV OPPEJJ . am requestIng the City of Golclen
Valley. to allow me to proceed with a(n) I) t. cic:. ~t.:P J-A C:.f f... sHE 0 onto
my house. I understand that my existing structure is nonconforming and that
I will proceed to the next Board of Zoning Appeals meeting to request a
variance(s) for this nonconformity.
At this time I submit this "Hold Harmless" letter which would allow me
to proceed with my construction plans. I understand that if the variance is
not granted I will discontinue what I am doing and put the land back to its
original state with no fault to the City of Golden Valley.
Sn ~an orFen
.1-)5~06
Date
~~ ~14-
City of Golden Valley
Staff Signature
~ fV\d Gf-:.~
~iA-C~ of ~/0A"'<-r'\,r5
o..r---J. {V.'\j.Q (~fl"-'--r'+.
..
City of Golden Valley
Board of Zoning Appeals {BZA}
Zoning Code Variance Application
1. Street address of property involved in this application:
33 blJ S~~T7 AVE /tJ,
2.
Applicant: I'AAJ 1/ AN
Name
Of'~E/J
.
"33 ~,
Address
S'c:-o-r l'
A\J E AJ
~J-f)EJJ VALL.t:y TvtN SSifou..
City/State/Zip
foIl a~1 ~'-i78€(
Cell Phone
.'1 5;).. ~3 ~-l Lf 6> 4-
Business Phone
J b3 5~-btJ...~f?
Home Phone
-s vA,.; r:::, ppCIJ ~ L'f C.cs I Co M
Email Address
Detailed description of building(s), addition(s), and alteration(s) involved in this petition. The site
plans and drawings submitted with this petition will be the basis of any variance that may be
approved and cannot be changed before or after the building permit is issued.
B,EPL-ACC:: G~.!i.s.T~()G. /) ~c 1< Lo c.A f'lED GA) R..6.AR 0 F ).{,<:jM.f', AnD A
5"")0 P--A G E S/....O C., tS / ~ t f, I t.JN lJ E Q, A.J ~ \J 0 E c k. W /f='J /U F}y.) <:~NC P.. f.1 E
,
SLAB fl-ooR. vAP.;SAJJcE NE.EOe.D BG.L:.Aosf .f4e.M..f. \NAS ~():t:Lr ~ j.'O
CLo~ E' Te.> S/~E€'f.
4. To the best of my knowledge the statements found in this application are true and correct. I also
understand that unless construction of the action applicable to this variance request, if granted,
is not taken within one year, the variance expires.
5. Ifthe applicant is not the owner of all property involved in this application, please name the
owner of this property:
Print Name of owner
Signature of owner
Variance Application Submittal:
..l.he following infor.mation must be s.ubmitted by the application deadline to make a complete
.plication. 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.
-....j A brief statement of the reasons, necessity, or hardship which provide grounds for the granting
of this variance (see Frequently Asked Questions for an explanation of a "hardship"). Attach
letter, photographs, or other evidence, if appropriate.
You may submit detailed description of building(s), addition(s), and alteration(s) involved in
this project. The site plans and drawings submitted with this application will be the basis of
any variance that may be approved and cannot be changed before or after the building permit
is issued.
Variance application fee, as follows: $50 - single family residential; $150 - other
Signatures of Surrounding Property Owners
Note to the variance applicant:
As part of the variance application process, you will need to attempt to obtain the signatures of all
rrounding property owners. This includes all properties abutting the applicant's property and directly
across the street. If on a corner, this means across both streets.
To obtain these signatures, you will need to personally visit each of these property owners, tell them
about your project (we encourage you to bring along a copy of your building plans) and have them
sign the area, below. The signature is meant only to verify that you have told them about your
project and gives them opportunity to comment.
If you have attempted to contact a property owner on two separate occasions and not found them at
home, you may simply write something to the effect "made two attempts,. owner not home" and then
write their address. City staff will also send a written notice informing these property owners of the
time and place of the BZA meeting.
Note to surrounding property owners:
This is an application by your neighbor for a variance from the City Zoning Code. Please be aware of
any possible effect the granting of this variance could have on your property. You will also be
receiving a written notice informing you of the time and place of the variance meeting. By signing
this form, you are only verifying that you have been told about the project, not that you
necessarily agree or object to the project. If you wish, you may comment on the project.
Comments can contain language of agreeing with the project, objecting to the project or other
statements regarding the project.
rint Name P A V ~ 0 R.. 0 J..-tA kl
Comment
Signature
Address ~ 3 35 S c..OT'- A \I~ f0
..
Print Name _!4 G.R B
omment
Signature
P UA.O r
Address 3301 j;' <::"0 TT A\lf'lV
Address S:l... L..{ 0 ~ 3P..!J Au E:: I\J
Print Name 1"?( IVE~ OW~E.~s-)
Comment
Signature
Print Name
omment
Signature
Print Name
Comment
Signature
Print Name
Comment
Signature
int Name
Comment
Signature
Address 5 s 'Z;) 0 3~ AD Av F I\J
Address
Address
Address
Address