Loading...
02-26-02 BZA Agenda . . . Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 26, 2002 7pm 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers I. Approval of Minutes - January 22, 2002 II. The Petitions are: 640 Westwood Drive South (Map 9) (02-2-6) Laura Kehrberg, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7 (A) Front Yard Setback . 5.8 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 29.2 feet for the existing home at its closest point to the front yard property line along the east side of Westwood Drive South. . 14.4 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 20.6 feet for the existing home at its closest point to the front yard property line along the north side of Westwood Drive South. Purpose: To bring the existing home into conformance with front yard setback requirements. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7 (C) (1) Side Yard Setbacks . .4 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 14.6 feet for the existing home at its closest point to the south side yard property line. Purpose: To bring the existing home into conformance with side yard setback requirements. 216 Winnetka Avenue South (Map 23) (02-2-7) Maureen Rath and Richard Gunderson, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7 (C) (1) Side Yard Setbacks . 8.5 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 6.5 feet for the proposed garage at its closest point to the south side yard property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage addition to the existing home. .. . 2205 Mary Hills Drive (Map 5) (02-2-8) Kathleen Schaaf and Eric Fournier, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7 (A) Front Yard Setback . 15 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 20 feet for the proposed porch addition at its closest point to the front yard property line along Bassett Creek Drive. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a deck addition to the existing home. III. Other Business IV. Adjournment . . 2 ~ Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals . January 22, 2002 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, January 22,2002, in the Council Conference Room, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair McCracken-Hunt called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Those present were members Cera, McCracken-Hunt, Sell, Smith, and Planning Commission Representative Shaffer. Also present were Staff Liai an Olson and Recording Secretary Lisa Wittman. II. The Petitions are: Request: .21, Subd. 7 (A) Front Yard Setback I. Approval of Minutes - December 11, 2001 . MOVED by Sell, seconded by Smith and motion carried December 11, 2001 minutes as submitted. . equired 35 feet to a distance of 32.5 feet for the nd proposed garage addition at its closest point property line along Hillsboro Avenue North. Purpose: xisting home into conformance with front yard uirements and to allow for the construction of a garage on to the existing home. er from Section 11.21, Subd. 7 (C) (1) Side Yard Setbacks . 6.5 feet off the required 13.5 feet to a distance of 7 feet for the proposed garage addition at its closest point to the north side yard property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage addition to the existing home. . Olson stated that this same petition was on the December 11, 2001 agenda, and the applicant wasn't present at that meeting, but is present for this meeting. He stated that the applicant is proposing to build a garage addition that would require variances for both the existing home and the proposed garage addition. Roy Smith, Applicant, stated he discussed the proposal with neighbors and that they are in favor of it. He stated that he would like to have another garage and that right now he only has a narrow tuck-under garage that isn't suitable to his needs. Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals January 22, 2002 Page 2 . McCracken-Hunt asked the applicant if it is the width of the current garage that is the problem or if it is the height. She stated that the height seemed to be adequate. Smith stated that it is the width that is inadequate and that he would like the new garage to go all the way from the front to the back of the house. ;~t>seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to approve 2.5 d35 feet to a distance of 32.5 feet for the existing home and addition at its closest point to the front yard property line along Hillsboro Av ue North and 2.5 feet off the required 13.5 feet to a distance of 11 feet for the proposed garage addition at its closest point to the north side yard property line to allow for a 12 foot wide garage addition. Smith stated it isting garage fit his Shaffer asked the applicant how wide the door is on the existing g was 6 feet 8 inches high, by 12 feet wide. Shaffer asked how d is on the inside. Smith stated that he didn't know, but that he vehicles in the garage. Shaffer asked the applicant if he was planning to add a Smith stated he would like to put in a double door. bay with a door. Shaffer stated he was concerned about the siz yard setback. He stated he has no problems garage stall to the house, but he feels a 12-fo would change the variance request to 2 feet off the required 13.5 feet. a ce request from the side plicant adding a second all would better and therefore equired 13.5 feet instead of 6.5 Cera asked the applicant if he w he would keep the old garage i keep the old garage. Smith stated that it is a tuck-under. . Shaffer asked the applica a 10-foot door, instead of b yard. Smith agreed. be willing to make the garage 12 feet wide, with a 16-foot wide garage in order to maintain a side Cera stated that stall garages eeping in line with the Board of Zoning Appeals allowing two 426 Westwood Drive North (Map 8) (02-1-1) Behzad and Caroline Mazloom, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7 (C) (1) Side Yard Setbacks . . 3.45 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 11.55 feet for the existing home at its closest point to the north side yard property line. 2 .. Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals January 22, 2002 . Page 3 Purpose: To bring the existing home into conformance with building setback requirements. Olson stated that the applicants were not present at this meeting and reviewed their request to build a room and deck addition to the existing home which would meet the setback requirements. He stated that the applicants have signed " Id Harmless" agreement that allowed them to start construction, but that they t requested variance to bring the existing home into conformance with bui etb requirements. MOVED by Sell, seconded by Smith and mot' feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 1 closest point to the north side yard pro ,All' fative matter. Olson y administrative meetings or not. McCracken-Hunt stated that this request seemed to be stated that the Planning Staff has been giving residents requests the option to come to the Board of Zoningn~fi); unanimously to approve 3.45 or the existing home at its . Request: .on 11.21, Subd. 7 (A) Front Yard Setback the required 35 feet to a distance of 14 feet for the porch addition at its closest point to the front yard line along Lee Avenue. w for the construction of a porch addition to the existing e. the applicant is requesting to enclose the upper story of an existing . He referred to the drawings submitted by the applicant and stated that the ne dition won't go any closer to the property line than the current deck does but since the use is being intensified a variance is required. Jacqueline Day, Applicant, clarified that the requested variance should be for 17 feet off the required 35 feet and not the 21 feet as written on the agenda. She stated that she intends to leave 4 feet of the existing as is, and not enclose that part of the deck. . Olson pointed out that this is a corner lot and that is why the setback requirement is 35 feet. He referred to the survey which showed a fence in the right-of-way. . He stated that the City Engineer has asked to applicant to apply for a right-of-way permit for the fence in case it would need to be moved in the future and recommended that obtaining that permit be made a condition of approval of this variance request. 3 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals January 22, 2002 Page 4 . Smith clarified that the proposal is basically an enclosure, not a structure, with 4 feet of deck on the back. Olson stated that is correct and that the enclosed area would then be 4 feet further away from the property line. Day stated that this is an unusual situation in that all the homes in the area were built about the same time and that Lee Avenue was put in after the fact e stated that as far as visual impact to the other homes in the neighborhood her 0 ould still conform. MOVED by Shaffer, seco feet off the required 35 fe its closest point to th e able to see the floor plan, r deck. Shaffer stated that Lee Avenue is at an angle and no on the addition. He questioned the size of the enclosure a which shows the enclosure matching the size of the exi Day reviewed the floor plan with the Board an deck left as is along the back of the enclosur matching windows and stucco and that it willi house and that there won't be much vis here would be 4 feet of ted that she intended to use e addition is original to the e neighbors. Sell stated that the City replatted t part of the problem with Lee Av variance request. ck in the 1960's and that is what created he doesn't have a problem granting the . I nd motion carried unanimously to approve 17 distance of 18 feet for the proposed porch addition at 'jproperty line along Lee Avenue. et North (Map 20) (02-1-3) cKenzie A Iicants aiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7 (A) Front Yard Setback . 13.4 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 21.6 feet for the existing home at its closest point to the front yard property line along Winsdale Street North. . 2.2 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 32.8 feet for the proposed room addition at its closest point to the front yard property line along Boone Avenue. Purpose: To bring the existing home into conformance with front yard setback requirements and to allow for the construction of a room . addition to the existing home. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7 (e) (1) Side Yard Setbacks 4 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals January 22, 2002 . Page 5 . . . 4.3 feet off the required 10.4 feet to a distance of 6.1 feet for the existing home at its closest point to the south side yard property line. Purpose: To bring the existing home into conformance with side yard building setback requirements. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 12 (A) y Buildings . 9.7 feet off the required 10 feet to a existing shed at its closest point t . To allow the existing shed to be existing home. feet for the ome. side yard of the Purpose: To bring the existing she building requirements. nce with accessory om addition on the west side of uested are for the addition as well as e property. He stated that this property a garage addition in 1986 and that the property line along Winsdale Street and 8.2 ated that when an updated survey was ifferent and that is why they are being included e thought about adding a condition of making the '0i!3re is really nowhere to move it to and it is hidden Olson stated that the applicants would r their home. He stated that the varian for the existing home and shed tha received a variance for the existi home was to be located 23.4 fe feet from the south propert submitted the numbers w in this request. He stated applicants move the behind a fence. Wendy McK location a would like t reitera tha footings none of the t, stated that the proposed addition would be in the same O-foot deck that is on the site now. She stated that they 1,~ space year-round instead of just in the summertime. She aC1dition would be the same dimensions but would need different it is a whole room addition instead of just a deck. She stated that ghbors have any concerns about the proposal. Sell stated he would be in favor of granting the variance request because their house is on a corner and on a narrow lot which is right across from the General Mills air conditioning plant which generates a lot of noise. Cera agreed that he would also be in favor of granting the variance due to the way the lot is situated and because of the narrowness of the lot. Shaffer stated that after the proposed addition was built it would almost align with the neighboring house to the south. 5 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals January 22, 2002 Page 6 . Smith stated that he is in favor of the proposal since the hardship was considered when the original approval was granted for the deck and feels that the same hardship should be considered now. MOVED by Sell, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variance requests: Pur ing home at rth. sed room Pi' e Avenue. tj;iexisting home at its . 13.4 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 21.6 feet fo its closest point to the front yard property line along Winsd . 2.2 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 32.8 fe addition at its closest point to the front yard property Ii . 4.3 feet off the required 10.4 feet to a distance of 6.1 closest point to the south side yard property line. . 9.7 feet off the required 10 feet to a distance of. closest point to the existing home. . To allow,the existing shed to be located in 1324 Tyrol Trail South (Map 10 Aaron Lerner A Iicant Request: Waiver fro id,.21, Subd. 7 (C) (1) Side Yard Setbacks . quired 11.7 feet to a distance of 11 feet for the r 0 addition at its closest point to the west side yard ine. ff the required 12.3 feet to a distance of 7.4 feet for the d garage addition at its closest point to the east side rd property line. 1I0w for the construction of a room and garage addition to the xisting home. Olson st ......~.<y. the applicant is proposing to build a garage and room addition, which require varl?J'N~es from the side yard setback requirements. He discussed the history of the property and stated that this property has received several variances in the past and that several variance requests in the past have also been denied. Shaffer asked if there were any proposals like this in the past. Olson stated there were no proposals for the room addition just the garage addition and that the proposals in the past were proposing to go more into the front yard, not the side yard but that nothing was ever built. . Cera asked if this proposal is somewhat smaller than the previous proposals. Dan clarified that this proposal is not going into the front yard, just the side and that this is the first request for the room addition on the back of the home. 6 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals January 22, 2002 . Page 7 McCracken-Hunt compared the previous requests from 1979 to the request now. Smith stated he noticed that in 1979 there were a lot of neighbors who had objections to the proposal. Shaffer stated that he thought neighbors objected then because the addition was being proposed to be in the front. MOVED by Shaffer, secon feet off the required its closest point t to a distance of side yard prq ars and that 't know if the d has turned that right now Cars in the garage. ould affect and that Aaron Lerner, Applicant, stated that he has lived in the house fo the house has always needed extra garage space. He stated t neighborhood could justify the expense but now he feels th around and that the addition would be worth the investme there is a 12-foot garage door and he would need 20 fe He stated that there would only be one neighbor that th they are happy to see the improvement. . Cera asked the applicant if he intended to jus second garage stall. Lerner stated that it wou garage addition with a deck so he mad for a larger living room and stated tha addition. ix feet to the garage to get the xpensive to cap the new use the space above the garage e of the benefits of adding the garage Shaffer stated that he doesn't h the least obtrusive way to a roblem with this proposal and that it seems to be garage stall. Smith and motion carried unanimously to approve .7 distance of 11 feet for the proposed room addition at yard property line and 4.9 feet off the required 12.3 feet the proposed garage addition at its closest point to the east Waiver from Section 11.36, Subd. 6 (C) (4) Yard Requirements . To reduce the parking lot setback requirements for the proposed restaurant for the east side from 35 feet to 6 feet, on the south side from 35 feet to 0 feet, and on the north and west sides from 10 feet to o feet. . Purpose: To allow for the construction of new parking spaces for the site. Request: Waiver from Section 11.36, Subd. 7 (F) Loading and Parking Requirements 7 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals January 22, 2002 Page 8 . . To reduce the parking requirements for this land use from the 108 required parking spaces to 96 parking spaces. Purpose: To allow for the construction of new parking spaces for the site. Olson stated that the Board saw a similar request from this applicant last May. He stated that since that time the applicant has decided not to demoli e existing building and build a new one, but to remodel it instead. He stat~ii:; uested variances are similar to the last request except for the reques ta" e number of parking spaces. Carl Christensen, Vanney proposal is basically rem they are planning to add f ilar to what was ce request for the feet as written on the Cera discussed the setbacks on the rest of site and ho requested and approved last spring. He also stated tha south side should be from 35 feet to 10 feet, not 35 agenda. Shaffer clarified that all the applicant is pro 0 remodeling, adding more parking space is a minor addition, some urb and gutter to the entire site. McCracken-Hunt stated that the B what is required, but fourteen m be allowing twelve fewer spaces than uld be added to what is there now. . epresenting the applicant, stated that the e as the request last spring and reiterated that parking spaces to the site. he width of the parking spaces are. e was granted last spring to allow for 9 feet x 18 feet parking s being proposed this time as well. He clarified that the only t is to reduce the number of spaces to 96 spaces instead of the es. Shaffer ask If the Board could cancel or supersede the variance approvals that were granted last spring. Olson stated he wasn't sure but that the approval from last spring would expire in May 2002. MOVED by Sell, seconded by Smith and motion carried unanimously to approve the following requests: . To reduce the parking lot setback requirements for the proposed restaurant on the east . side from 35 feet to 6 feet, on the south side from 35 feet to 10 feet, and on the north and west sides from 10 feet to 0 feet. . To reduce the parking requirements for this land use from the 108 required parking spaces to 96 parking spaces 8 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals January 22, 2002 . Page 9 . To allow 9 feet wide by 18 feet deep parking spaces along the perimeter of the site. . This approval is contingent on the request from the City Engineer to add concrete curb and gutter to the entire site. Also, it is the Board's opinion that this approval should supersede the previous variance approvals given on May 22, 2001. . . III. Other Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:56 PM. 9 . 640 Westwood Drive South 02-2-6 . Laura Kehrbe...g . See Large Size Plans and/or Survey in Planning Department . . . Bey Memorandum Planning 763-593-8095/ 763-593-8109 (fax) To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Dan Olson, City Planner Subject: 640 Westwood Drive South (Map 9) (02-2-6) Laura Kehrberg, Applicant Date: February 20, 2002 Laura Kehrberg, with property located at 640 Westwood Drive SoUth, is requesting variances from the Residential zoning code (Section 11.21). The applicant has approached the City to build an addition to the existing home. This addition conforms to the building setback requirements. However, during the construction planning process, a survey was submitted for the property and it was discovered that the existing home does not meet setback requirements. City Staff has allowed the applicants to sign off on a "Hold Harmless" form in order to receive a building permit for the remodeling project. This was done only after the applicant had submitted the required survey and application materials. The Hold Harmless form is attached. · The first requested variance is from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback. City Code states that the front yard setback shall be 35 feet from the front yard property line. The variance request for the existing home is for 5.8 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 29.2 feet at its closest point to the front property line along the east side of Westwood Drive South and for 14.4 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 20.6 feet at its closest point to the front property line along the north side of Westwood Drive SOl,Jth~ , , .; . · The second requested variance is from Section 11.21,Subd. 7(C)(1) Side. Yard Setbacks. City Code states that the distance between any part of a dwelling or structure and the side lot lines shall be governed by the following requirements: In the case of lots having a width of over 100 feet, the side yard setback shall be 15 feet. The request~d variance is for .4 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 14.6 feet at it c1ose.st point to the south side yard property line for tt)e existing home. The City's file on this property reveals that a permit was pulled in .geptember of 1940 for the construction of the home. No other pertinent information was found in the file. . . . Subject Property: 640.Westwood Drive S Laura Kehrberg, Applicant .. II " 15 14 ~ . . . t.!"", T~IO .' , 4/02 4032 4022 4012 (Revised 1/99) Petition Number OJ.- - ?- -10 . Date Received I / /7/ oJ- I Amount Received 5". (). CD ($50 residential - $150 other) PETITION FOR ORDINANCE WAIVER CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 1. Street address of property involved in this petition: & If-o \,.J i(.S, +'V-O 0 d D ,....:., or (: ~v~ 2. BZA Petition Date 3. Petitioner: ! i. " I/r ~ R,d, rbt! r~ Name (PLIO tJ / r -ri,Noo,;;,j !J,. S Address . Business Phone c~ lei i ,., Va IJ t!'1 . H AJ f)r; i..j I" City/State/Zip , (7&3) :;gi-()/Sj .1 Home Phone 4. If petitioner is not owner of all property involved in this petition, please name property owner and describe petitioner's interest (legal and other) in this property: . L () + \ ~ / i3 i 0 '- I< I d- l \<e." r. f. J ~..f \,j .,. ~ l- -r~ ro \ -\-t'. \ ~ S- A.! }.. ...~, "'.....! \-1-e ",..,It '("(... C,,1,.... ...J"') .\L ","'-: ~ .. tc... Legal Description of property involved in this petition (found on survey): 6. Type of property involved in this petition: Residential: .::::: 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. ~)(',~h",~ H(),-,s~ 8. (Staff will complete this item) Waiver of Section Subd(s). Subd(s). Subd(s). Waiver of Section Waiver of Section 9. Please attach a brief statement of the reasons, necessity. or hardship which provide grounds for the granting of this waiver. Attach letter, photographs, or other evidence, if appropriate. 10. A current or usable survey of the property must be attached. Proposed surveys are not acceptable. The survey must be prepared by a regis- tered land surveyor licensed in the State of Minnesota. The survey must show all property lines. buildings. and streets. The distance from the house and all other buildings to the front and side property lines shall be shown. The rear distance of any buildings from the property line will be needed, if in question. Also, the survey should show an approximate location of any buildings on adjacent properties relative to the side(s) where the construction will take place. If the survey is larger than 11" x 17". the appli~ant will supply seven additional copies of the survey for use by the Board. 11. To the Applicant: To the best of my knowledge the statements found in this application are true and correct. Attached herewith is my check in the amount of $ ~CJ. PD representing the Board of Zoning Appeals Application Fee. / /~ #(~ .~~. Signature of Applicant UNLESS CONSTRUCTION OR THE ACTION APPLICABLE TO THIS WAIVER REQUEST, IF GRANTED, IS NOT TAKEN WITHIN ONE YEAR, THE WAIVER EXPIRES. . . . The applicant will need to obtain the signatures of all adjacent property owners. This includes all properties abutting the applicant's property and directly across the street. If on a corner, this means across both streets. NOTE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: This petition is application for waiver of Ordinance(s) of the City Zoning Code. Please be aware of any possible effect the granting of this waiver could have on your property. All property owners adjacent to the subject property will receive a notice of the Board of Zoning Appeals hearing, at which they may present their views. Your signature is required only to verify that you have been told about the request and gives the adjacent property owner opportunity to comment. (Comments can contain language of agreeing with the project, objecting to the project or other statements regarding the project.) Print Name Comment (Vt-r\L 1f '1) J- '-I s ~ \. .J <fti~j.ll \.{ APfp..~Vif (\ rndJ ~~ Address 7~t fJ \f J1"bJbd'o Ie. r. Signature Print Name Comment .t"')""'" \ \;" ...._ G-<-c.)V~ .Af::){o(rve Signature I /" / Address Coil' We~d D,.., s . Print Name Comment /r V 4'" d-,--'~/'1", "€'} Ii' We /5 ~ f' OUT 0;: TOWN Signature Address " &oj I lJe s I"",.:.,;,.." .0,> Y Print Name Comment Signature Address . (,'-10 W,rftAJcoo! /),.. >' Street Address "HOLD HARMLESS' I, L~v,.:) k~),,6l '"'4 , am requesting the City of Golden Valley to allow me to proceed with a(n) acid, 'h^g;., 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. . Ij-ra Print Name I<"e A"." e .-., /~~~ Signature 0; / /7/tJ~ . Date ;J~ tJ ~ City of Golden Valley Staff Signature . . . . . . . . . www.d.goUm-vll~ Y 2-7-02 HEARING NOTICE Board of Zonina Appeals 640 Westwood Drive South Laura Kehrbera. Applicant Laura Kehrberg, with property located at 640 Westwood Drive South, has petitioned the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals for variances from the Residential zoning district. The applicant is proposing to construct an addition onto the rear of the existing home. This addition meets all applicable building setback requirements. However, as a result of this construction, it was discovered that the existing home does not meet current setback requirements. This construction project requires a variance from the following section of City Code. . Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback. City Code states that the front yard setback shall be 35 feet from the front yard property line. The variance request for the existing home is for 5.8 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 29.2 feet at its closest point to the front property line along the east side of Westwood Drive South and for 14.4 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 20.6 feet at its closest point to the front property line along the north side of Westwood Drive South. . Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setbacks. City Code states that the distance between any part of a dwelling or structure and the side lot lines shall be governed by the following requirements: In the case of lots having a width of over 100 feet, the side yard setback shall be 15 feet. The requested variance is for .4 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 14.6 feet at it closest point to the south side yard property. line for the existing home. This petition will be heard at a regular meeting to be held Tuesday, February 26, 2002, beginning at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. If you have any questions or comments about this variance request, you may contact the Planning Department at 763/593-3992. Adjacent properties require notification. . 216 Winnetka Avenue South 02-2-7 . Maureen Rath &. Richard Gunderson . . . . Hey Memorandum Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Dan Olson, City Planner Subject: 216 Winnetka Avenue South (Map 23) (02-2-7) Maureen Rath and Richard Gunderson, Applicants Date: February 20, 2002 Maureen Rath and Richard Gunderson, with property located at 216 Winnetka Avenue South, are requesting a variance from the Residential zoning code (Section 11.21). The applicants have approached the City to build a garage addition to the existing home. This construction project requires a variance from the following section of City Code. · The requested variance is from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setbacks. City Code states that the distance between any part of a dwelling or structure and the side lot lines shall be governed by the following requirements: In the case of lots having a width of over 100 feet, the side yard setback shall be 15 feet. The requested variance is for 8.5 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 6.5 feet at it closest point to the south side yard property line for the proposed garage. Previously, this property received variances for a similar project. In October of 1999, variances were approved for this property for a proposed garage addition on the south side of the home. The minutes from that meeting are attached for your review. At that time, the applicant received a variance to build the garage to be located 11 feet to the property line rather than the required 15 feet. This garage addition was never built and the variance approval expired in October, 2000. The City's file on this property reveals that a permit was pulled in July of 1947 for the construction of the home. No other pertinent information was found in the file. . Subject Property: 216 Winnetka Avenue S Maureen Rath & Richard Gunderson, Applicants ~-- I I I I ~. ~ ... ~ ~. .-- Uo I. 3' lfes. .-- 8u6 , ." T .-...... 10%.47 ''''.f' :;,,.. II! :i!t2 -N . - - .;' I .''' '0%. I ~ I I I I I ~ . lOOKVIEW l!l I 16 I /5 /4 . , ~.". (Revised 1/99) Industrial . Other . . Petition Number 0 ;;.. -;).. - 7 Date Received ?-/5/0r-. Amount Received 60" tV ($50 residential - $150 other) PETITION FOR ORDINANCE WAIVER CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 1. Street address of property involved in this petition: t~ / (P {;t} Inl1e +lcC{., A~. S; 2. BZA Petition Date 3. Petitioner: ft1 aureen f< Oftlj d- R ;cAard (;(unrll-r:C,-r..'V1) Name /l -() ~ a ..p ,So) Livlde11 Ud ,AI/IJ 55L ;U Address City/State/Zip t .? tb 3 -.7" if/; -1/& 7 ~ . (Aj tlLJJrCBf1 Ka/~) 'J fA -:-?"q Lf-~{):J:? -:-. Business Phone Home Phone 4 '761-,5'51-//// X.9l3 {;k!icitord {1urx!.uJVv'.j 4. If petitioner is not owner of all property involved in this petition, please name property owner and describe petitioner's interest (legal and other) in this property: 5. Legal Description of property involved in this petition (found on survey): LoI (], J(!. (. c;prJ ' <: Add' i h' (..y! €.'Yca{J f- -fAp t.()"f,~- /.(;z), 00 .(;,pf- -14 er",c'f) k?711 .,oj] /11 COw)';'? J 114M lit') 4,,- < 6. Type of property involved in this petition: Residential: X Single Family _ Double Dwelling _ Multiple Dwelling Commercial Institutional Bus. & Prof. Office . . ----. . 7. Detailed description of building (s), addition(s), and alteration(s) involved in this petition. The site plans and drawings submitted with this petition will be~the> basis of any variance that may be approved and cannot be changed before or after the building permit issued. S-CQ Ct f+o C.01 (.? ) 8. (Staff will complete this item) Waiver of Section Subd(s). Subd(s). Subd(s). Waiver of Section Waiver of Section 9. Please attach a brief statement of the reasons. necessity. or hardship which provide grounds for the granting of this waiver~ Attach letter, photographs, or other evidence, if appropriate. 10. A current or usable survey of the property must be attached. Proposed surveys are not acceptable. The survey must be prepared by a regis- tered land surveyor licensed in the State of Minnesota. The survey must show all property lines. buildings. and streets. The distance from the house and all other buildings to the front and side property lines shall be shown. The rear distance of any buildings from the property line will be needed, if in question. Also. the survey should show an approximate location of any buildings on adjacent properties relative to the side(s) where the construction will take place. If the survey is larger than 11" x 17". the applicant will supply seven additional copies of the survey for use by the Board. 11. To the Applicant: To the best of my knowledge the statements found in this application are true and correct. Attached herewith is my check in the amount of $ },-o,Ou representing the Board of Zoning Appeals Application Fee. '-'~r'L~ (/~ I j1 f " \ ltLt/\JJ'l\, \1 '\ Ot/'v-c,- Signature of Applicant . UNLESS CONSTRUCTION OR THE ACTION APPLICABLE TO THIS WAIVER REQUEST, IF GRANTED, IS NOT TAKEN WITHIN ONE YEAR, THE WAIVER EXPIRES. . . . - The applicant will need to obtain the signatures of all adjacent property owners. This includes all properties abutting the applicant's property and directly across the street. If on a corner, this means across both streets. NOTE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: This petition is application for waiver of Ordinance(s) of the City Zoning Code. Please be aware of any possible effect the granting of this waiver could have on your property. All property owners adjacent to the subject property will receive a notice of the Board of Zoning Appeals hearing, at which they may present their views. Your signature is required only to verify that you have been told about the request and gives the adjacent property owner opportunity to comment. . (Comments can contain language of agreeing with the project, objecting to the project or other statements regarding the project) Print Name Comment /Y)~.5 c)lC II e ~T~~-' ), .~.~. >;r:) rj \LV Yf/q Jfi~% h n.s~ / d...-eO/'-L-C-C c1~ '-~"'~-~-'7--J~'~' .~ ,~';'- c/ . . v/ft./ Q p/ . .- ,) <" ., L ,? S'. Signature //Zt_..._?4fi-Cc? /' ~~~,,-,'--Address ..:1 <2 b t~~~C-c<- 4;v. '" D l_ .. Print Name ~~I~/ Comme~ " '. . Signature ~dress I P-ce),J. W~ ,. ., " ; /\ ,"".", .--..~~_.~ PrintName r}e;;.tvJ2:,.-i1//J~ . .~f7.UJ,v~1.,"~ luv~ Comment /Vi) !~~"V\___ '------. I~ 4f?-JL-11 /Afl-+.r0 l,.' Signature Address Print Name Comment - > 0 0 ~V i N tV t\ left .11-\/ '& g ~) v V S T SOL}) - N i) 0 AJ E LI V nJ (.,.., r'\-4 l?VlE - '1YL, t:" j) . . '1- "U 01- 4- '2- .tj OL- 1 UFT AJ01-e, , Signature Address . 2-4-02 Please allow our 2-1/2 car garage and breezeway. If we added another stall to the existing garage, we would still end up with our garage in the 15 foot setback. If we put a garage in the back of the house, we would have an even longer driveway, which we feel if anything we need to reduce the pavement. With an attached garage, we will not only reduce the length of the driveway but this will also provide us the opportunity to convert our current garage into additional living space sorely needed. Note: In 1999, the previous owners of the property applied for and were approved for building a double garage on the property. ~'(~ CltWwKcJl-- Maureen Rath (LJ rMflV ~VV\- Richard Gunderson . . . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting October 26, 1999 Page 8 216 Winnetka Avenue South (Map 23) 99-10-34 Krisann and William Ehrman Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C}(1} Side Yard Setback. · 3 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 12 feet for a proposed two-stall garage at its closest point to the side (south) property line. (Revised) Purpose: To allow for the construction of a proposed two-stall garage into the side yard setback. Chair Swedberg reviewed the requested variance. Krisann Ehrman was in attendance. Staff Liaison Dold reviewed the request commenting that only one variance is being requested for a proposed two-stall garage. The proposed garage would be placed to the front of the existing garage and the existing garage would be remodel for interior living space. Ms. Ehrman showed the Board minor architect renderings of the proposed garage. She said it is now her intention to add two feet to the front of the garage. Dold responded that this should not have any effect of the proposal as there is approximately 72 feet from the proposed garage to the front setback line. Shaffer noted from the plan that the architect showed the width of the proposed garage from the house side to the south property line has 11 feet vs. the 10 feet shown on the plan. The Board noted this one-foot change. MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by McCracken-Hunt and motion carried unanimously to approve a variance from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) for four (4) feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 11 feet for a proposed two-stall garage at its closest point to the side (south) property line. J,ersey Avenue North (Map 18) 99-10-35 h of the Good She herd Rarking Requirements. \\:tL ~ ". - - -'\: riance from that section 0(; ode requiri~g parking spaces for schog seating. ,y - -. ',', ':~>'-' -;~' dents are elementary aXlo do not drlve:)i, l i/ ,\{", / Section 11.4Jf, Subd. 7(8) Yard Req'l.Iirements. ? :-.i."f: - -'- -"-"'i J/ ',J;;" ,/ ft'the reql1Tred 50 feet to a distance oft;9 feet for ~i1' existing single- 'cate~:along the east property line; al1di,; J · 5 feet off th . ,'fred 25 feet to a distance of 20 feet fC:)r a'iveway turnaround . ~~~:~ ~~~~~. .~~ I;~~::~~ :~:t~~';:~:~':e~~~2Q :=i~;;~:S~dand playground area and driveway located in the required Ian scape area on the east side of the property. . . . . . . . . www.n.~Um-~!l~ Y 2-7 -02 HEARING NOTICE Board of Zonina Appeals 216 Winnetka Avenue South Maureen Rath and Richard Gunderson. Applicants Maureen Rath and Richard Gunderson, with property located at 216 Winnetka Avenue South, have petitioned the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance from the Residential zoning district. The applicants are proposing to construct a garage addition onto the existing home. This construction project requires a variance from the following section of City Code. . Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setbacks. City Code states that the distance between any part of a dwelling or structure and the side lot lines shall be governed by the following requirements: In the case of lots having a width of over 100 feet, the side. yard setback shall be 15 feet. The requested variance is for 8.5 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 6.5 feet at it closest point to the south side yard property line for the proposed garage. This petition will be heard at a regular meeting to be held Tuesday, February 26, 2002, beginning at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. If you have any questions or comments about this variance request, you may contact the Planning Department at 763/593-3992. Adjacent properties require notification. . 2205 Mary Hills Drive . 02-2-8 Kathleen Schaaf and Eric Fournier . .. . . . Hey Memorandum Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Dan Olson, City Planner Subject: 2205 Mary Hills Drive (Map 5) (02-2-8) Kathleen Schaaf and Eric Fournier, Applicants Date: February 20,2002 Kathleen Schaaf and Eric Fournier, with property located at 2205 Mary Hills Drive, are requesting a variance from the Residential zoning code (Section 11.21). The applicants have approached the City to replace a deck to the existing home. This deck was previously constructed without a variance or a building permit. This construction project requires a variance from the following section of City Code. . The requested variance is from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback. City Code states that the front yard setback shall be 35 feet from the front yard property line. The variance request for the proposed deck is for 15 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 20 feet at its closest point to the front yard property line along Bassett Creek Drive. The City's file on this property reveals that a permit was pulled in August of 1977 for the construction of the home. No other pertinent information was found in the file. . Subject Property: 2205 Mary Hills Dr Kathleen Schaaf and Eric Fournier, Applicants . . "-1- ("'.1 Ci:: (J) C,J 1--= ~::~. . . -f- . . . (Revised 1/99) Petition Number 0;) -- '''J- -- " Date Received :J- J 5/ O'-;A . . Amount Received .r-v. 00 ($50 residential- $150 other) PETITION FOR ORDINANCEWAIVER CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 1. Street address of property involved in this petition: ,';;'3.05 HO^j \W/)\}u,~ ./ 2. BZA Petition Date , 3, Pemioner: +<(~~~-eN S~\=' / ~ r;;J.J'v..r~~.. .1) Name. _ ~ ".,. ~)t.~dJt,;.... LXbJLQ:~ . je:.. If. j . . P ./J ~. . ,.--c '....... (. y '-l ~ ~ \.,~ I. ~..:.J. L-- Address Cityl tatelZip I'~' ~- .c.:),~ Ci - q ::3C-C0 ~-.o ~ Business Phone Home Phone 4. If petitioner is' not owner of all property involved in this petition, please name property owner and describe petitioner's interest (legal and other) in this property: 5. Legal Description of property involved in this petition (found on survey): ~.,;t 4 I SWck ~ ' rv~~ l~ 6. Type of property involved in this petition: Residential: )! 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. . ~h~ ll'Y-ls-k,tl6 ~-o-W rIr~lL 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 th~ property must be attached. Proposed surveys are not acceptable. The survey must be prepared by a regis- tered land surveyor licensed in the State of Minnesota. The survey must show all property lines. buildings. and streets. The distance from the house and all other buildings to the front and side property lines shall be shown. The rear distance of any buildings from the property line will b~ needed. if in question. Also. the survey should show an approximate location of any buildings on adjacent properties relative to the side(s) where the construction will take place. If the survey is larger than 11" x 17". the applicant will supply seven additional copies of the survey for use by the Board. 11. To the Applicant: To the best of my knowledge the statements found in this application are true and correct. Attached herewith is my check in the amount of $ representing the Board of Zoning Appeals Application Fee. Signature of Applicant UNLESS CONSTRUCTION OR THE ACTION APPLICABLE TO THIS WAIVER REQUEST, IF GRANTED, IS NOT TAKEN WITHIN ONE YEAR, THE WAIVER EXPIRES. The applicant will need to obtain the signatures of all adjacent property owners. This includes all properties abutting the applicant's property and directly across the street. If on a corner, this means across both streets. . NOTE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: This petition is application for waiver of Ordinance(s} of the City Zoning Code. Please be aware of any possible effect the granting of this waiver could have on your property. All property owners adjacent to the subject property will receive a notice of the Board of Zoning Appeals hearing, at which they may present their views. Your signature is required only to verify that you have been told about the request and gives the adjacent property owner opportunity to comment. (Comments can contain language of agreeing with the project, objecting to the project or other statements regarding the project.) Print Name L, i 0 \(>, If' \ ". ~,! )9-,\ \"n J ( Comment Signature Address ",,"t /; ',,,J.-, 1 ('; '-J I I ~ t' if 1 /11'~ f\ /",\" j (.",1u~ J....".~." , ~Jk_, " ,'-\, ~J\ , Print Name . Comment ~ I i \ ,'~" ~')~~t /' ~.~. ",; r 1 \ ' I.!. I, I -t -"') . tJ' t>....... ;'\\) 5 '\ , r' ./ dit !,/ r) Signature.."'" '~.,..ftr -". )L..l1U -~J../,.~...........:-v'--t'''~' . "::'-""".~I/, 'Y'"-_,_f' L . , __".>\ i \ i Address ;2J/:J m~~ DR-, / J,_ ,./;/ ' , . Print Name ii Vl0lj k/17/i . . G) . lEAl (1 6, r - Comment Address ~1t7) 151f}~Sf-1I .1, ~ r Print Name Comment 1t1Dv~~ c""'+ 0+ ( 0""'- e Signature Address ;l ~ () / r./] Ii ,. 7 HI'1Is /)!"'. . "''''~ . . PETITION FOR ORDINANCE WAVER CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY Kathy Schaaf/Eric Fournier 2205 Mary Hills Drive Golden Valley 763-529-9300 Brief Statement of the reasons, necessity, or hardship which provide grounds for . granting the waver. Our home currently has an existing attached two level open deck. If we were not able to rebuild the existing deck major and very expensive work would need to be done to redesign the existing home. If the deck is not removed and rebuilt, the property value of the house would decline since the deck is one of the selling features of the home. The wood is rotten and the deck is dangerous in its current condition. The deck is an eyesore in the neighborhood. . . . . ~ /' I i I " ; 1 i ! ~ , I 1 i I I I \ \ ,~ ..~ ~\~~. , . '.J "?S., '\~-> \ \ \ \ '<~ \ \..' G'x". \~, '\ <90; '.' '\................,..~. '., \ J" \ \\ . .~, ')0 ,,-.. u _~=:::. C::./"'<: ,..,.-~ y~=- L- ~o ~;;: Joe --._t!'L-4-:T~{==~~._._._. \ '\ , ~ 'y(,,-J. .\... "> 'X" ' 1:/"\ '\ ."", \; ..:') '0" \ \ , . ,/ / / I 10 Iv,. /11 I ~~':'. // /. ~'... ..\\ ........... .......... .................. .... ................. .' ......'....... .............. /./;76,. . . ...... ..... '.' //" d. 6"">-0 . . ........ ,// 0- " ....~. ..../ kOl?///' r"/ . . ~" ..%............ /.'. .' ..C> o / '.' . V'. " ~:i; . <" ......... ........ >.' ........ .......................w............. .?:r....................... ............................... .... ..4~/',.;/....~...........,........................ ................ ........... ...........................;.... ..... ...x(.......... ./ 0 ~}2fi..>.# #>.................. t 0i~"> #. ,......................:-1..../...... ........\ .......('.". /.' 'i'~ /: . J ~l 0/0... .V.". /./........ ...... / ~/v .. / .~ /// . // / . LEGAL 1-0 I ~. DES c.R IPTIOA/ ;{-1,4-R. Y /-1ILc. S ,B /r:> c-k "Z. /' /:. l:: I', .. i; 1-3" .J' <" ..,,,1'( t.t' /! " :.;t?Q': .~,"". p ; - () ~.,,;:'IiJ;;.y' ~'w'~'."_/ "., t."!: //' - 7 '7 ).). " . t 3030 Harbor lane No. Plymouth MN 55441 Phone, (612) 559-0908 I herp-hy certify that this IS a true dncl correct repmsp.l1liltlon ot d survey 0t the bounJaries of the above described land and of the location of all buildings, If any. thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. f"~4 ~f7 r'L . '7' '" -:r-. .".. 1"":';,,<". -.. Assurv..f!..ve~l' methis-' "."1avOf,..""'/ ,. . 19..L! .'-"- ~., '.~"-' I, l , ,'" ~ ;..;j.<&....- .. .... ,!,< ,~.. t,.'.;f,.', . -iN' .',1_,. ...h......... <"'. , i ...+- .... ,:'"' .... _ ____.____. . ,( i j 'i' '....... / '"'-. '-::~) (~' (0 L:.~ Minn, Reg. No. ~... '::__ DEMARS - GABRIEL l.AND SURVEYORS, INC. /' . . . . . . www.cigoUm-~lt~ Y 2-7-02 HEARING NOTICE Board of Zonina Appeals 2205 Mary Hills Drive Kathleen Schaaf and Eric Fournier. Applicants Kathleen Schaaf and Eric Fournier, with property located at 2205 Mary Hills Drive, have petitioned the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance from the Residential zoning district. The applicants are proposing to construct a deck addition onto the existing home. This construction project requires a variance from the following section of City Code. . Section 11.21, Subd. 7 (A) Front Yard Setback. City Code states that the front yard setback shall be 35 feet from the front yard property line. The variance request for the existing home is for 15 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 20 feet at its closest point to the front yard property line along Bassett Creek Drive. This petition will be heard at a regular meeting to be held Tuesday, February 26, 2002, beginning at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. If you have any questions or comments about this variance request, you may contact the Planning Department at 763/593-3992. Adjacent properties require notification.