Loading...
08-27-02 BZA Agenda . . . Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, August 27, 2002 7PM 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers I. Approval of Minutes - July 23, 2002 II. The Petitions are: 4321 Avondale Road (02-8-48) Ron Enaen, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7 (A) Front Yard Setback . 7.2 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 27.8 feet for the existing home at its closest point to the front yard property line along Douglas Avenue. . 6.6 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 28.4 feet for the proposed mud room addition at its closest point to the front yard property line along Douglas Avenue. . 6.1 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 28.9 feet for the proposed deck addition at its closest point to the front yard property line along Douglas Avenue. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a deck and mud room addition to the existing home, as well as to bring the existing home into conformance with building setback requirements. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7 (C) (1) Side Yard Setbacks . .3 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 14.7 feetfor the existing home at its closest point to the west side yard property line. Purpose: To bring the existing home into conformance with building setback requirements. 416 Burntside Drive (02-8-49) Robert and Darcie Rossborouah, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 12 (A) Accessory Buildings . 2 feet off the required 5 feet to a distance of 3 feet for the proposed shed at its closest point side yard property line. The shed would be built to the south of the existing home. . Purpose: To allow for the construction of a shed on the property. 449 Meadow Lane North (02-8-50) Tara Mucha, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7 (A) Front Yard Setback . 1 foot off the required 35 feet to a distance of 34 feet for the existing home at its closest point to the front yard property line along Meadow Lane North. . 3.6 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 31.4 feet for the existing home at its closest point to the front yard property line along Woodstock Avenue. Purpose: To bring the existing home into conformance with front yard setback requirements. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7 (C) (1) Side Yard Setbacks . . 5 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 10 feet for the proposed garage addition at its closest point to the west side yard property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage addition to the existing home. 1532 Mendelssohn Avenue North (02-8-51) Kurt Templin, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7 (A) Front Yard Setback . 14 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 21 feet for the existing home at its closest point to the front yard property line along Mendelssohn Avenue North. . 23.2 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 11.8 feet for the existing home at its closest point to the front yard property line along Olympia Street. . 29 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 6 feet for the proposed garage addition at its closest point to the front yard property line along Olympia Street. . Purpose: To bring the existing home into conformance with front yard setback requirements and to allow for the construction of a garage addition to the existing home. 2 . 1037 Hampshire Avenue North (02-8-52) Sennes Desian Build, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7 (A) Front Yard Setback . 14.5 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 20.5 feet for the existing home and proposed dormer addition at its closest point to the front yard property line along Hampshire Avenue North. Purpose: To bring the existing home into conformance with front yard setback requirements and to allow for the construction of a dormer addition to the existing home. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7 (C) (1) Side Yard Setbacks . 1.4 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 13.6 feet for the existing home and proposed second story addition at its closest point to the north side yard property line. . Purpose: To bring the existing home into conformance with side yard setback requirements and to allow for the construction of a second story addition to the existing home. 5015 St. Croix Avenue (02-8-53) Sidney Mevers, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7 (C) (1) Side Yard Setbacks . 6.7 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 8.3 feet for the existing home at its closest point to the east side yard property line. . 2.8 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 12.2 feet for the proposed garage and room addition at its closest point to the west side yard property line. Purpose: To bring the existing home into conformance with side yard setback requirements and to allow for the construction of a garage and room addition to the existing home. 1209 Pennsylvania Avenue North (02-8-54) James Brereton, Applicant . Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7 (C) (2) Side Yard Setbacks 3 . . 8 feet off the required 14 feet to a distance of 6 feet for the existing home at its closest point to the north side yard property line. Purpose: To bring the existing home into conformance with side yard setback requirements Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 12 (A) Accessory Buildings . 1.5 feet off the required 5 feet to a distance of 3.5 feet for the existing shed on the south side of the property at. its closest point to the side and rear yard property lines. . 3.2 feet off the required 5 feet to a distance of 1.8 feet for the existing shed on the north side of the property at its closest point to the rear yard property line. . 2.6 feet off the required 5 feet to a distance of 2.4 feet for the existing shed on the north side of the property at its closest point to the north side yard property line. . To allow the existing detached garage to be located to the south of the existing home. . Purpose: To bring the two existing sheds and existing detached garage on the property into conformance with Accessory Building setback requirements. 224 Janalyn Circle (02-8-55) Richard Baker, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7 (A) Front Yard Setback Purpose: . 5 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 30 feet for the existing home at its closest point to the front yard property line along Janalyn Circle. To bring the existing home into conformance with front yard setback requirements. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7 (C) (2) Side Yard Setbacks . . 1.2 feet off the required 12.6 feet to a distance of 11.4 feet for the existing home at its closest point to the east side yard property line. . 7.2 feet off the required 12.6 feet to a distance of 5.4 feet for the existing deck at its closest point to the east side yard property line. 4 . . . Purpose: To bring the existing home and deck into conformance with side yard setback requirements. III. Other Business IV. Adjournment 5 " " .. . Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 23, 2002 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, July 23, 2002, in the Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair McCracken-Hunt called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Those present were Chair McCracken-Hunt and members Cera, Sell, Smith and Planning Commission Representative Shaffer. Also present wer iaison Dan Olson and Recording Secretary Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes - June 25, 2002 II. The Petitions are: Iy to approve the MOVED by Smith, seconded by Cera and motion carrie June 25, 2002 minutes as submitted. 6620 Olympia Street (Map 15) (0 Shaun Graham A licant . Request: .21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback red 35 feet to a distance of 34.8 feet for the closest point to the front yard property line a S et. the required 35 feet to a distance of 4.9 feet for the at its closest point to the front yard property line along Avenue North. t off the required 35 feet to a distance of 16 feet for the g home and the proposed 2-story room addition at its closest 01 t to the front yard property line along Hampshire Avenue North. To allow for the construction of a garage and 2-story room addition to the existing home, as well as to bring the existing home and deck into conformance with building setback requirements. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(B) Rear Yard Setback . 4.7 feet off the required 28.7 feet to a distance of 24 feetfor the proposed garage and 2-story room addition at its closest point to the rear yard property line. . Purpose: To allow for the.construction of a garage and room addition to the existing home. . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting July 23, 2002 Page 2 Olson reminded the Board that this same request was tabled at the May 29, 2002 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. He referred to the survey and stated that the applicant would like to withdraw the portion of his request dealing with the 2-story room and garage addition, but would still like to go forward with the variance requests for the existing home. Olson stated that he recommends approval for the existing home variance requests and denial for the proposed addition requests because the applicant is planning on changing his plans for the addition. Sell stated that if the Board denies the requests for the propo applicant could not come back with further variance reques that variance approvals are valid for one year but that an a year to reapply fora variance request that has been that an applicant couldn't make a request for an identic if the request were changed they could. hen the Ison stated sn't have to wait stated he thought waiver for a year, but Shaffer stated the applicant should submit so requests for the proposed addition. Olson ha withdrawal of the variance requests de writing to withdraw hiS variance Icant write a note requesting oposed addition. McCracken-Hunt suggested votin homes and not voting on the re the applicant if he was willing to addition. Shaun Graham, requests for the propose lance requests dealing with the existing a with the proposed addition. She asked w his variance requests for the proposed ted yes, he wanted to withdraw the variance MOVED by Sell, sec off the required 3 point to the front feet to a dist property Ii distance of ra and motion carried unanimously to approve .2 feet ance of 34.8 feet for the existing home at its closest rty line along Olympia Street, 30.1 feet off the required 35 t for the existing deck at its closest point to the front yard shire Avenue North and 19 feet off the required 35 feet to a r the existing home. Shaffer existing ho addition. that the Board is only addressing the variance requests for the and that they are not addressing the variance requests for the proposed 235 Paisley Lane (Map 12) (02-7-35) Jerry Kassanchuk, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback . 10.4 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 24.6 feet for the proposed garage and room addition at its closest point to the front yard property line along Ski Hill Road. 2 . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting July 23, 2002 Page 3 Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage and room addition on the property. Olson stated that the applicant is proposing to build a garage and 3-story addition on the east side of his home, which would require a variance from the front yard setback req uirements. MOVED by Shaffer, seconded b request for 10.4 feet off the req garage and room addition Road. itting on the nly two very heavily Jerry Kassanchuk, applicant stated that because of the way the lot it is hard to add any additions except to the east. He stateQ neighbors that this addition would affect and that the east s' 6' wooded. Shaffer stated that this proposal seemed logical and th the surrounding neighbors. He added that it is goi addition because of all the trees on the lot. ouldn't affect any of ard to even see the new Cera asked if there is also a north side yard s applicant has redesigned his plans and 15 feet would be met. c . ue. Olson stated that the side yard setback requirement of . otion carried unanimously to approve the feet to a distance of 24.6 feet for the proposed point to the front yard property line along Ski Hill Ie (Map 18) (02-7-36) r from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback . .3 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 34.7 feet for the existing home at its closest point to the front yard property line along North Cortlawn Circle. . 4.1 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 30.9 feet for the proposed deck addition at its closest point to the front yard property line along North Cortlawn Circle. Purpose: To bring the existing home into conformance with front yard setback requirements and to allow for the construction of a front deck addition to the existing home. . Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 12(A) Accessory Buildings . 5 feet off the required 10 feet to a distance of 5 feet for the existing shed at its closest point to the home. 3 . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting July 23, 2002 Page 4 Purpose: To bring the existing shed on the property into conformancewith Accessory Building setback requirements. Olson stated that the applicant is proposing to replace a wooden deck on the front of his home and that it was unclear why a variance was not required for the deck originally. He stated that the request for 4.1 feet off the required 3 t to a distance of 30.9 feet was incorrect on his memo and was obtained by meas top portion of the deck. He stated that the correct number is 26.2 feet at its p' to the front yard for the proposed deck. He stated that the applicant w Ing any closer to the property line than the existing deck already does. he had left messages with all of the neighbors informing them of th e variance request and that he didn't think the applicant should be ait until the August Board of Zoning Appeals meeting because of this c" the request. He explained that there is also an existing shed on the prop quires a variance from accessory building requirements. Olson asked the applican Crews stated he did McCracken-Hunt property line he d that the deck is really more of Smith stated that the shed isn't even vi . an entrance. . Ralph Crews, applicant clarified as the existing deck but would he would like to add a han neck would be built in the same location required railings. He stated that in the future to the deck. andicap ramp would go any closer to the property line. now but is planning to add the ramp in the future. !tie applicant that if the ramp does go closer to the to come back to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a waiver. rred to the survey and discussed the dimensions of the ow close to the front property line it would actually be. In uest with the applicants, it was decided to grant a front yard variance front property line. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Sell and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variance requests: . . .3 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 34.7 feet for the existing home at its closest point to the front yard property line along North Cortlawn Circle. . 9.2 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 25.8 feet for the proposed deck addition at its closest point to the front yard property line along North Cortlawn Circle. . 5 feet off the required 10 feet to a distance of 5 feet for the existing shed at its closest point to.the home. 4 . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting July 23, 2002 Page 5 308 Turnpike Road (Map 9) (02-7-37) Yuri and Vera Dreizin, Applicants Cera asked what the minim vehicles. McCracken-Hu that the Board has accep three feet is the Bui! feet. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7( . 7.75 feet off the required 11.25 the proposed garage addition at side yard property line. nce of 3.5 feet for point to the north Purpose: To allow for the construe home. . Olson stated that the applicant would requires a variance from the side 't easement search in the area an second stall to his garage which requirements. He stated that he did an ments were found. d setback requirements are for emergency t inimum requirement is three feet. Sell added feet as a minimum in the past. Shaffer added that uirement but that the Board likes to have at least five d that it doesn't make sense and isn't a good investment for nts to the inside of his home without a 2-stall garage. Sell q tion t e variance request was calculated correctly because when he looked a ensions it came out to be five feet away from the side yard property line. McCra n-Hunt stated that the addition would be 4.5 feet away from the property line. She asked the applicant if he is requesting the garage addition to be 10.5 feet wide. Dreizin stated yes. Olson stated that would make the variance request change to 6.75 feet off of the required 11.25 feet to a distance of 4.5 feet at its closest point to the side yard property line. . MOVED by Sell, seconded by Smith and motion carried unanimously to approve the request for 6.75 feet off of the required 11.25 feet to a distance of 4.5 feet for the proposed garage addition at its closest point to the north side yard property line. 130 Edgewood Avenue North (Map 17) (02-7-38) Marcia Anderson and Gary Berman. Applicants 5 . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting July 23, 2002 Page 6 Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setbacks . .04 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 14.6 feet for the existing home at its closest point to the north side yard property line. . 3.9 feet off the required 15 feet to a distan proposed garage addition at its closest yard property line. 11.1 feet for the to south side Purpose: To bring the existing home into confo requirements and to allow for the c to the existing home. ide yard setback a garage addition Request: Waiver from Section 11. ) Accessory Buildings . 1.1 feet off the requir existing gazebo property line. a distance of 3.9 feet for the oint to the north side yard Purpose: bo on the property into conformance with setback requirements. posing to demolish their single car garage and ed to the house with a breezeway. He stated that the wood Avenue North has said that there is a the applicants had done for their property and a survey rty. She also has stated that she would like to maintain an feet between the two garages. Olson stated that the roposed garage would maintain roughly 14 feet between the the City's position not to get involved in private matters between rs. Olson stated that the app . build a new two-car gara neighbor to the sout discrepancy betw she had done for appropriate applicant' garages an two pr; erty McCracken- t asked if the Board should use the information on the registered survey submitted by the applicant. Olson stated yes and that is what he's also told the applicant. Marcia Anderson, applicant discussed the plans for the proposed garage and stated that she had measured the distance from the proposed garage to the neighbors house and that 14 feet between the structures, as requested by her neighbor, would be maintained. Shaffer stated that it looked like the applicants had really thought through their plans and he liked that the proposed garage would be setback a little bit from the house. 6 . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting July 23, 2002 Page 7 MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to approved the following requests: . .04 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 14.6 feet for the existing home at its closest point to the north side yard property line. . 3.9 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 11.1 feet for the proposed garage addition at its closest point to the south side yard property line . 1.1 feet off the required 5 feet to a distance of 3.9 feet for t gazebo at its closest point to the north side yard property line. 6420 Golden Valley Road (Map 16) (02-7-39) Jeffrev Polinchock, Applicant Request: . 5.5 feet off the requir existing home and for point to the eas to a distance of 9.5 feet for the sed room addition at its closest erty line. . Purpose: To bring the e . requiremen the existin e into conformance with side yard setback for the construction of a room addition to Request: on 11.21, Subd. 12(A) Accessory Buildings . ant is requesting to have the existing detached o the west of the existing home and room addition, er than behind the existing home and proposed room ition. To bring the existing detached garage on the property into conformance with Accessory Building setback requirements (as a result of the construction of the proposed room "addition). . Olson stated that the applicant would like to build a room addition on the rear of his existing home. He stated that this property is really two lots, but that they are being treated as one. Olson stated that the survey done for this request shows the neighbor's home to the east not meeting the five-foot setback requirement. McCracken-Hunt stated that the discrepancy in the two surveys is not relevant to this variance request. She asked if the proposed addition were to be 15 feet from the east side property line if it would then be a variance request just for the existing home. Olson stated that the existing garage would still require a variance. He added that he wasn't sure if the proposed addition was going to be one story or two. 7 . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting July 23, 2002 Page 8 Jeffrey Polinchock, applicant explained that the reason the two surveys are different is because a retaining wall was constructed after the first survey was done sothe first survey was measured from the corner of the house and the second survey was measured from the edge of the new retaining wall. He stated that he would be willing to move the addition back so it would meet the 15-foot side yard setback requirement and that he would move the garage to forego the variances being requested for the garage and addition. n submitted fthe o arcel these two a $300,000 home right now his yard is his property to do their t what he is proposing is of his property. He is just square foot house. Cera asked if there were any other plans to look at beyond th with the application. Polinchock stated he is trying to pres neighborhood and increase the tax base. He added that. lots and sell them they would have a negative impact a there would be two $150,000 homes on small lots. He s being used as a right-of-way for the neighbors to c gardening. He stated that the neighbors' stron ' upsetting and that he is not trying to decreas e va trying to figure out a way to add on to his exis 1 0 McCracken-Hunt stated that if the ap away from the property line, the B required for the existing house. addition be moved 15 feet from different options for the pro o propose the addition to be 15 feet only be dealing with the variances ,J+that she wasn't proposing that the new yard property line; she was just exploring some . .on. Polinchock stated the rea is because the Code from the main struct 15 feet from the ~~. variance req he thought the proposed addition required a variance requests that an accessory building be 10 feet away ed he would be more than happy to build the addition e and to move the existing garage so that there would be no except for the ones dealing with the existing house. .{(ant how long he has lived at this address and when the house was stated he has lived there for a year and that the house was built in Sell stated that he didn't think the applicant should be penalized for sitting on two lots and that in his opinion the side yard setback requirements should be based on 50 feet because it is two lots. Olson stated that there is an ordinance that says if the lot is being used as one lot it should follow the setback requirements for one lot. Sell asked how the neighbor got a permit to build their house and stated that building that house is what put the applicant's house into nonconformance. Olson stated he agreed and that it was unclear from the City's files as to why a home was built on that lot. Sell suggested getting the city attorney's opinion. Olson stated he believes it is mute point because the two lots are being treated as one. Sell stated that people aren't allowed to zone someone into a nonconforming situation like this one. 8 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting July 23, 2002 Page 9 . Olson stated that the applicant has stated he would be willing to tear down the garage, or move it to the back of the house. He added that the applicant could, if he wanted to, sell off the second lot. Polinchock stated that he is willing to move the proposed addition to the west and to move or tear down the garage but that he wouldn't be able do anything to his house without a variance for the existing conditions. McCracken': , ed the applicant if it would help, or complicate his plans to move the ad . 'on b and why the addition it is being proposed the way it is, Polinchock stated tti s working to keep the garage 10 feet away from the proposed addition. 0 old the applicant that another idea would be to attach a deck to the garage and then it would not have to be 10 feet away from the main structure or behind the house because it would then be considered as part of the main structure. the existing o properties e a 'tion in a t to split it off. on in a different perty line and if he ddition. McCracken- roperty line he could do Shaffer asked the applicant if is going to change his request to de house variances. He stated that if the applicant's goal were to together as one and to keep the garage where it is, he could different direction and that it looks like the applicant is still Polinchock stated that he would be more than happy to b direction. He asked if he could build an addition 15 fee received a variance for the existing home if he could stil Hunt stated yes, as long as he stays 15 feet away anything. Olson stated that the applicant could also ere the house because that way it would be follow the setback requirements for d zeway to attach the garage to in structure and wouldn't have to ges. . Sell asked the applicant if he re $300,000 house. Polinchock a probably attach the garage was just trying to simplify variances for the existing addition would minim neighborly relatio built. Olson stat requirement t have a 500 square foot garage with a e didn't want that and stated that he would it. McCracken-Hunt explained that the Board o that the applicant would only be asking for Shaffer added that changing the direction of the ct to the neighbor and would assist in keeping stated that the neighbor doesn't want anything tobe olinchock were to meet the .15-foot side yard setback the addition in either direction. . Shaffer asked the applicant if he would like to withdraw the variance requests for the garage and the proposed addition and only request variances for the existing house. McCracken-Hunt reminded the applicant that he could also attach the garage to the addition. Polinchock stated that if he could build the addition and maintain 15 feet to the property line he would withdraw the portion of his request pertaining to the garage and addition and only request variances for the existing house. 9 . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting July 23, 2002 Page 10 Olson asked the applicant if he would like to consider tabling his variance requests and maybe come back to the Board with different plans or less of a variance request. Sell stated that they didn't need to table the request because the applicant is going to either have to attach the addition to the garage or move it. Patty Burrets, 6414 Golden Valley Road stated that she has never objected to Polinchock building something on his property, but when she saw roposed plans she was shaken up. She stated that Polinchock wants the addi . ack 15 feet, which would block all of her windows on the west side of her ho ded that she had nothing to do with the survey being wrong or her hous 1;i ere it was. She stated that she would be the only person affected by addition and that it would create a tunnel 10 % feet wide. She state sn't know what the proposed addition would look like and that it could be stories high and that worries her. Olson received a lett requests pertaini to that the Board is 'ust before this meeting she nd found out that Polinchock a crow bar and sledgehammer. s heard that there was a problem ould never do anything that caused to in fact, improved it. . Barbara Burrets, 6414 Golden Valley Road s heard some smashing noises so she called t was tearing up the retaining wall they h Patty Burrets stated that this is the fir with the retaining wall. She added harm Polinchock's property and Polinchock stated that he is that he was not moving a "a 6-foot high fence along the property line and hattasn't on his property. al from the applicant to withdraw his variance sed addition and the garage. McCracken-Hunt clarified g on the variances requested for the existing home. ed by Smith and motion carried unanimously to approve 5,5 0,15 feet to a distance of 9.5 feet for the existing home. Request: Waiver from Section 11.36, Subd. 6(A) Front Yard Setback . . 18.2 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 16.8 feet for the proposed parking lot at its closest point to the front yard property line along Madison Avenue West. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a proposed parking lot on the property. Request: Waiver from Section 11.36, Subd. 6(C)(3) Side Yard Setbacks 10 . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting July 23, 2002 Page 11 . 10 feet off the required 20 feet to a distance of 10 feet for the proposed building at its closest point to the south side yard property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a proposed office and warehouse building on the property. Request: Waiver from Section 11.36, Subd. 7(A) Requirements The applicant is requesting to redu parking spaces from the required 2 r of required o 16 spaces. Purpose: To allow for the constructi property. d parking lot on the Olson stated that he had met with Mr. best solution to preserve the green s the reason he needed to request t proposed number of parking sp they tried to come up with the dison Avenue and that that is part of He added that staff feels that the Shaffer asked if variances past. Olson stated that h been demolished so he i proposed. to Hennepin County for this same lot in the o that much research but that the building has y the information pertaining to the new building being Cera asked how required siz them sma I parking spa re-stri, the would th arking spaces would be. Olson stated they would be the et by 20 feet. He stated that there was talk about making more spaces but that staff decided the proposed number of be adequate. McCracken-Hunt stated that they could choose to ng lot in the future to allow for more parking. Olson stated that they to request a variance for smaller parking spaces. Greg Stotko, applicant stated that they have talked to other businesses in the area about their proposal and that the neighbor that would be most affected by this proposal didn't have any concerns. Cera stated that the number of parking spaces is fine for what is going to be there now, but questioned if parking on the street was permitted there would be enough parking on this site if the use were to change in the future. Olson stated he wasn't sure if parking was permitted on the street there or not. Smith stated that it would be nice to get rid of a vacant lot. 11 . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting July 23, 2002 Page 12 MOVED by Sell, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to approve the following requests: . 18.2 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 16.8 feet for the proposed parking lot at its closest point to the front yard property line along Madison Avenue West. . 10 feet off the required 20 feet to a distance of 10 feet for the proposed building at its closest point to the south side yard property line. . To reduce the number of required parking spaces from the r spaces to 16 spaces. 7100 Madison Avenue West (Map 14 AI Peters A Iicant Request: .3 ,Subd. 6(A) Front Yard Setback . .1 feet exi Ii quired 35 feet to a distance of 34.9 feet for the at its closest point to the front yard property on Avenue West. Purpose: existing building into conformance with front yard uirements. r from Section 11.36, Subd. 6(C)(3) Side Yard Setbacks 5 feet off the required 20 feet to a distance of 15 feet for the existing building at its closest point to the east and west side yard property lines. . 15 feet off the required 20 feet to a distance of5 feet for the proposed dog kennel addition at its closest point to the east side yard property line. Purpose: To bring the existing building into conformance with side yard setback requirements and to allow for the construction of a proposed dog kennel addition on the property. Olson stated that the applicant would like to move his business, Hearing and Service Dogs of Minnesota, from Minneapolis to Golden Valley. He stated that most of the variances being requested are for the existing building and that the applicant would like to construct a dog kennel addition on the property. 12 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting July 23, 2002 Page 13 . Shaffer asked which one of the two drawings they received should be used. McCracken-Hunt added that the measurement of the addition is shown different on the two plans. Olson clarified where the addition is actually proposed to be and stated that the roof of the addition is the main part of the proposal that needs a variance. He stated that the applicant could build a cement slab and a fence without requiring any variances, but because the applicant would like the roof to five fee e east property line he needs a variance. Shaffer stated he was concerne property line with no screening. going on they bark less. H be an improvement to wh nd stated that n to them free of d that they need He showed his AI Peters, Applicant gave some background information on his dogs are trained for deaf or physically disabled peopl charge. He stated that the dogs are always supervised the structure outside for when they clean the inside of th plans to the Board and discussed what he is inten ~ Shaffer noted that the sketch the Board recei high fence and a 14-foot roof. Peters stated t changed the plans to have a 6-foot hig asked if there would still be a five-foo the structure to have a 10-foot understood and has since O-foot roof. McCracken-Hunt g the east side of the building. . p g the dog run so close to the east side explained that when the dogs can see what is the neighbor to the east has said that it would Olson asked if dogs i settling in period, ut t the dogs are outSt a time. in to the training act up. Peters stated that there is a ot a humane society or a kennel. Olson asked how long rs stated they are outside approximately 10 to 15 minutes at ny dogs would be at the facility at one time. Peters stated that have 12 dogs and that this new space would provide room to grow. Olson state at the parking is not adequate on the paved area and that he would like to add as a condition of approval that if it is ever determined that they would need more parking they would have to add curb and gutter and pave the unpaved area. Peters stated that only five of his employees would be driving to the facility. . Gary Gandrud, Fagre& Benson, 90 57th Street, Minneapolis, representing the underlying owner of the building stated that he is not against Mr. Peters or Hearing and Service Dogs of MN and that in the right place it would be a wonderful program. He stated that there could be as many as 40 dogs there and that the variance being requested is for a kennel. He asked what the ownership interest of the applicant is. Olson stated that he did receive a letter from Gregory Wold, the owner of the property 13 . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting July 23, 2002 Page 14 which the applicant is purchasing the property from, stating that he is aware of the variance request and supports it. Gandrud stated that a letter from the owner isn't good enough and that the owner needs to sign the variance request application. He asked what the proposed roof would look like and what materials would be used. McCracken-Hunt explained that those types of issues are not part of this board's jurisdiction and that the Id be looked at in the permit process. Olson explained that the City's variance plication is in the process of being redone to allow for owner's signatures to Olson explained that it is and fence with no roof w disagreed with that in about the finding\!h the applicant is in~' and that is the the spirit and ways specifically they do make comments Gandrud stated that the Board has not discussed any un basis for granting a variance. He stated that variances intent of the zoning code. Shaffer stated that the Board state what the hardships are for a particular properlJ;? supporting their decisions . Sell asked which owner Gandrud represents. property is the estate of Fredda Bisma made of undue hardships, the applica tenants in the neighboring building parking property line and that it i stated that it is not the use of t andr stated that the owner of the ~, flat there hasn't been any case p all of the green space and the e to look at 20 to 40 dogs right at the ke 'ng with the character of the nice area. He g that is the hardship, it is the property. s bing official's interpretation is that a cement slab quire a building permit. Gandrud stated that he and stated that the Board should ask the city attorney ake and that these are valuable properties and that osing to build a commercial kennel. adjacent parking lot it not adjacent to the lot line. Gandrud at their building is setback the way it is suppose to be. He added owns the property objects to this proposal. Peters aske Mr. Gandrud was representing one of the twelve different condominium owners or the owner of the building. Gandrud stated that his client owns one of the condominiums in the building. McCracken-Hunt asked the applicant to clarify the maximum number of dogs that would be on the site. He stated that they have never had more than ten and would never have more than twenty. McCracken-Hunt asked if there is a standard of the number of dogs allowed per square foot. Peters stated that there could be hundreds of dogs and . that the laws require that the dogs be able to stand up. Smith stated that one thing the Board considers are the aesthetic issues of a vacant building. He added that the Board has tried to preserve property in the City and that 14 . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting July 23, 2002 Page 15 there may not necessarily be an "undue hardship", but that part of the Board's charge is to preserve buildings. Shaffer stated he is concerned about undue hardships as well. He stated that there is probably another use for this property, but the intent is to protect neighborhoods. He said that the Board is not bending any rules and that they are doing what they've been doing for thirty years. 1) If the City's Planni parking is needed, the north part gutter shal Subd. 7(C). approve the MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Smith and motion carried u a following variance requests with the conditions listed below . .1 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 34.9 its closest point to the front yard property line along xisting building at venue West. . 5 feet off the required 20 feet to a distanc closest point to the east and west side y he existing building at its lines. . 15 feet off the required 20 feet to a addition at its closest point to the eet for the proposed dog kennel d property line. . pment Director determines that additional licant shall pave and stripe the existing gravel area on show this additional parking. Concrete curb and r this parking area, as per City Code Section 11.70, 2) omes a problem, the Director of Planning and Development hat the area be screened. nnel structure must remain an open structure. 2360 Lee Avenue North (Map 5) (02-7-47) Mike and Mary Ellen Schrauth. Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback . . .2 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 34.8 feet for the existing home at its closest point to the front yard property line along Lee Avenue North. Purpose: To bring the existing home into conformance with front yard setback requirements. 15 . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting July 23, 2002 Page 16 Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setbacks . .6 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 14.4 feet for the existing home at its closest point to the north side yard property line. MOVED by Smith, seconded by Sell and motion c request for .2 feet off the required 35 feet to a . home at its closest point to the front yard pro .6 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance 0 closest point to the north side yard proR Purpose: To bring the existing home into conformanc requirements. yard setback Olson stated that the applicant is proposing to add a cont existing home, and that the variances requested are for imously to approve the o .8 feet for the existing long Lee Avenue North and for for the existing home at its . , Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setbacks eet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 14.6 feet for the xisting home and for the proposed room addition at its closest point to the west side yard property line. To bring the existing home into conformance with side yard setback requirements. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 12(A) Accessory Buildings . .6 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 34.6 feet for the existing detached garage at its closest point to the front yard property line along Orchard Avenue North. . Purpose: To bring the existing detached garage on the property into conformance with Accessory Building setback requirements. 16 . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting July 23, 2002 Page 17 Olson stated the applicant is proposing to add a conforming room addition to her existing house, and that the variances requested are for existing structures. MOVED by Sell, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to approve the request for .6 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 14.6 feet for the existing home and for the proposed room addition at its closest point to the west side yard property line and for .6 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of feet for the existing detached garage at its closest point to the front yard pr along Orchard Avenue North. MOVED by Smith, seconde request for 5.8 feet off th home at its closest point to 4915 Dona L Gre Wile A 5801 Olson Memorial Highway (Map 12) (02-7 David Barton, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, st . 5.8 feet off the requir the existing home at i property line. t to a distance of 19.9 feet for oint to the rear side yard . Purpose: To bring the e . requiremen e into conformance with rear yard setback d motion carried unanimously to approve the d 2 . feet to a distance of 19.9 feet for the existing ar side yard property line. 02-7 -44) r from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback . 2 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 33 feet for the existing home at its closest point to the front yard property line along Dona Lane. Purpose: To bring the existing home into conformance with front yard setback requirements. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to approve 2 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 33 feet for the existing home at its closest point to the front yard property line along Dona Lane. . 5735 Olson Memorial Highway (Map 12) (02-7-45) Greg Balke, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(2) Side Yard Setbacks 17 . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting July 23, 2002 Page 18 . 8.6 feet off the required 10.9 feet to a distance of 2.3 feet for the existing home at its closest point to the west side yard property line. Purpose: To bring the existing home into conformance with side yard setback requirements. MOVED by Smith, se;'"'''' this request) to a of 2.3 feet for the and for 2.2 ~ its closest Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 12 ( Buildings . 2.2 feet off the required 5 feet to existing shed at its closest poin along Orchard Avenue North. .8 feet for the ard property line Purpose: To bring the existing shed Accessory Building setb o y into conformance with ments. . Olson stated that staff has tried to conv' situations an administrative process example of why the above request attorney said that this home is t variance request should not be take no action or if they are it seems to her that an ap orney to make the hold harmless rticular request is the perfect ot be approved. He stated that the city o 13 front yard property line and that a d. Shaffer asked if the Board is supposed to to deny the request. McCracken-Hunt stated that fee to have action taken one way or another. era and motion carried 4 to 1 (Shaffer voted to deny est for 8.6 feet off the required 10.9 feet to a distance orne at its closest point to the west side yard property line ired 5 feet to a distance of 2.8 feet for the existing shed at nt yard property line along Orchard Avenue North. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback . .7 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 34.3 feet for the existing home at its closest point to the front yard property line along Westchester Circle. . Purpose: To bring the existing home into conformance with front yard setback requirements. 18 ... . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting July 23, 2002 Page 19 MOVED by Sell, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to approve the request for .7 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 34.3 feet for the existing home at its closest point to the front yard property line along Westchester Circle. III. Other Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 PM. . . 19 ~. .... .. . 4321 Avondale Road 02~8-48 . Ron Engen . . . . Hey Memorandum Planning 763-593-8095/ 763-593-8109 (fax) To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Dan Olson, City Planner Subject: 4321 Avondale Road (02-8-48) Ron Engen, Applicant Date: August 21,2002 Ron Engen of Paragon Builders, representing Isaac Felemovicius, with property located at 4321 Avondale Road, is requesting variances from the Residential zoning code (Section 11.21). . The applicants have approached the City to build deck and mud room additions to the existing home. These additions require variances from the building setback requirements. Also, 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. The following are the requested variances: . The first requested variance is from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback. City Code states that the front yard setback shall be 35 feet from the front yard property line. The variances requested are for 7.2 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 27.8 feet at its closest point to the front yard property line along Douglas Avenue for the existing home; for 6.6 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 28.4 feet at its closest point to the front yard property line along Douglas Avenue for the proposed mud room addition; and for 6.1 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 28.9 feet at its closest point to the front yard property line along Douglas Avenue for the proposed deck addition. . The second requested variance is from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setback. 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 greater than 100, the side yard setback shall be 15 feet. The requested variance is for .3 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 14.7 feet at it closest point to the west side yard property line for the existing home. Previously, property owners had received variances for this property. In May of 1970, the property owner received a variance to reduce the 35 foot setback requirement. along Avondale Road to 33 feet for a proposed porch addition. The minutes from that meeting. are attached for your review. In July of 1997, the property owners received a variance to reduce the 35 foot setback requirement along Douglas Avenue to 28 feet for a proposed kitchen addition. The minutes . . . from that meeting are attached for your review. According to a recent survey dated July 31, 2002, this addition was actually built to a distance of 27.8 feet to the property line along Douglas Avenue. The current above variance requests include this kitchen addition. The City's file on this property reveals that a permit was pulled in June of 1970 for the construction of the home. No other pertinent information was found in the file. . SubjectProperty: 4321 Avondale Road Ron Engen, Applicant 2J '1.10 22 . Eas!" J7j. . 6efl'leen ;,t. LoUIS ~ ~ I \ I ~ 0" ~ t- In ::: ... t: ] N N ~ ... A ~ ~ '< ,,_" It' "'.1 ~m~ iI'.l~,tnOlr. ~::: U,\, - ~ ~ ,... ~ .:.\, .." 114.5' f-?'u-9 ,:'f Nsi41IW N .,.o,,~4.,\~, ~ 1'4. ...:,,1 (~'45) . ~OT PI ClOU~~AS '" (55Z:;) ..Iewish CDmm Cenfer, Sf. Louis ParK (Revised 1/99) Petition Number () 'J.. - 8 -- '1 8 . Date Received t /5/ D )-. -~---~-:------. --------c----.--------~----~-------------~----------------~-------:AmountBeceived-. -----~O-;(Jlr--------- --.---.----- ($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: '13;)./ IJV()AJO/tlL ~ RJ~ 2. 3. Petitioner: . 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: 755AC ~IZLIf/l10(/I"c-iU:5 -Ow/u~kJ ;4t..'p/~'{/ 6 C )( vJd /)1 r 6- , / 5. Legal Description of property involved in this petition (found on survey): it? 7' l.v . ~/f~ EIf-sr 1s',tJtJ r4~1' ~~ tOf 5 ,IfJViJ rllll ~~ltfr /?,po I / r4LrO,c tt'77 l3L.tJcKt/ , ;(~AlA.I~,...oy 5/;J1./7// TitflP~ /f,,//~ I J 6. Type of property involved in this petition: Residential: X Single Family _ Double Dwelling _ Multiple Dwelling Industrial Commercial Institutional Bus. & Prof. Office . Other 7. Detailed description of building (s), addition(s), and alteration(s) involved in this petition. The site plans 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. ........... ....m.. ~~;;;0r;;;7IP~../2~ac :u~:;;~;~;;~;~;;~;.;~;~---- /JjJIJ ;1hf/l ~tJl)/J1 10 15'L'/~T/lj~ L./lt(fi;JLJ~)/ #dlJ#7. r , . . 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 whi~h 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 tile house and all other buildings to the front and side property lines shall be ~hown. The rear distance of any buildings from the property line will be neede~. 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 $ 3-0.()O representing the Board of Zoning Appeals Application Fee. a.~ Signature of Appr ant . . UNLESS CONSTRUCTION OR THE ACTION APPLICABLE TO THIS WAIVER REQUEST, IF GRANTED, IS NOT TAKEN WITHIN ONE YEAR, THE WAIVER EXPIRES. VVI "VI ",VA." "U.~" ... (1..lJ. tgj UU.:: 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 ADJACENTPROPERTY OWNERS: This_petitionjs_applicationforwaiverof~. -==_-;_ Orainance{-sFel--tne:::e1t-Y':':'Z-onlng-eod~-'- -.Please -De aware of anypossible 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 IfM ( -,e ~((ot1S 'tE/:r( Comment s~natum~k ~i~ . Address tt32. 4 IJVtJd/Jf+!-E 12 ~ , Print NameJtJ SS YnoeYl . Comment Signature .~ ~",1A; Ac;ldress '1"3 }-$- ~D/U~.; ~ , . v , \ Print Name !hft;< I e ,('0 os '5~ /]') A ,J Comment Signature 1ncc:, -2,..c,e /2~}-JJ-?t~~ Address t/219'S~~Uv-J." Print Name f1/ L"TC1tV 14,,(0 H-E'$ Comment Signature ~~ Address 1../-4 J(/ ~qe-~ . -- "- "'" . I <'0>- I "l.q It) ~Q- .- <:0 " c C'IJ "it- ""..., 'l'~~", t? 0)' \.J!ff J): GI~~ 0) <:0 :J ~ ~~ - IS ->-/ I <: --.QQi;j <,0).. :~'---1"-----~~ q. I / q. C'~ "lp~~ I ~ >):,-~~ .v V+.t <1vo q...b4~.e sS,ro ,r.?, .?,r.. ~ 36.8 ~ o <1/) 14r- - ,\ :\ : " I ... :1 9 35.7 ~ J.MQ.,J; 28.4 27.8 , :r- c I , ' I . \, I 28.9 ':i' u w . . a:>.~ :!"100l ':1"1'000) ~I;">uir' 11.0; II II fll~-7 .<:: <I ~ u " " " .. ., '1 " , . I , I . 'I I . . ) , , , I , , " .. \..:=:87.925 R:=:240'~58" ~:=:20.55 NORTH ''-' 589022' 49"W 94.40 .-- -- .........- . DOUGLAS AVENUE SURVEY FOR: PARAGON PROPERTY ADDRESS: 4~21 Avondale Road. Golden Valley. Minnesota. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 6; the east 15.00 feet of Lot 5; and the east 15.00 feet of Lot 7, Block 4, Kennedy's South T)'l'"ol Hills, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that this survey was prepared under my supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Do'''' \hI. 31.' do, of """,2002. 9 by. ~anlg G~I~k~ Minnesota License No. 19839 SCALE 1" = 20' . DENOTES FOUND IRON o DENOTES SET IRON LEGEND NOTES: 1. The orientation of this bearing system Is based on the south line of Lot 6. Block 4, Kennedy's South T)'l'"ol Hills which is assumed to have a bearing of South 89 degrees 22 minutes 49 seconds West. .0- POWER POLE PJ GAS METER ~ AIR CONDITIONER · STOP BOX IB ELECTRIC METER --- POWER POLE WIRE ~ POWER POLE ANCHOR ---- CHAIN LINK FENCE -<>--0-- WOOD FENCE h4'(1 CONCRETE . 2. The area of the property described hereon is 14.571 square feet or 0.3345 acres 3. No title work was furnished for the preparation of this survey to verify the legal description or the existence of any easements or encumbrances. EGAN FIELD & NOWAK SURVEYORS INC. 7415 WAYZATA BOULEVARD MINNEAPOUS, MINNESOTA TELE: (952) 546-6837 2517-76 . . . . . . . . . ~ . mARD 01 fDItIRO APPEALS Jfq 12, 1970 PC5P .) 10"S-15 lU21 AVondale ,Road (DIaD 13) Hr.. Ie Mrs. S1 Weisman !he petition is ~or the waiver of Section 3.07 (1) tor 3' oft the required.3S' setback to 32' from Avondale . Road to a proposed porch, and tor 2' ott the required 3S' setback to 33' from AvODdal. Roa.cl tor a propOSed fireplace. Also tor 2' ott the required 3S' setback to JJ' trOll Douglas Ave. to a cantilever on the South 81de ~ proposed d'ftlling.. . Ifr. Si Weisman and hie builder, !f3ron JCjos:# were present to ~e the request tor the wa1 ver. . !fro. H1rori Kjos presented the prOPOsed plan to the Board. !bIl:.1Ipard P01l1ted out. tbat. the Cll1tilever on tIi.o llouglas "-'e:1de of the ~.ture.is a bq window arJd does not require a waiver. '. .tner .~ .~ the lIJ>P88lant ....-.to lIOVe the ~-n'", tar erJOtJBb to the - to sHII1J>ate the_ t.... 111fe1'fer of the a8t.loocIi d1aaDce f'!'ClIl "wiAilaie Road.tt> a p"Gposed ~ pI'oject,j,<i!!. rhe ~ __'~;"" '. _eel ~be ~ '2' f'!'ClIl the d1~ ~ ~.'J>l"Opoeed pOl"Cb 8IIlI :MDl.;L8 lid. ".:" ...,.... . . ..;..... '. ; .. '., , : '. : . . - Ifr {~ ~ ..._ to I\1"II1t '{~;;"'Qt ~'ott the J'!l<jU1reel ,~ . , . d1__~ a'So,tio,' ll!illetback diat.ance ~.3)'. b&t..... .&1ll>DdaJ.e Iloo4 8IIlI", ' ~,~;Cti;r... ~, ~ec1 bf lfri. ~8IIlI CllZ'l'1ecI ~~, .' -16:;;'.' .... :13) "'l~ . . ',. , : ;. -t ~. file' Iloard tbmi\i1aClll"'eeI the ataep 1\1"..' I.~ 8180 diSCuesed .'. -....e of setb in ita relation to . OP088CI ~ . '.. . of 1i1Dedale s~. . It 1l8re to be vaca.ted the set 8lBlI11tll WOuld """",,".It, ~ t the Board that 1101'8 4et:1.D1to iDtOl"lll:i ..... needed in ret..ence vacation of ltinsdale Street. !he appealan eed . f'urtherwith the V1llage statt. . . . 1lI'. .... then ....Ved to <let.... the I'equest tor the 11&1..... antil the nut reaul ilet1JIg 80 that .... ~ClrIIla1iion Cou1ct be olita1aecl. It..... ~ 88COJldecl · SUV8l"Jlan aDd carried ~~ . " =. .... i I II 1]1 1 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals July 22, 1997 Page 3 . 4321 Avondale Road (Map 10) (97-7-32) Isaac and Sandra Felemovicius Request: Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback _- 7 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 28 feet for a proposed kitchen addition facing Douglas Drive. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a non-conforming addition onto the existing house. Isaac and Sandra Felemovicius were in attendance. Grimes explained that this is a triangular shaped lot with frontage on two streets. The house was built in 1970 and designed to fit exactly on the lot. Grimes said that the applications wish to expand the kitchen area and there is no where to go without a variance. The applicants have provided considerable information and plans. . Sandra Felemovicius explained that the kitchen is too small for their family to all sit together at meal time and need the additional space. She noted that the kitchen is next to the garage and there isn't any other location to expand except into the setback. Swedberg asked how long they have lived there and Mrs. Felemovicius answered four years. She added that they would like to stay in their existing home but require more space to do so. Sell asked if this request is an adequate addition. The applicant answered yes. Sell asked why they decided on 20 feet when that dimension does not involve the setback. Mrs. Felemovicius said that they would use the 20 foot space between a cantilever and .a patio door which will square off the structure. She added that they planned carefully to take no yard space. Shaffer stated that this request would not impose on the neighbors. Swedberg asked, to architects in general, if the small size of the kitchen was a design flaw and Shaffer answered yes. Swedberg continued that since it is a design flaw he would look favorably on the request. He added that this request is neither invasive nor destructive to the neighborhood. MOVED by Swedberg, seconded by Polachek and motion carried unanimously to .approve the variances as requested. . WWWCigoUm.mtt~ Y 8-9-02 HEARING NOTICE Board of Zonina Appeals 4321 Avondale Road Ron Enaen of Paraaon Builders. Applicant Ron Engen of Paragon Builders, representing Isaac Felemovicius, with property located at 4321 Avondale Road, has petitioned the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals for variances from the Residential zoning district. The applicant is proposing to construct a new deck and mud room attached to the existing home. These additions require variances from building setback requirements. Also, a survey was submitted for this building project and it was discovered that the existing home does not meeting building setback requirements. This construction project requires variances from the following sections 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 variances requested are for 7.2 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 27.8 feet at its closest point to the front yard property line along Douglas Avenue for the existing home; for 6.6 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 28.4 feet at its closest point to the front yard property line along Douglas Avenue for the proposed mud room addition; and for 6.1 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 28.9 feet at its closest point to the front yard property line along Douglas Avenue for the proposed deck addition. . Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setback. 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 greater than 100, the side yard setback shall be 15 feet. The requested variance is for .3 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 14.7 feet at it closest point to the west side yard property line for the existing home. This petition will be heard at a regular meeting to be held Tuesday, August 27,2002, beginning at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. If you have any questions or comments about this variance request, you may contact the Planning Department at 763/593-8095. Adjacent properties require notification. .. "! , ""- ',;,'" . . 416 Burntside Drive 02-8-49 . Robert and Darcie Rossborough . . ~ . . . Hey Memorandum Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Dan Olson, City Planner Subject: 416 Burntside Drive (02-8-49) Robert and Darcie Rossborough, Applicants Date: August 21,2002 Robert and Darcie Rossborough, with property located at 416 Burntside Drive, are requesting variances from the Residential zoning code (Section 11.21). The applicants have approached the City to build a shed to the south of the existing home. This shed requires variances from accessory building requirements. The following are the requested variances: · The requested variance is from Section 11.21, Subd. 12 (A) Accessory Buildings. City Code states that a shed shall be at least 5 feet any side or rear yard lot line and be located completely behind the principal structure. The property owner is requesting. a variance for the shed to be located at a distance of 3 feet from the rear yard property line rather than the required 5 feet and to be located on the south side of the property. Previously, property owners had received variances for this property. In August of 1990, the property owners received variances to reduce the 15 foot west side yard setback requirement to 12.3 feet for the existing home and to 10 feet for a proposed deck. The minutes from that meeting are attached for your review. The City's file on this property reveals that a permit was pulled in August of 1955 for the construction of the home. No other pertinent information was found in the file. . Subject Property: 416 Burntside Drive Robert and Darcie Rossborough, Applicants ~~~ /-;: ;r"]-HtGHWAY ME~RIAL HIGHWAY 1 NO; 55 ~ ;- - -n'-lr --I r- - - 1'(.74-- I ' I ' ~ ~ ~ I I I - ___~~'L__ 't-=- ____=~1~1.--= Z!.f.n I' S"'.~/'N.EI:- ~ I . . Ii 1 I.~;: r =;: r ."'- (. .I. II I ~ '''.1.' 1.~fII.' I I t&I..UO.."r - .,... I I II ';;v.: ~ I ~ I I"....' ~ d I IP' Il' I ~ I \i i' i.... I. I~ , ""~ ,I, ISOUtH;WIR",H 'r.. I I' ....i" I .Z I . All 'z'n.k/ ~ .. " ~ " ~ ~ :: ~ . . (Revised 1/99) . Petition Number {J if - 13 .- Y"C'j Date Received & /, /O? I . Amount Received SO. 0 U ($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: .1-\ \ l<2 b I..U of\"-\ ~. \ 6..lL. D ~\ '\I-€._. ~~/ BZA Petition Date I h It> '''2 , 2. 3. Petitioner: \~oher-\ ~ ~o.-\<-\l2..RD~~\.-tia~~ Name -3llLl 6u...{'f'\\~\~ ~f\v~ G,o\~\(Q..~\~'1 \M10 5'~d..d- Address City/State/Zip ~~.- fl ~'l-S~"7 do. IlQ~-?:>JL.{-lol Lc . 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): L~ T /. l3 (. {.Ie k 9 0 ("; LEN /:;>;rt-L2 { / H-e-AllVrp IN (;).., {.!A.Jrf' J'11//1/ A/c?:SoT;4-- '/ 6. Type of property involved in this petition: Residential: 'L Single Family _ Double Dwelling _ Multiple Dwelling Industrial _. . CommeLciaL_---1nslitutional .--Bus~rof.:-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. \- ('._ t . '1.-;- / .x.. <> \ -. f' ~_ . A~ <)l;.}...o> . ~~-)Z. ~'}.'~"-9-",,,~\'" .-. '-.) ~J~~ -,_.~,~ V'\/..:.'~ "'. )., .' . "-....~.. . -"".. ...,.t. ~ i .... .j "'__r 8. (Staff will complete this item) Waiver of Section Subd(s). Waiver of Section Subd(s). Subd(s). Waiver of Section 9. Please attach a brief statement of the reasons. necessity. or hardship wbich 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 show.,. 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 $ $):?9- representing the Board of Zoning Appeals Application Fee. ~-R~~ Signature of Applicant UNLESS CONSTRUCTIONORTHE'AcTIONApPL.lCABLE 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) ofthe 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 Ja ne.. ~; t<-ti') klee . / (~(j<;S L..Je // / Comment Signature \. c/, . c; ->f.j/1.-t.<--rl0.' \ - A'5a'->;;-:?,,~ ,./l--;.(' Print Name )~/.:J-;1,/ Ct.-I ( Address L/3/7r:"J o-n-id.,...h...f(L>v -?L/,. t;> /Z (l)/I.'2-/ Comment Signature A<;fdress ,~ t/{/\A--Cr :5 I iJ t:::.- ~7)rZ . Print Name Q() f(~t:N\O fT\o..zJO('H~ Comment Signature ~.~"'~ ...~,..--. . .. . ~,", Address 4-'2.(. Qe5'b~ '1J.,.l'i. Print Name Comment J41b K; (f~ Signature ~,flvJ\ f r (L.'L ) Address lAND SURVEYORS INC. BUS. (612) 544-7619 Certificate "e-OA- : AlOOAlJ'?AI of Survey SURVEYING & LAND PLANNING COA/.>TRl/CT/OA( 5905 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD. SUITE 223. GOLDEN VAl.LEY MN 0,5422 "'- ~ . " ~ ~ N ~ by ~M-:.) Surveyor, Minn..ota Itoviatrotion No. /71"/6 $"' Job No. Book 4'0 See. /7' '$"8/,1109 4/ Page T. e'Y o ~A/OTFS /A?oN' OFSCR/PT/OA/ OF PROPFRTY Lor IJ BLOCK 9...6L.FA/OAL..t!='J #FA./A./c!"",Z:v,c./ C'ovA./ry.l MlUA./,rsor,q. SCRLF: I". ao ' ,"- ... t!>F,vorer.s- CNAVN"''''''....... ,t'F.vCF WfHERf8Y CERTifY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF A SURVEY OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LAND ABOVE DESCRIBED AND OF THE LOCATION OF All BUILDINGS, IF ANY, THEREON, AND ALL VISIBLE ENCROACHMENTS, IF ANY, FROM OR ON SAID LAND . Doted thi. /0 rH day of ;'/v.t.)/ A.D. 19~O 2"d' R. . . . Board of Zoning Appeals Page 2 August 14, 1990 Hi constru of Mr. Ka i tz rd discussed the overall effects to other properties as a result on Xenia. Larry Smith asked if the new right-of-way i nt cture was permanent and Mr. Kaitz replied a tive. Chairman, Mike Sell, no to consider 25 feet off Board is Herb Polachek moved to approve a feet off the required 35 feet of landscape area to a land width of 10 long the front property line. In doing so, in gnition of the changes t roperty created by the 1-394 constr n, the loss of parking spaces at the and the revised ri -way that adds approximately 70 feet to the fro utting s proposed 10 feet of landscape. Larry Smith seconded the 'on upon vote carri ed unanimously. 90-8-16 (Map 8) Residential 4)$' Burntside Drive ~arren and Marsha Oskey The Petition is for waiver of Section: 11.21 Subd. 7 (C)l side setback, for 2.7 feet off the required 15.0 feet side setback to a setback from the east lot line of 12.3 feet as the house now exists, and for the deck as it now exi sts at 10 feet at its closest corner. The petition was in order. Consent obtained from all adjacent properties. The property owner was out of town and was represented by his contractor, Mr. Noonan. Chairman Sell noted the "homework" the property owners had done in explaining their non-conforming status, their meetings with adjacent pro- perty owners and letter description sent to all of them. Mr. Noonan noted that the addition is upward on the structure; however, as a result of a recent survey of the property, an original error in the side setback was discovered and the purpose of the waiver request is to correct that status. Larry Smith noted this is a very straight-forward proposal similar to others the Board has addressed over the years where an error has been made a t the time of construction. Smith also noted this is a corner lot with unusual lot line configuration as it relates to Burntside Drive and Woodstock Avenue which could very easily have resulted in an error during layout. Herb Polachek noted the waiver is only for the southwest corner of the house at its closest point, at the front it exceeds the required setback. Larry Sm; th moved to approve the waiver as requested, second by Herb Polachek and upon vote carried. . . . . wwmci.goMm_wlt~y 8-9-02 HEARING NOTICE Board of Zonina Appeals 416 Burntside Drive Robert and Darcie Rossborouah. Applicants Robert and Darcie Rossborough, with property located at 416 Burntside Drive, have petitioned the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals for variances from the Residential zoning district. The applicant is proposing to build a shed to the rear of the existing home. This proposed shed does not meet accessory building setback requirements. Below is the requested variance: . Section 11.21, Subd. 12 (A) Accessory Buildings. City Code states that a shed shall be at least 5 feet any side or rear yard lot line and be located completely behind the principal structure. The property owner is requesting a variance for the shed to be located at a distance of 3 feet from the rear yard property line rather than the required 5 feet and to be located on the south side of the property. This petition will be heard at a regular meeting to be held Tuesday, August 27,2002, beginning at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. If you have any questions or comments about this variance request, you may contact the Planning Department at 763/593-8095. Adjacent properties require notification. .. .. ~. .,; .. . 449 Meadow Lane North 02-8-50 . Tara Mucha . . . . Hey Memorandum Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Dan Olson, City Planner Subject: 449 Meadow Lane North (02-8-50) Tara Mucha, Applicant Date: August21,2002 Tara Mucha, with property located at 449 Meadow Lane North, is requesting variances from the Residential zoning code (Section 11.21). The applicant has approached the City to build a breezeway and garage addition to the existing home. The breezeway addition conforms to building setback requirements, however, the garage additions does not. Also, 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. The following are the requested variances: · The first requested variance is from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback. City Code states that the front yard setback shall be 35 feet from the front yard property line. The variances requested are for 1 foot off the required 35 feet to a distance of 34 feet at its closest point to the front yard property line along Meadow Lane North for the existing home and for 3.6 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 31.4 feet at its closest point to the front yard property line along Woodstock Avenue for the existing home. · The second requested variance is from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setback. 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 greater than 100 feet, the side yard setback shall be 15 feet. The requested variance is for 5 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 10 feet at it closest point to the west side yard property line for the proposed garage addition. The City's file on this property reveals that a permit was pulled in September of 1946 for the construction of the home. No other pertinent information was found in the file. . Subject Property: 449 Meadow Lane North Tara Mucha, Applicant . Z1!4.'I'6 I I s,...~(..N~Ci I~ ~ i I " l.t~r-:'I ~ I ..~ -: I :.1. ( I' I.:; n.'.i.Z l~ lS'41",,~."rl I IIS'..,....."rII;~!i.Aot..... ,.; I~ I ~' I'';..~ I~~ ~ I " I I ~l... I '" ~ ~ i , I~ ,~ l ~ I . ~ ~ I, $,(.., i .'~i!: I~ .... II il 'soutH;W1RliH ::~ I .... 1 .. I' '...1' 1 1 1 = I . "N. .~ ~".IIV ... .. " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > . . . . (Revised 1/99). Petition Number ();. :--$-5'0. Date Received 8/1, I () :2.- . Amount Received S-().. 00 ($50 residential- $150 other) PETITION FOR ORDINANCE WAIVER CITY OF GOLDEN.V ALLEY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 1. Street address of property involved in this petition: ~ ~~( (;~V~ 2. BZA Petition Date 8' - z ...., - 0"Z- 3. Petitioner: ~(1vrC\ Jv\\.\.c..k.o.. Name ~~~ Add ress Business Phone 6v~ 0. City/State/Zip q5~~ ~5V-'b"'4- Home hone 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: ~r,.~ck./n-o~ .. ~X~5;M ~ ~, (s1-~~)/~-,(e.r,~ 5. Legal Description of property involved in this petition (found on survey): ~(11(+1:8 ~f1'4 ~ .1<7''*I.~ -AtJ # (j~vrvrrP ~ (44-q ~ ~ 6 v.") ...... (. .. I 6. Type of property involved in this petition: Residential: X- Single Family _ Double Dwelling _ Multiple Dwelling Industrial C Other . 7. Detailed description of building (s), addition(s), and alteration(s) involved in this petitior 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. . l . . . . . 1-4-w~tkJ(.U'D4of ~ ../eu..M ~~(H-i<lf'\.....~ f~. e~~ 'i)",,~ o-~ &'l ~ ~ ~ s.Ck fl'; 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 whic~ 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 attacbed. Proposed surveys are not acceptable. The survey must be prepared by a regis- tered land surveyor licensed in the State of Minnesota. The ;~~e; ;;'ust show aUpropet\y lioes. buildings. and slreQlli. The dist;!I)C~ frQ;;; 'the h~lie and all other buildings to the front and side property lines snail b~ showl!: The rear distance of any buildings from the property line w~1I be need';d~ if in question. Also. the survey should show an approximate location of anx blJildings on adjacent properties relative. tll the sl~e(s) whe;" the ~;;;i- ~~~~ti~lLwiI' take place. If the survey is larger than 11" x 17". theapplicantwi'-~YRg~~eyeo additional copies of the survey for use by the Board. 11. To the Applicant: To the best of my knowledge the statements found in this application are true and correct. Attached herewith is my check in the amount of $ So ..00 representing the Board of Zoning Appeals Application Fee. R THE ACTION APPLlCAB E THIS WAIVER REQUEST, IF . GRANTED, IS NOT TAKEN WITHIN ONEYEAR, Tt-IE:.""AIVEREXpn~ES~ ..' -0:," :.;._ ..,.m.,_"_. ____ ,.._.__.,,.... .,_.._.,.__ _.... 0_' _"', ". _._ . The applicant will need to obtain the signatures of all adjacent property owners. Thisincludes 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 wa~r of Ordinance(s)of the City Zoning Code. P'ea~e be aware of any possible effect the gtantiogof 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 -:fJ \ ;e.- L.A.n~ Signature Signature % _ ~ c -:fe.... _ . .()' Print Name D~ ~/1\2.. Comment 0 K-.- P( PJYU..... ~(JII~':~_AQdress Address 4-0 I U ~....ri) W ~~.,...) W\&.e."v~.M . . -~ Print Name Comment ~113 t4~4vM (]c-UJ EN ." iIt AI Signature Address . Print Name Comment Signature Address . . . . . ~'.. . . ,- . .... 'EWALD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY MN Lie. # 6527 4101 Zenith Ave. N. Robbinsdale, MN 55422 Office: (763) 536-0081 Fax: (763) 504-9529 Cell: (612) 860-1542 - Tuesday, August 6, 2002 City of Golden Valley, City Hall Board of Zoning Appeals 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427-4588 Re: Petition for Ordinance Waiver (Variance Application) for 449 Meadow Lane, Golden Valley. 1, Mark D. Ewald, acting agent representing homeowners Tara Mucha (daughter, resident co-owner) and Joe Mucha (father, non-resident co-owner), 449 Meadow Lane, Golden Valley, MN, am applying in their behalf for a variance of zoning regulations, in regards to proposed improvements on this property. Item 1.) The proposed side-yard setback will be 10' from property line. A detached garage is allowed to be 5' from the property line, but an attached structure (once breezeway is added) is required to be 15' from property line. This seems arbitrary and inconsistent. The property is a corner triple lot that has access for fire equipment and personnel from more than one side. The adjacent neighboring property, built in the 1930's, was located incorrectly, and infringed on the property line by several feet. After a sale ofland was arranged to allow that house to remain, the new property line which resulted remains 7' from the adjacent house,' not meeting current Code requirements, though it is currently "Grand-fathered in". Item 2.) The attached garage is supposed to be to the rear of the house. The existing and proposed location (same) may not meet the definition of a rear location. The house actually faces Meadow Lane, has its front door facing Meadow Lane, and has a Meadow Lane address (449 Meadow Lane). Because it is a corner lot, the driveway access comes from Woodstock, allowing access to the rear of the house, and allowing a bigger yard as a result. In order for the south side of the house to be interpreted as the "rear", the house would have to be turned 90 degrees and face Woodstock (to the north). The house and garage, however, woul<i not fit in this orientation, as it would be too wide, so the driveway access would have to be moved to Meadow Lane. Pushing the proposed garage farther to the south would accomplish what is needed to meet the zoning requirement, but this would make a connecting breezeway impossible. . . . ...... Item 3.) . In a more perfect world, it would be nice to have a driveway access to the front of the house, so that guests might approach the house from its proper orientation -- without having to go through the rear door of the house, or through the .kitchen in order to get to the living room. An auxiliary driveway would fix this problem and would create a place for off-street parking when needed by company, as well as a place for people to turn around. My understanding is that the city would like to do away with this type of feature with-in Golden Valley whenever possible, but there is ample precedence for them. There are two of them already on Meadow Lane, as per the photos submitted (see pictures). While this may be against current policy or popularity, the lot is certainly large enough to accommodate this feature being added, and would "class up" the neighborhood to a certain extent. The neighborhood supports a wide variety of homes in style and price range, and could use all the improvements it can get. Respectfully submitted, ~{jf:J/ Mark D. Ewald, agent for Tara Mucha and Joe Mucha. Owner, Ewald Construction Company . . . 60'11 , , , , , , " roposed Breezeway_____~~.:., // / / / //// / 22'11 14' i i I I I I I I I I I i I I Prc_ p~ I I I - I I - I I I I I I I I I I I ).-- I / I / I = - I / I / I / I / / Existing House / / lil / / / P / / '1'::;:---:------ UP , , , , , , , , , , , ~.=>- , )--- I I I I I , I I f; I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I ~..J 19'10 I 1... [~FF osed smm; Ho l:! I - I ~ I I I ------------ --~" / / ---------..;..----;:--, ,., I LL 2... Proposed Garage I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I 18 x 7 steel raised panel OHdoor I I I l___~____________ 3 Ft. Concrete Apron 60'11 2... -r- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .....J- Design I Build: Ewald Construction Company MN Builder's Uc.# 6527 4101 Zenith Ave. N. Robbinsdale, MN 55422 ~ce:(763)536HD081 Fax: (763) 504-9529 Cell: (612) 860-1542 ~ N Proposed Garage and Breezeway Tara Mucha 449 Meadow LaneN. Golden Valley, MN Date of Plans: 6/14102 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WWW.ci~Um_vll~y 8-9-02 HEARING NOTICE Board of Zonina Appeals 449 Meadow Lane North Tara Mucha. Applicant Tara Mucha, with property located at 449 Meadow Lane North, has petitioned the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals for variances from the Residential zoning district. The applicant is proposing to construct a new breezeway and attached garage to the existing home. The garage addition does not meet building setback requirements. Although the breezeway does. Also, a survey was submitted for this building project and it was discovered that the existing home does not meeting building setback requirements. This construction project requires variances from the following sections 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 variances requested are for 1 foot off the required 35 feet to a distance of 34 feet at its closest point to the front yard property line along Meadow Lane North for the existing home and for 3.6 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 31.4 feet at its closest point to the front yard property line. along Woodstock Avenue for the existing home. . Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setback. 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 greater than 100 feet, the side yard setback shall be 15 feet. The requested variance is for 5 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 10 feet at it closest point to the west side yard property line for the existing home. This petition will be heard at a regular meeting to be held Tuesday, August 27,2002, beginning at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. If you have any questions or comments about this variance request, you may contact the Planning Department at 763/593-8095. Adjacent properties require notification. " . 1532 Mendelssohn Avenue North 02-8-51 . Kurt Templin . . . . Memorandum Planning 763-593-8095/ 763-593-8109 (fax) Hey To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Dan Olson, City Planner Subject: 1532 Mendelssohn Avenue North (02-8-51) Kurt Templin, Applicant Date: August 21,2002 Kurt Templin of Fine Design Contracting, representing Julie Hanley, with property located at 1532 Mendelssohn Avenue North, is requesting variances from the Residential zoning code (Section 11.21). The applicant has approached the City to build a garage addition to the existing home. This addition requires a variance from the building setback requirements. Also, 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. The following are the requested variances: . 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 variances requested are for 14 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 21 feet at its closest point to the front yard property line along Mendelssohn Avenue North for the existing home; for 23.2 off of the required 35 feet to a distance at its closest point of 11.8 for the existing home along Olympia Street; and for 29 feet off of the required 35 feet to a distance at its closest point of 6 feet for the proposed garage addition. The City's file 011 this property reveals that a permit was pulled in May of 1958 for the construction of the home. No other pertinent information was found in the file. . Subject Property: 1532 Mendelssohn Ave N Kurt Templin, A )plicant ----r ~. ~... . . . I 124 ~ 9 ! J 12 .. · .. I.. 12 ~ '~!~I:I-2 ';~71 .~~. ~ ~ :-II lJZ.ZI ~ _'-.1.1L1. _.l '"_2''' ... "t: '7/ i.Z .. :: ~ ,~i. o~IO~ 'I II .1. 1O.'li .: II ~ .:r~ .0": ~.. .:II~ 10. f'l ...i-~.r ~-"r.n':.-,. ILl' '1~ ,<<,,-Is. "'t..~ '.tl $. ,;i71 -I} . ~ i x:-~ ";. ~ ..... I 9J46 .. - IJJ71i:- .51. -- i ;': ~.f~ ' ;:'~.Jr.~J~ ~~l~s~,~~':" ~ .1: " .. ::~~I ~~~ .t ~;./ ~~:k';/', ,~\~..~. \;1 i r !f"'" 'I .,u.~'."i~.I121_..' 2.-:~ - .::.~:~..,,7;.l.tJ.,. ~~ \_21?\~ 1 J,.:" ~ ~;;~II\I.-.. II~. ~ ',_0" ... ."~ ~ I I.,', I ~22 " 3.... if'"~I'1 ' ~~... 1 Jot.' ~ 4 '20" \ '1 10'--' L. 'Ill' IU~J.... i. . ,;a ~ . 'V\T::;""'I ~""!1: \ '.. l-: . - "'J!L~J.~"" 1/l.f" ! l'J-" ,,;g:.( ~.. I ~21 ,4.'~!i ",.1 --L~5 ,J. 'l',,~9 ,,,," S,I '" - - ../,0,: !!' .~'01 . ~<<~ ~ ..~ 21 ..6.:.1,,," "01 " :: . --2-- ~ " 2 2C . 5. . ~ 1\ . W ~ ~_'!J{' ~ eX:" IJJI~ . ~ IAL' .. - m9Z' !!' ,,~.z.: 7~~V 20' , . r, . -7-- _ ' 3 ..1"& . e.'~8.'" <:!p ./S;, ~7 _~ ~.I~_JA4__ ~I .!!19 ,>I.I7.'!!'!S. --:'\1 ~fo 19. "I' Ie ~ 4 xzl ~ 18 . /JJ.:X.'~ 21"'" ~.-'~A~\ii'L<l; ~ -t-J........ ~---~-:......., ."_'1'[--- i~\ ;17 " ,,,.~,.'V~:! ~/c;;- ...._,)1.~I~ ~ 1~.'t-.: ,:---:7;.'-\-:].--~~:--- )ooc.D -... >: ; .. r:. l 16' '. 9.' ~ ;. lO)~,' . ' . -/'. " : ,.., IS IS I: ,. , .. " , ...... . ~ u ",.'Ii ,Jo s. , , I ..r' .: .: ~. ~ l~ t Ii I I ' ~ ~ol 'l:i15,. 10..~ ~15~\4i\l3~12""Ii;;110~' ::;13 12~ 11.'10....,8.:' U' IJf."'''' 1.' I I I - I I I I Cj) " >- F . 11- ~ 't I ~4 .. I .. I .. I .. I ,.. l' ,S." M... .. I I.. 1 , - ~ ~ I ~ I - ",.'" ... ~ !lJOO, NAPER .1 ST. II <3 ~ ~ 1 '" :11.s~2 ~ ~ ~::.'~C: ~''" ~i. l; fo~~ 'J!' !:' "".:: ~~~."l,' 1:l J; IS:' t ~ - I.~ \ . :0; Ii,..", s.",J...,. t: -li. ~?,. :: ,1...::: ~!iI-.: ~'~,#4 i:: .il.. ~-' ( ) ~_':. .: ,% -1i::... ~;;. ,19<<;0 ;0 .~~;o ~;O. 19 ;0 '" 2. - ::: :i _. 19 _ 2 I 71.' _ '."""'l" ... Wi.'i.... US'.1i - IH.I; ...~!t.... IU.....; lZ." ;_~~..Ieo!. ..~ F.;' I "~.;~l:).:I. .18. 3.~ ~' 18 ..1\ 3".~ f ,. la, ..,. "7 -lj .. ;.,.,;-.. '!1 ~ '-'-S.<< ",.u le ,,, If ~ Ie ,,,.... Il~'; , '~~ '" .. J .. ..,'1..,._ -I'~,I~,,, 2.,,1ll~'.17, 4.~, - 17, .~4;-::'La,.17 4, . r z.,. "no. m.... ,;,... '" " ~~ IOU ---1J1,J, SD-; I 11,~ ~':. ..~... ~,.~. "1~~4 '" "~~~, ~'. ,:~u IJ~:~' ~ ~~ ~t.II' /J~.. · \ ~It-, 4..~~..15 e.!::, !..15. t r '" /I. IJI. " - - "u. 11(" Ie - Il ,to "~,, '~~I~IlIl/,' ,~t I J.! .~. Ir .~,~.H'.14u_,~:~' L.14' ..7 ..n.14......._. '&0 'r~ r-.-"--"O,.ZL. ~ -~ mlJ--t......., d'l ~I ,,6..~:,.;I:s-- , a.t, ~..13 8, i\.13. ," - "",: ! ",-,.' "o"le , . lie" _ uo_"_~ 1z.i "",.1' --1!!" . .' ~ I ." ~.~. ~~, .~2. 9.~, ~ ,~.12 > ,~12., 9 \II C ) r I - ,".., ...'-.. - <t - 'I',' . _ Dille;; Ie "2." m, >= ~ ,; -: L .~l ~,,'" " ,~..~ ~ ~.~ ;; -:]~.,;o '" ~,~o.l~;; S. '" I~~~" .. "~~7;o \Ie ;;.,,~IC1 ;; ~~r:tI 3: 5 to_- s._ n Uos OLY PIA ....,UUDOO1 ST. '- . ,:'.14s .,.. <\i I" { r-'/.-' .IS':! ~JJ.7... 5' '4"'7. '4-/..7 ~ S !: /.4/,'7 liI' '4','1 II! 5.S ;".'JI.S7 II~I\ -I- ! ~'.H]' 'm.t;; ~ ~l),.,...! _1:l 1'4,..1 10l . li 'il':oz~: l'AUl ~ ! ~ 18",.lt I \ " i' .1,:.,' I~'~'~' - ,':.... - -2- - - . --17-- 2 . 17 . "'2" r.l ", - 1~'1 - .1491_ _-'4<>U. ~: .1Jt4!.. ; II.~I · .~~.. " '~L.' . . ~ .I~. ,3 16 . 3 . ~ 16. 3 ... ILl I..... 14!,'!.. _ -'~.1Z /4..91 . ,iiAt "t. I=~ · I~.,'" ,.~~~. ~. 15 ~I) 4~, ~- 15 I. 4. ' ~ ! . .15 . 4 . . ... III __/~o,lL' - _I~.JL _ ~..lL ' ,..." - . Ill' 'lI ~\~'~ ~ '~ I,t! . ~JJR' S t_11~_"l&~.4~~ ['I 1;.4 (~ '~ · ':~1C' ,~~,'g. ~ .!( 13. 6. 13. e.':! le' .. (oJ' . III '...." - -'~1f -11\0 __/~.Ji '40,7; '!) '!) .,i'Z7 ~ ~~ .1..)2,,' 7,-... ~ ,~ 12.. 7 ~" 12., 7 ,. , . 12 o\~ -1-1 ~ 'oc _'l'~_g_ _. - 14... 914fL. _lAH__~__J4.n_" - '",'t '_,,, L~ \ 't! II. . a ~.~ ' . II . 8 ~ 1"'. '\ II .' 8 , . "" . :,.,~ ,,'"'s _11'-'5.. _" ./....{S ,,,..,, I' iI-_J~.(.l_J _ -'~.'!L ~ ./u, , i.. 'j;.,ot_ S.~iS~~.IO ~ 9."5!:: 10 l:\: 9 ~ ii~ l :1 . t.'~..5d' lot.,{ .. l'! ," 'A.<" .....L ti ~ :; '....1::' ,i., ti ~~.;. .lO, l ~ 9 :0;, I' 'i1.'~"';-- '~~'Z4'35'E ..~ WINSDALE . S1. J~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~~.':r~ "ts..J ~I~.'ti. ~ /40jU . .I~ '4'S4,~1 "~,~:!~ C> ~..Il~::!"'j"ij .1' _'fl___1; "L,.I~ :~ .lii:. I"__'*"le:: q,:: t~~.,jJ 11.~!:: ~ ~~ l/!" I r ....,!tIS.,b 2 .~~ ~I,:,... 21 1::- 2 .. a:, I:; .. _ .j _...~... .... 1... ICl . . ,1..,- 5'1'" ~'-/t./,b . (Revised 1/99) Petition Number 0 ')..- 3 - 5 ( Date Received ~ /, /0).. . Amount Received ~- 0.00 ($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: \ 53 'a. me.<'\A~$s D'-'o Ave.. <sJ&.'<"\ \J 0-\\ v{ 2. BZA Petition Date 8-?"-o~ 3. Petitioner: Kuc+ \€t"^'t>\~" - F,,,c..bes ,~V'\ Co",.\x-c-dtnj, :l?n0 Name 5\\() Ft>('"e~-\-"\eW \,.o..,,~, t\~u.~. ~N S Sl..\"t 'Z Address City/State/Zip (40'3 - S 5\-8<\ \~ 1'"- 3- 5'~1- <13~z.. 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: / - ~ Jv-.\\e... \.\-~\e.y\~ 'nOM.eC\.o.X\Q.\; K....-c+ "T-e",,"~"C\ h\...~ -to bu\\c\ ~a.,o..~ ~J.\~t)(\. , \~ CCf'\.~+O(". 5. Legal Description of property involved in this petition (found on survey): Lot- If> I B /ocJ{ if, Fi'r3f- Add/~ +- L~j4_"'i~w Jktrhf5 6. Type of property involved in this petition: Residential: IS- Single Family _ Double Dwelling _ Multiple Dwelling Industrial Commercial Institutional Bus. & Prof. Office Other . e: 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. ".\-\-v..c'n~J ~a.("a..1f o..t\ch..FIC)If'\ C>~ ~o I L-I\~ b'i ~L\ I ~.e.e~ On Nt>I('~ s,a~ t)~ \o-\-. ("-e.ac o~ 'no,,,,e... I 8. (Staff will complete this item) Waiver of Section Subd(s). Subd(s). Subd(s). Waiver of Section Waiver of Section 9. Please attach a brief statement of the reasons. necessity. or hardship which provide grounds for the granting of this waiver. Attach letter, photographs, or other evidence, if appropriate:" 10. A current or usable survey of the property must be attached. Proposed surveys are not acceptable. The survey must be prepared by a regis- tered land surveyor licensed in the State of Minnesota. The survey mu~t show all property lines. buildings. and streets. The distance from th$ house and all other buildings to the front and side property lines shall be 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 corre.ct. Attached herewith is my check in the amount of $ .st> representing the Board of Zoning Appeals Application Fee. ~- j~ 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.) 00 ~~ ) Print Name J Comment Signature ~d~. 0}, ~ (0 \ ~ .'2r 1 t.-. PrintName_~ Ef Alan S+IfClnct(und Comment Signature ~ ~GJ1~BAddress q 4so OI~rYIPIQ S+reel- Print Name Comment &Inn t,(~ -10 r-~~ - -<<I'd J ~i:KL5, Signature Address qt.{DS O/'ftA-P/Cr- ~+, Print Name Comment Signature Address ..':. .' :Golden Valley lnspection~ Dep~ ~AX NO. :7635933997 A~9. 81 28~ ae:~FlM. .F~.. -.' "''''~m . ." ">. ';:{'J;q~tf~~l~ MINDER ENGINEERING CO.. ,:IN~~. :";/\:~~;;:.:? ;~;~~ 'E.NGINEE.RS AND SURVEYORS: '.. ......: .,<~'.'.:;:<.; . '. " '.:. ":. ::..... ,";'1 lOll.." 'Tl.e"T'lNe .' . :" . :';.!; "", "'","0 Pt.........NiN.f: ~ "': '.?: ..lj . '.. ',,:i~ .1 .._......1'1 ""; ::.':;~""':~~.':"SJ ,. /;,f/ ,(:-'~'~'l J +'J"/.. ~<::.-tii ; 1 ;... :..i-; .:. ; .....<./. , -:=--==~'~-=~-,;;:~n~ UL ."...../ (.....,. .# T .' .... 'l~ "},,'; ) 1:-. Iii' .... ~ . ~. '. . .~~, .'.~" ,. .:..iti . 'I , ".... ~-';. . . :.:.:. :i~ !"~~ 'f--' '~Jf~:'_-- "--0' .". 11,1I-~'1'~-'-::::' ~ . ~.... tJ." ~: :. ... fl<<1 ~."~ ""'1' . It.. 'to - :':. ; 1 ' ~'. ot '. 1IIl; __-"""'..._........ ~ I'~"~' ~:.~~ \". J i.' . J f;" . ......,.,. .,,~. ~~:, . t. ~. h-- .d .:~~ ~ d-.I ~y'." ~ '!.\ \.;)~"" 1, I ~1 ~~:\ 'j ~\' '~~~i"!';;~',~_.\'L ~ - ;-, ~ r -1l~ i !i · "'/I."" ";;j', .. i ~iio ,If '" .,..1 . ~ .>". ,4. . ~ ~ e . I 1._ ,. _ .~____ ...._~_.__.___~ ~.___. ._.____..~. ~;,~. \ -\.- . .. /2/., '--:-"'1 '. . . I .. I.' '. t". t' . J"" . f" .. .. :.'.: ~"; "..~"il , t : ft.:')" Bb J I ~ f . Jt I ' /I I .. f r' ,,~' J' ...... "".:".,' '.:.,.:., .... LJT .J~' ~ . ..lj,o/).-:J(. ~": Il!,;- I" l~r_i.'!" r=.-:J.-J IT/)l'J .~.; ~.J~~~l' f!1.~V h'.t!'''1f4..~.:;;. \~:-~ ~ ~,.)l)' f"~ ~ Mi',,'1.l /1 :'". ';I:' i;., ...... J I v .i 71- "J f;J~r ~ '1,.,. .,.... I).. j""~ . :J. ., t. -". '". .'. ):7:/'. ~~A; ....\ ....,..-/ If,... ".. J I ~ ,.... I I h '!) / . ;.'vt.. 1,'I'..'f' f...., "~;'I 40 ..04 ~ ......:. J' .. ..': :;hi: :..<:.::~~ I I I 'I I . . .....-.'.,.;.. . ,"" . }!'~ (~~~ ':::'~:.<1~~ .M~R.EeV ~~R.TfFY TH~T 'TJIIS t~..iTltl1l!: MID CORUcr RfP~UENT~TION OF ~ SURVEY OF TM! aouNot:A'e:f~~~:'~,,(~!.-:?;~~ : I? .~!. oe$tRI6ED AND OF 'Mf: LO~~TtOt.l ~ J\U. eul\.DIN~~t If N4'(.. ~eRION.. ''''tolD No\.. VIS\Sl.E t"-tRO'f~.~wttf:~'j ~{!j; .,,: ....." I Fql)~ Clt. ON ~"ID ~D. . . . ':.:.:.:"..>..;:,;,~'~~ ~~tt:i t .... . ;/1 . '~''!.:U.,I' . . MtNDER EN61~e.eRING CO.. INC. , ..'..,:..~..::/.i.;.~":i...~ 1j>II.~~'~,;. .,....~0It ~ ...0 ~... .. .. '-Ii _. ~~l1tl:. .- . . '.1 .s "9. f.MtlIWSU:'s' '-Mo';.t tUAV.V9"} ..... ..'; ....-/.:i.y...:.~;~ 'ii1;)~ .:"/;"11' ~ p' C:l if... ....f P t>': . .,' '''7'/ ,,:,:;:~C'! ::.!::~ i4~ .;: . . ,,' ~l { ~ ,<:' . . (.~.' J'".- r:...t....~...,. :'.' .-..1, :':~ ;;..~: \ :~:...,;:. t'~"..D' ~~;7 . ~ ", I" . ." . .. . .,\ ~... . '.. :~:~.~:.:.:: :."1~:. ''''.kl(-.' :;:7J~;J ..;" :.:::... .~ :f,I:..... j ,'" .... , '""'....., eUA.v..vINCII e'....'1,;' .. MU"'lel~"'1,. INCIIINIIAING FROM '.... ~ ~....t6MSG,." ....VENue N. MI~N~~PO\..I$ U.MINN. kE 7- ~G037 f:e....flt:.1&t .., .,(r ,'-- I . ,/..1 .t..... /. ~ .... ............-.c,. '!'" ....1. '\, , !';':C .....~. ~.~ ;. ".."... .... ~.f c..... ..~J.... .~ t~.... ..... .. ... '10' .... .,. .......... ~ ).... ...... \,,~. IQ....., . ... . .....: ............~ "...."...J ,~. . ...........' . August 6, 2002 To: Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Golden Valley, MN From: Kurt Templin, Fine Design Contracting, Inc. Plymouth, MN RE: Zoning Code Setback Waiver for Julie Hanley, Property Owner 1532 Mendelssohn Ave., Golden Valley Dear Sir or Madam: I am requesting a waiver of the setback requirement ordinance #642 dated 11-16-84 for the. purpose of building an attached garage to my clients home at 1532 Mendelssohn Avenue. Currently they have only driveway parking available at the front of their home which faces Highway 169. Due to the fact that they have a comer lot the setback requirement for their proposed garage is 35 feet, which is over half the width of their total lot size. . The proposed garage would benefit the Hanleys personally in that they would no longer have to walk over icy sidewalks to get to their cars in the winter, and of course there is the issue of their cars being able to start after being left outside all night in the frigid elements. Of course the garage would increase the market value of not just the Hanleys home but I believe the entire neighborhood as well. Please note that there are 3 affected neighbors who have signed and are cordial with this garage addition. There is no neighbor across the street to the west, as there is Highway 169 across the street of Mendelssohn Avenue from the Hanleys. Please review the attached survey, photograph, and building plans and allow a waiver for this much needed garage. Most Cordially, \~__ cJ ~ Kurt Templin Partner Fine Design Contracting, Inc. 763-551-8916 . . . . . . . . . . . . . =cigoUm_vlt~ Y 8-9-02 HEARING NOTICE Board of Zonina Appeals 1532 Mendelssohn Avenue North Kurt Templin, Applicant Kurt Templin, acting on behalf of Julie Hanley, with property located at 1532 Mendelssohn Avenue North, has petitioned the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals for variances from the Residential zoning district. The applicant is proposing to construct a new garage attached to the existing home. This garage requires a variance from building setback requirements. Also, a survey was submitted for this building project and it was discovered that the existing home does not meeting building setback requirements. This construction project requires variances from the following sections 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 variances requested are for 14 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 21 feet at its closest point to the front yard property line along Mendelssohn Avenue North for the existing home; for 23.2 off of the required 35 feet to a distance at its closest point of 11.8 for the existing home along Olympia Street; and for 29 feet off of the required 35 feet to a distance at its closest point of 6 feet for the proposed garage addition. This petition will be heard at a regular meeting to be held Tuesday, August 27,2002, beginning at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. If you have any questions or comments about this variance request, you may contact the Planning Department at 763/593-8095. Adjacent properties require notification. " " ~h . 1037 Hampshire Avenue North 02-8-52 . Sennes Design Build . . . . Hey Memorandum Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Dan Olson, City Planner Subject: 1031 Hampshire Avenue North (02-8-52) Sennes Design Build, Applicant Date: August21,2002 Scott Sennes of Sennes Design Build, representing Karen Hovren, with property located at 1037 Hampshire Avenue North, is requesting variances from the Residential zoning code (Section 11.21). The applicant has approached the City to build an entryway and second story addition to the existing home. These additions require variances from the building setback requirements. Also, 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. The following are the requested variances: . The first requested variance is from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback. City Code states that the front yard setback shall be 35 feet from the front yard property line. The variance requested is for 14.5 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 20.5 feet at its closest point to the front yard property line along Hampshire Avenue North for the existing home and for the proposed dormer addition. . The second requested variance is from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setback. 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 greater than 100 feet, the side yard setback shall be 15 feet. The requested variance is for 1.4 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 13.6 feet at it closest point to the north side yard property line for the existing home and for the proposed second story addition. The City's file on this property reveals that a permit was pulled in May of 1946 for the construction of the home. No other pertinent information was found in the file. . Subject Property: 1037 Hampshire Ave N Seunes Design Build, Applicant .. Z$T.S . .::: 1= \0 ... "0 ~ C) :z I I I " 1---1"0 1 I . " _ II. 100 1 L__ ~.~ _~ ~ -_"--.- I, 'lilt. .k."'5~.Nf. 5 Os 512) 4 ---~.o" 'n ~. 411 t ~ ~ _vi ~ 10 ~ ~ "" ~ i . (Revised 1/99) . Petition Number 0 J.. -= 1$ - Date Received $/ q /6'2- Amount Received ro < 01) ($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: 2. BZA Petition Date Name J~ e6w~T (f"e> ~G-3J Address 3. Petitioner: . V!~Tb~f 11 PlI !?~3gU City/State/Zip 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): 6. Type of property involved in this petition: Residential: ~ Single Family ~ Double Dwelling _ Multiple Dwelling Industrial . Other 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. ~MOOa- t:k eii~'T'.~~~ A'OO~0 M~.Be"oH~eT: 8k"n+t~ A ~.D ~2b~ ,,""TVjI? &J,~. .' F j' Q~OO~L 0 ~ ~~~ T .~u. IYl.JTh A. e#..l TvVJ r 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 ~urvey 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 appl.ication are true and correct. Attached herewith is my check in the amount of $ ~l). CtO 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. nu~ c! uc UC;JU~ . . . n"'!~ri IUUU n:::>:::'ULi.l.c:l""":::' 1"'. .I. w;jJc..c.:.oiJc"c.:....L.1L AUG-12-2002 13:50 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLE~' 5338109 P.01/01 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 01 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 Boarti 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.) PLn-tI</I~. Signature .x2at1/VQ p{cy t/tcl~ Addres$ L (J31 /-Pfttj:;8 ,A;Re A (IE .. ./i7 I ' . T',l" Print Name_ ~ /C\\t. Comment ~~ -'" I ~ll('i f{f ';/ ,'i . " __'''. .r (\-.-) /' Signalur~ \ ;:\11.0/5- .. Print Name ,s-rtzi3;-/ H tZ/j if r'~7i/ l C J./ /1 ;~ ^ i-M]'fJ .' \ ! b \. 1 " Address l L LI~ W-l\vtf}\!V'C Comment Address jOt/C} ;P/lf/Ll IZ (/ . . Signatur~..& (I Print Name Comment Signature . Address ~ Phonu7bJ.rQJ -"f(, Fa- , TOTRL P.ell <.r'\'-l"; ;~< Hi fj P ADVA1VCE SL i EliSG & ENGIl\EERING CO. 5300 S. Hwy. 1\0. liii \"jml'c;on[;". :'5.'45 Pbone (952) 4747%4 hx (l):':, ..;'..; ~~(,- SUR\'[\{ FOR: SE.VNES DESIGN BUILD SURVEYED: AUguSl C'()u: DRAFTED: August h. 2002 LEGAL DESCRIPTIO!\' Lob 446 and 447. Belmont. HCllnepin Coum)'. MlIlneSOla. SCOPE OF WORK: I. Showing the kngth and direction of boundary lines of the above legal d~scription. The scope of our services does not include dctcrminmg what you own. which is a legal matter. Pk\b~ check the legal description with your r~cords or consult witb compclent legal cOlillseL irn~~~ssary. to make sure that it i~ correct, and tbat any matters ofrecnrd. such as easements, that YOli wish shown on the survey, have been shown . . : Showing the location of existing improvement> w~ d~emed important. ~ 3. S~lling new monuments or veri(vlIlg old m(lIlUl11~nts to mark th~ corners of the property. , , . , lI)C) ~ 101 9.6 License NUJ11b~r 9235, set, unless ~ 8i C)I C), V) I hereby cCliify that this plan. spi.'cificatioll. n.:pnrt or survey was prepared by me or Linder my direct supervision \JI1d that I am ,\ i1eenscd Professional Engineer and Pw/i:ssional Surveyor under rhl' );;\VS of the Slale of Minnesota. _f~l1f1rQ Il Ii ~)'0S~(;...:....____._~_ ("mesH. Parker P.E. & P.S. '\u l123:, STA'\DARD SYMBOLS 8: COKVE\TIONS' " . " Denotes 1/2" [D pipe with piasllc plug bearing State otherwise noted. . I -- N 89"38'32" --140. 13__W :!?I ~I -. 81 1\ 28 Minimum B ctl I Setb . U/7ding ~ ock Une (Typ.) ~ 1 0 I ~ ~ ~ 30 ,1.t.J , . 8;? c:::>~ C):- ....C) ~;;6 IC) '<: .~ i o [*1 - ~ :!?I c,.; ~ ~ --140.15 , ~ S 8928'44" E I I .-- jj I : 9.2 , \ \ '-- GRAPHIC SCALE 20 0 10 20 40 ~...... I I I ( IN FEET ) Dwg. No. 02091::- . . . ~lLDER OF" I.RCHITEC'nJRAL IQE.O.S THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS ARE SUBMITTED WITH THIS VARIANCE APPLICATION TO DESCRIBE THE CONDITIONS THAT EXIST AND WILL EXIST AS A RESULT OF THIS REMODELING PROJECT. CURRENT CONDITIONS: THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND SIDE YARD SETBACK IS CURRENTLY NON-cONFORMING TO TODAY'S ORDINANCE SINCE IT WAS BUILT IN THE 1940's TO THE THEN CURRENT ORDINANCE. THE SET BACK IS, HOWEVER, CONSISTENT WITH ALL THE OTHER HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD . REASONS FOR GRANTING REQUEST FOR VARIANCE: THE OWNERS FEEL THAT THIS IS A 'REASONABLE REQUEST BECAUSE: · THE OWNERS LIKE AND ENJOY THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND CITY BUT HAVE A NEED TO MAKE THE HOME MORE LIVABLE FOR THEIR NEEDS FOR NOW AND IN THE FUTURE. · THE REMODELING PROJECT WILL ADD CHARACTER AND ESTHETICS WHILE NOT CREATING CONFLICT WITH THE OTHER HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. · THE OWNERS ARE TAKING THE EXTRA EFFORT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE HOME HAS ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER AND APPEAL. · THE PROJECT PRESENTS ADDITIONS TO THE HOME, WHICH ARE BOTH FUNCTIONAL AND MEANT TO ENHANCE THE LIVABILITY OF THIS HOME. · ALL OF THE ELEMENTS OF THIS PROJECT REPRESENT REASONABLE REQUESTS FOR ENHANCING AN EXISTING HOME. · THE HOME, EVEN WITH THE PROPOSED CHANGES, WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE ORDNANCES THAT WERE CURRENT WHEN THE HOME WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT. . 185580TH STREET, P.O. BOX 53, VICTORIA, MN 55386 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I OFFICE # 952..442-1044, FAX # 952-443-4039 en CI) :::::J -:::::J (j) ~ fn rQ' :::::J aD 5, a: - :::::J (") - C) w ..... J: )10 i: "tJ en :s ::0 m ~ !'" CJ) CD ::::J ::::J -' tn ii' ::::J m c . . -. a: ::::J r www.c;goUm-,lLwY 8-14-02 HEARING NOTICE Board of Zoning Appeals 1037 Hampshire Avenue North Sennes Design Build. Applicant Sennes Design Build, representing Karen Hovren, with property located at 1037 Hampshire Avenue North, has petitioned the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals for variances from the Residential zoning district. The applicant is proposing to remodel an entryway and dormer window of the existing home, and add a second story addition to the back of the home. These additions do not meet building setback requirements. Also, a survey was submitted for this building project and it was discovered that the existing home does not meeting building setback requirements. This construction project requires variances from the following sections 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 requested is for 14.5 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 20.5 feet at its closest point to the front yard property line along Hampshire Avenue North for the existing home and for the proposed dormer addition. . Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(2) Side Yard Setback. 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 greater than 100 feet, the side yard setback shall be 15 feet. The requested variance is for 1.4 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 13.6 feet at it closest point to the north side yard property line for the existing home and for the proposed second story addition. This petition will be heard at a regular meeting to be held Tuesday, August 27,2002, beginning at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. If you have any questions or comments about this variance request, you may contact the Planning Department at 763/593-8095. Adjacent properties require notification. ... , . 5015 St. Croix Avenue 02-8-53 . Sidney Meyers . '. . . . Memorandum Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Dan Olson, City Planner Subject: 5015 St. Croix Avenue (02-8-53) Sidney Meyers, Applicant Date: August 21,2002 Sidney Meyers, with property located at 5015 St. Croix Avenue, is requesting variances from the Residential zoning code (Section 11.21). The applicant has approached the City to build a garage and second story addition to the existing home. These additions require variances from the building setback requirements. Also, 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. The following are the requested variances: . The first requested variance is from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setback. 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 greater than 100 feet, the side yard setback shall be 15 feet. The requested variances are for 6.7 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 8.3 feet at it closest point to the west side yard property line for the existing home and for 2.8 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 12.2 feet at it closest point to the east side yard property line for the proposed room and garage addition. In addition, you may have noticed that a shed on the property does not meet accessory building requirements and is located in a city easement. The applicant has agreed to move this shed so that it conforms with the 5 foot rear and side yard setback requirement, and that it be moved out of the easement area. Staff suggests that the moving of the shed be made a condition of approval of this variance. The City's file on this property reveals that a permit was pulled in June of 1954 for the construction of the home. No other pertinent information was found in the file. . Subject Property: 5015 St. Croix Avenue Sidney Meyers, Applicant . n. Govl'lo to" . . , 41 ~ . 114.' ~ " ill, .. . . . . . . (Revised 1/99) Petition Number 0 J... - ~ -53 Date Received 81 to ( O?- Amount Received S-o. oj) ($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: .c- ..- ..:> 0 I ~ ~t: ('..fl.D ''< Ptv~ 2. BZA Petition Date 3. gl i>Nf~ A. vnE>jE.f.S Name 5015 ~\. ~Ol)(' AvE Address (~3 -3'11-~O;;>D Business Phone &\.1 fYJ,J:55 c.I;) 2.- City/State/Zip ((Q.."> -5~2 - 587(., Home Phone Petitioner: 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: t~ 1 -1:- ~\-v'-J<' ~ Se,b-{ v iV ~~Ufr-L~ 5. Legal Description of property involved in this petition (found on survey): L.or I (3L-o(.((:. 3 SPM.{'IJ') G/hlJ>~ 6. Type of property involved in this petition: Residential: Z 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 pe 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 buildin~ permit issued. ~~t-U GA~A6-L W!71t (Yl~~Q "REb;QCdr\ P&vlf.., lLJcr-;<;77YlV h:t\Mtt.-y ~V& 1Sl:~f\th ~~ ~trt.~tJ - ~l/i-lfWjr' ... I 8. (Staff will complete this item) Waiver of Section Subd(s). Subd(s). Subd(s). Waiver of Section Waiver of Section 9. Please attach a brief statement of the reasons. necessity. or hardship which provide grounds for the granting of this waiver. Attach letter, photographs, or other evidence, if appropriate. . 10. A current or usable survey of the property must be attached. 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 need~d, if in question. Also. the survey should show an approximate location of any buildings on adjacent properties relative to the side(s) where the constrt,lctio take place. If the survey is larger than 11" x 17". the applicant will supply Sl 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 $')0- - representing tl Board of Zoning Appeals Application Fee. ~~'~DW -. -"ture of pplicant - . UNLESS CONSTRUCTION OR THE ACTION APPLICABLE TO THIS WAIVER REQUE 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 regardi g the pro' l Print . ~.~/, Wx. ~? ~; Address 'ilJJ{) ~'6~ Print Name DClJ~J ~ql{"_ Comment Print Name Signature Comment SignatuC L ~ f/.t Address 5020 w,\O.4ls;. 5.h jJ, PrintName tkl".()/~€" LAnso0 Comment Signature ~u/.)&>-/ I Address 5"'0 $L-o !j!(<J'/7.r1~./ ~ . ~ Print Name . Comment Signature Address 15O?~ Print Name. AN-r1'1 ~~~~4l.- Comment vJF12.~ ('y...L.,.- C)r -nwrJ ""\ vJ\\...\-,n.'-I Tt:l ';'ij-j:W !i-\rM \"')~~,I\X'..s A<:Ap ~51"') IILFub.s I Signature Print Name Comment Signature . Print Name Comment . Signature Print Name Comment: Signature Print Name Comment Signature Address $010 j'T! ~/,< AI/rf.., Address Address Address Address . . August 6, 2002 To Whom It May Concern: RE: Variance request for 5015 St. Croix Ave The request for variance on this property is twofold, the existing west side of the house is inside the 15' setback and we would like to expand the existing garage. My wife Dana and I have lived in this residence for over 13 years and we both enjoy the neighborhood and community. In January 2003 we will have our fifth child and up to this point had been able to put off our decision to move or add-on. We enjoy Golden Valley and the ease of commute provided by being so centrally located and have decided we would rather build a new addition instead of moving. Sincerely, ~ey~ X SPIKE (NAIL\ SET . IRON MONU,ENT FOUND o IRON PIPEfET .JI!t.. NAIL & BR4SS DISK SET X25.D SPOT E~EVA TION ASSUMED DAlUM fEXCEPT WHERE NOTED) I I I I I I I / / / / / / / I 6 0 I- ::2: ~ 6 0 ~ ~ :> <:( >< o f5 49.9 ~ 2 BEARING SYSTEM ASSUMrn SCALE IN FEEf Ila~ o ..,.'1 . ,,-.-- -----L-_- I 60 20 '40 tlQlE;.lHIS SURIlEY IS FDR lHE SOLE BENEFIT OF lHE INDIVIDUALS, CORPORATIONS, AND/OR PARTIES NAMED lHEREON. AND STANDARD OF WORK FOR SURIlEYOR BASED UPON "NORMAL" STANDARO OF CARE REQUIRED BY LAW . -- ".8 TO 8RIcK 49.3 1-5 M)FR ~'J 49.2 LV. . I. I.n..."',"," "". SHEID GARDENS HENNEPIN COUNTY. MN 1~ 1 ~ I .~ 6 TIlLE INf'ORIolATIDN PRQ\IIDED BY WENT. AGENT OR COUNTY TAX INf'ORIolA llON NO -lIlLE RESEARctI CONDUCTED. UNLESS NOTED . !! 71.2 'Al..J.UJu~ _ ~ - ----.- 58.8 .{\!' CONe 7 .,.'" ; 83.0 57.5 198.5 .. :!j 8 ~ 1..,. I I-~ LOT AREA: 18.550:1:: S.F. IMPERIOUS AREA: 3.520:1:: 5.F. COVERAGE: 19.0% PROPOSED BUILDING AREA: _S.F. PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA: :l:: S.F. PROPOSED COVERAGE: --" @ 2002 SURVEY & MAPPING SPEClAUSTS REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED . 57.1 -I' I I I "fRM!.1:ffltnytmt-____1_ I... ill-.. I" I~ II: ::J Is Il!I I: I I '" I III I I I I I . I ~ I I ~O"21 SHED I 4'1" .. . <9" "58.0 ... <I'~ ~ .. /6>!> o d o - l&.I 8 b p o en z Rev. 8/10/02: Added shed at S1I( property car and fence lines. Rev. 8/13/02: Additional dim....,.. from house to front lot line 942 t SUIlVRY SPRC1AL1S'1'S . UNO SUIr4'YIIG . LAND DESCRPlIDf<<S -CCItS1RUC1ICIN SfMCINQ . SIB)NSIClN PLATS ~.. = :::~ ~~ I.rtt"-"" 1M MEtRO (7U) ~71 SMI( ~ till 5U18 . . . . . . . . . wwmci.goUm_vlt~y 8-14-02 HEARING NOTICE Board of Zonina Appeals 5015 St. Croix Avenue North Sidney Mevers, Applicant Sidney Meyers, with property located at 5015 St. Croix Avenue North, has petitioned the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals for variances from the Residential zoning district. The applicant is proposing to construct a new 2-story room and garage addition attached to the existing home. This room and garage addition requires a variance from building setback requirements. Also, a survey was submitted for this building project and it was discovered that the existing home does not meeting building setback requirements. This construction project requires variances from the following sections of City Code. . Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(2) Side Yard Setback. 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 greater than 100 feet, the side yard setback shall be 15 feet. The requested variances are for 6.7 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 8.3 feet at it closest point to the west side yard property line for the existing home and for 2.8 feet off the required 15 feet toa distance of 12.2 feet at it closest point to the east side yard property line for the proposed room and garage addition. This petition will be heard at a regular meeting to be held Tuesday, August 27,2002, beginning at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. If you have any questions or comments about this variance request, you may contact the Planning Department at 763/593-8095. Adjacent properties require notification. ~ , .. . 1209 Pennsylvania Avenue North 02-8-54 . James Brereton . .. . Bey Memorandum Planning 763-593-80951 763-593-8109 (fax) To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Dan Olson, City Planner Subject: 1209 Pennsylvania Avenue North (02-8-54) James Brereton, Applicant Date: August 21, 2002 . James Brereton, with property located at 1209 Pennsylvania Avenue North, is requesting variances from the Residential zoning code (Section 11.21). The applicant has approached the City to build a deck 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 and two sheds do not meet setback requirements. City Staff has allowed the applicant 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(C)(2) Side Yard Setback. 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 greater than 70 feet and less than 100 feet, the side yard setback shall be 15% of the lot width. The requested variance is for 8 feet off the required 14 feet to a distance of 6 feet at it closest point to the north side yard property line for the existing home. . The second requested variance is from Section 11.21, Subd. 12 (A) Accessory Buildings. City Code states that a detached garage shall be located completely behind the principal structure. The property owner is requesting that the existing garage be allowed to remain to the south of the existing home. Also, City Code states that a shed shall be located at least 5 feet from any side or rear yard property line. The property owner is requesting a variance for the shed on the south side of the property to .exist at a distance of 3.5 feet from both the side and the rear yard property lines rather than the required 5 feet. Also, the property owner is requesting a variance for the shed on the north side of the property to exist at a distance of 1.8 feet from the rear yard propertyline . and 2.4 feet from the side yard property line rather than the required 5 feet. The City's file on this property reveals that a permit was pulled in July of .1952 for the construction of the home. No other pertinent information was found in the file. . . . Subject Property: 1209 Pennsylvania Ave N James Brereton, Applicant ~~j c.r~ ~ ~ ,.-- Z'I1.05~.~..... /_.... PLYMOUTH 7701 AVr;,.. , j,. '~I~'e' ,. III ~. '4. Tn9 \44 "-~'. I.. I.'.. ~ _ l! ".~ .41' .j.. :i\ iJL-"..0J. I .:;IV;\ ::: le.'s I. $ F'. Ie :; I.t;~, ~!!i~6 .: I _,- " i r- -~,. .!)\ -. . ~' ;- - - ';i -:- - !! i N - - - ~ . 17.< r..., 2.1t:, ~'.17 2 · ,~ - ;.A.._ Il" ' :>.:2 ,....".. '" -I" ." 'o;,~ ~I._.-__- -.,---- w.. ~ ~ 16 3.~. ~,.16 3 . ,~ ,.-; - - - 3. ' s!. 14 3.~ ~!.. .;._llo.Jl__ ~ - - - - .. ~ 1 - - - - - .... ,1'.I~'s~ 4..~~, 15. _~__~~I,.i5 j~4!_~~'_~~3___ __.~ -- "'T" -..- '.~ UJ ..'. ~iUJ 12 ~:)5 -:\'t ' 14 g 5. ~,UJ . ~ 14.. 5 ::: , ::) . lit 14,- '.. ; ::) '... - e'1O.o.4_1 -::) -. .- ~'Z ~ - -'d'l--'--;- ~ . .. ~ '" 6.~.~.~13. '. 6.li,~'~~',jI' 6.::: .UJ' II .1' 6.,,:_ _llo.'l..;.,P'll .. OI:>! ..... ".. >: ... II .. '" ~ ie-w---\Il --~---t \ ..12 7.l!,iI(.~12. 7.l!.<tt!'lo...I2~. 7.".",,:.' 10" t ,i.-" - - ~'" ",. ------ -.-:- , . , ~, ~ . '.. -, -. 9 : e C;. ! dl~!~. e.~ ,.lI 8 . .~!:".II e.g. I ~ .,. 141$:::. ~ I - .. .... "'I ".5' . 'it.' . - .~ ,! :::~I~,. I~':;' :::~~~ :. I~~ :r-l :::.I~ : I~'.~: ~ ISo ""'.. .:' 7.oi PHOENIX _'- STREET.: p'. 10 ~:: _~ .t: I . h~l~ $ ~I.::; :: '~~7.$~""S4~~ ~ '~~:= 1~4 $~;:;:.'9 :;_~L.L!~ 1,~,i 2..]1..;9 2 .~.~r'- -- -~---.~ ~--:--1,~~~ l~':Y'~ . . . j""Oi ,..-- , .. ~ .-'----"4 ''';' \4 l..18 3 ..~1..18 3 ;;;'(I).~14 3 .~.!!. ,,~ : "r,'.;r7,l' I~.SS. . --,-.5! - -;;- - " .-' AI}; : '.1.7. 4.~'O:.~17.' 4 . '213, . 4 .UJ:;:.Il~" .,' I ...u - UJ'" UJ \! . -I CD -'''~-7 YL i\ .I::~' '. '5.~,~.S;6. I,~ 5' .~. g. "-\2 '. - ~-.~. ~ t~5.~~~~" ~ ~ \ ::!1..115 . 6.a.~.~15. 6'.~.~,~il..';. .o~r;._J.'1~-:_ :=su. l~",!'_ - - . - - , ~'!'_-- ~ ;:;: 2 :6 5"l..4.....14., :'..~ ,.14 7. '~l'..IO i~'" - . - . . .'1.. ~I. ....... 14.';' ..: ~ 10 - 3 1 ~~"~' 8 .~..i3 e'. .~~~-=~~~).., ~ \l '" ..: ~ ~k;' .. --.~l!~ 2 = Ii. i ~ ~ . ~ ~~~_:__.~ ~ . ~. ~;':; -~..:!!;:: ,~~~..~ l(;~!~~i.$ ~~:..,-:----~ -.~\~ I #.it'.:1'8201 SJ't\ll"vc' 100 41.'1.,. ,.! "" U\.' .h.~ItX)' ~4 .. ", 141,'- /,,,.:; I ~'i~.j ,-,,' <.., i A .. ;~ ST. ,.: I" .;; II ~ ))"7 ~N.( ..",.-" 0'" ~ .~: . ~ ~''I\ ..u~ (I03~ Os 5121 ....::; CHICA~L-_ -~,..-I--:-- .!S::- -~~ -'-' \. 1;11 0') !-.... . . . .' . .. (Revised 1/99) Petition Number O}. - 6- Sf Date Received '1/ ;). Jo.,... Amount Received 5lJ. OJ ($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: 1209 Pennsylvania Ave. North Golden Valley, MN. 55427 2. BZA Petition Date August 27, 2002 3. Petitioner: James Paul Brereton Name 1209 Pennsylvania Address 612-201-0743 Business Phone AVe. North Golden Valley,MN. City/State/Zip 763__541-5480 Home Phone 55427 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): The South 17.5 feet of Lot 2, All of Lot 3, and the North 18 Feet of Lot 4, Block 15, Winnetka 6. Type of property involved in this petition: Residential: _x Single Family _ Double Dwelling _ Multiple Dwelling Industrial Commercial Institutional Bus. & Prof. Office Other .' , . . . . " 7. Detailed description of building (s), addition(s), and alteration(s) involved in this petition. The site plans 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. 625 Sq. Ft. deck directly off the ba~k (West) side of the house. 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 wiU take place. If the survey is larger than 11" x 17". the applicant ~iII supply seven additional copies of the survey for use by the Board. 11. To the Applicant: To the best of my knowledge the statements found in this application are true and correct. Attached herewith is my check in the amount of $ 50 . 00 representing the Board of Zoning Appeals Application Fee. ~e~ ~p~~nt UNLESS CONSTRUCTION OR THE ACTION APPLICABLE TO THIS WAIVER REQUEST, IF GRANTED, IS NOT TAKEN WITHIN ONE YEAR, THE WAIVER EXPIRES. \ . . . . . . .' Print Name Comment Signature Address \ 7.. (0 ex v-c(p ~<-- Print Name T)fJY l \) T<., 18G R ~ Comment -Dlo Ptlo ~ ~ Signature Print Name Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature Print Name Comment: Signature Print Name Comment Signature Address J-ZZ J PA.JJ\fe~,.Jc.. Address Address Address Address I' . l . . .' 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 , 4A..-HA.J ,,)F"V4A)/)& ) Signature L~ L, JL D Addresv00- Print Name . Comment . Signature Address Print Name Comment Signature Address Print Name Comment Signature Address . t 1209 Pennsylvania Ave. North Street Address "HOLD HARMLESS' I, James P. Brereton, am requesting the City of Golden Valley to allow me to proceed with a(n) deck 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. . James'P. Brereton Print Name ~.pw~ S' nature (;, - ;2. ) ~ <!) 2- Date rU ~ ()~ City of Golden Valley Staff Signature . N 01015' 00" W CH LINK FENCE 1,% 93.50 . 6" ! ~~ <!.s - I WOOD FENCE , ! IJl I. I 1 ~ ~ 1 \ : : "'.s 1 ~ \\\ I ~ I r~ . d \ \: : ~ II r' \\' 1 ii I ~ \. I !~ 15.4- r~ : Lrrl . ~\\ ........ l ~ ~L ~ 2jt ~ C,Jl ""j r CJ !i. r ~!. x-x -!( ~ I x:''':!l ::! ~ V) 'i I 1 1 1 I I 1 ::;: O~ g 1\ ~ rrI 1 fj \~ ~ :- ",- -," ~ \ \ "'~'" 18.0 ,... ~ ~ ~ (l~ 0 ~ -1'.3.8 6.0 ~ ~~~~ A CJ~QN5 ~ Y> ~f"1i" '" ch .35.7 1 15.0 ~ OJ 0 ~" =i ~ ~ c '" '&, Z f"1i 0 ~ C III 0 :;0 <: '" (;\ '" WALK 1 I 1 ... J :-' 58 I 17.5 I -o~ I " 0 o :;0 <: '" . 18 92. '2 MEAS. 93.5 PLA T N 00016' 40" W q, 0 "\ CONC CURB r o -I PENNSYL VANIA A VENUE :E~)>-IO zOJr:CfTl Z'1rfTl~ ~-IOW~ ~ "'0 '10'1) \ ~ ~ 0 )>'1r~::! (!) 'e> )> - 0:c0 ?J 'oS' ffl5-1~~ 8 r 2-15->':-J __ ____ _-"--"-11_ _ ___ __ _ __ fTl ~ fTl.j>..)>tn 0 "'0 ITI tn -0- Z'1 ;0 :;0 x o z(OO-l fTl 0 Vi r ~ ~ ~ W 00-10 6 Ul ~ '1 g~ffl'1 Z tl 'z r UlUlI{l o -I~ZO ~ "'0 0 IN -(tnO-l .." 0 ~ o--~ )>-'lrrl $: :r!!V ~ p:l f;; ~ rrI < 0<)> :;0 )> ~ )> ~ 6 Z 6 ;Z ~ Z rrI )> ~ fTl )> II z )> o ., fTl fTl -l . PROJECT N'" R200280 BOO!< DATE NOV. 15. 2000 PAGE REVISIONS CERT/F/CA TE OF SURVEY BRERETON RESIDENCE 1209 PENNSYL VANIA N " Land Frank R. Cardarelle Surveyor 6440 FL YING CLOUD DRIVE EDEN PRAIRIE. VISION AND RED LAND SURVEYOR TE OF M1~ESOT A. N ..., o \ o 'J c:. '0 ~-' ~0 ~ U) ~ <6 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0) , ~ C,Jl , , I'l"J ~ ~ f"1i - ........ 6.5 1'>-. :-'< C,Jl ~ ):,. 'i 1 1 1 , 1 I... I~ 1 I 1 1 I ----..I o ~---- o L z .j>.. o Q) o .) ~ ~ ~ 1 E 'LIST illlc:.. Ho \is;E ~TRuc..TLL~E r BAC.K DooR 1+ ~ 0', , "- 2. f?'- ON ~. lJ.oli:: DEC..lt AR.cA Mfl.o'l... 42.5" f,Q. j:T. Tv? OF DEc./; FL.Ol>Klt>1t;- :t 2.4H F~D" E~I' r, tJer G-JZ.Ali~. So "'....i: Ei..C. At;, !;; 'lL\~ '11.1<.- 'i ,i:.vS;. "- u~ , IJ ~ . .--, L/) / 1 (/'2. BAC.f( '(ARt> AREA ~ . \to"e. ~ DE c:.k \0 TAkE oFt= FRClP'l FErJc.E C.O Ih~ EI7., NO'r fP-D M CDRtoLf>.(l.ot= Aoo. T16iJ~ Ho.... Tux, '1'-3"-"]'-.3' DRS' w:Et(:-~ r 1;~,)~ flLLm 'NtiloHT 5.032Lto: IlO Ib~ I SQ.r f. ~ '-~I I ,<' -, L/} ( c- / l/' /2tJ1 _ fct-J/Js YC V I\rlrtT a-oipErJ'{ALCt Y It E', I (), F!:r.lLE CrATe OvENIIIIC:r. t: ;lJ b 1;\ It-, "'- N.oTi: ~ ~ TcP.S 1'-' . I.. ~ ".0 'I' vJ AA P ^ P.D__ "'=l\IM"~ tlE.LI' r_ nVE" S.L.AL.~: '/+' = ;'-0" . . . . . . . . . . . . www.N.goWro-vlt~ Y 8-9-02 HEARING NOTICE Board of Zonina Appeals 1209 Pennsylvania Avenue North James Brereton. Applicant James Brereton, with property located at 1209 Pennsylvania Avenue North, has petitioned the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals for variances from the Residential zoning district. The applicant is proposing to build a deck addition onto the rear of the existing home. This proposed addition meets building setback requirements. However, during the construction planning process, a survey was submitted for the property and it was discovered that the existing home, detached garage, and two sheds do not meet building setback requirements. Below are the requested variances: . Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(2) Side Yard Setback. 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 greater than 70 feet and less than 100 feet, the side yard setback shall be 15% of the lot width. The requested variance is for 8 feet oft the required 14 feet to a distance of 6 feet at it closest point to the north side yard property line for the existing home. . Section 11.21, Subd. 12 (A) Accessory Buildings. City Code states that a detached garage shall be located completely behind the principal structure. The property owner is requesting that the existing garage be allowed to remain to the south of the existing home. Also, City Code states that a shed shall be located at least 5 feet from any side or rear yard property line. The property owner is requesting a variance for the shed on the south side of the property to exist at a distance of 3.5 feet from both the side and the rear yard property lines rather than the required 5 feet. Also, the property owner is requesting a variance for the shed on the north side of the property to exist at a distance of 1.8 feet from the rear yard property line and 2.4 feet from the side yard property line rather than the required 5 feet. This petition will be heard at a regular meeting to be held Tuesday, August 27,2002, beginning at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. If you have any questions or comments about this variance request, you may contact the Planning Department at 763/593-8095. Adjacent properties require notification. "' , " ~~ . 224 J analyn Circle 02-8-55 . Richard Baker . . . . . lley Memorandum Planning 763-593-8095/ 763-593-8109 (fax) To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Dan Olson, City Planner Subject: 224 Janalyn Circle (02-8-55) Richard Baker, Applicant Date: August 21,2002 Richard Baker, with property located at 224 Janalyn Circle, is requesting variances from the Residential zoning code (Section 11.21). The applicant has approached the City to build a deck addition to the rear of 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 and attached deck do not meet setback requirements. City Staff has allowed the applicant 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 requested is 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 Janalyn Circle for the existing home. . The second requested variance is from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(2) Side Yard Setback. 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 greater than 70 feet and less than 100 feet, the side yard setback shall be 15% of the lot width. The requested variance is for 1.2 feet off the required 12.6 feet to a distance of 11.4 feet at it closest point to the east side yard property line for the existing home and for 7.2 feet off the required 12.6 feet to a distance of 5.4 feet at it closest point to the east side yard property line for the existing deck. The City's file on this property reveals that a permit was pulled in March of 1962 for the construction of the home. No other pertinent information was found in the file. . . . Subject Property: 224 Janalyn Circle Richard Baker, Ap licant '41.10 R... ._.... COUNTY 4J3~ I.3U31'..:f17,S' ~ I ,. I' r S I I ; - l.vi 31$- 7S 10.41 \; \ ~s '\ no.11i ; o .!! .. .. .. ~ ;!J '" ;1 Industrial . Other . . (Revised 1/99) Petition Number IJ 1-- - 8 -5'5 Date Received 7/ J J / 0 ;2..... I ' 1+f(jllfitEecei~-:~--~ -- -;- .~ ($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: d~1.{ SC1AA~ G'nJe 2. BZA Petition Date 3. Petitioner:R~c:fva-Ool J: iB' ~~'f'E ::::88 ~~Lf J"~(1!~ c'~t)~~~~lt(.(rl0'flb l~5(-~'t?-.s?bL( 7~'3.-3??-3?RD 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): ~ S~J~ 6. Type of property involved in this petition: Residential: )( Single Family _ Double Dwelling _ Multiple Dwelling Commercial Institutional Bus. & Prof. Office . . . 7. Detailed description of building (s), addition(s), and alteration(s) involved in this petition. The site plans and drawings submitted with this petition will be the basis of any variance that may be approved and cannot be changed before or after the building permit issued. ________________.._ __ .__ __0.. _.._ .. m,-_. __ __ _ ___00 __ ______ r-~ p(,~(e-e-;;c,ls(h~3clffk c1aM3e +n j::ce<fp-n~+ 17~~rl-&. V\ 0 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, jf 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 $ ,r::; 0 representing the Board of Zoning Appeals Application Fee. ~~hJJ~ Signature of Appl c nt UNLESS CONSTRUCTION OR THE ACTION APPLICABLE TO THIS WAIVER REQUEST, IF GRANTED, IS NOT TAKEN WITHIN ONE YEAR, THE WAIVER EXPIRES. . f (7 {' !) d l.\ l~ O:A/\. (1k0 v'\ Cc' J c~e 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:. Thispetition.is~ppIJ?9tJ9Dfor'.\fc;tiV~[oL.. . ---- - Ordinance(~}of .tll€LCjj}'_ZQniD9..-COde.=P--!ease~be-a\vare~ef::afTypossible-effe-ct11Te-granfing -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) Comment J /~:D ' Signature.. :-t~\)//.... QtV\Le-~LL- Address ,:J ~ ~ (":3 ~~~rCJ\v;, p, 'f&j,,(Kcff1J/C- Address f~ ~3 ,0/vuddeJ)[ Signature Print Name Comment Address Print Name Comment Signature Address . .. ;2~ L{ ~~ Ct)-J~ Street Address . . "HOLD HARMLESS' I, J~,e~l~, (S~am requesting the City of Golden Valley to allow me to proceed with a(n) (.to.&:.. b~~~ 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. . f(~~karJ ~. BJer Print Name _~ikM6' ~~ Signature ?/!J3!D~ Date I I (L.\ to\ ()~ City of Golden Valley , Staff Signature . PREPARED FO/?' . I I I I t ~ ~ ()......... ~CX:l ......... ......... \ti~ ~......... ~ 'il ,~~~ -[ -2'~- .~ ~~ ". ~~~ '" _/.."l3..7.- <"s. '" V' "'0 . LECAL OESCRIP11ON (os provided by cllen t) Lot J~ Block 6; CLENU?BAN SECOhV ADDI110N Including vocted portion or '/onof.jn Rood os plotted In CLliVc'lRBAN SeCOND ADDI110N lying between the southerly line or sold Lot J8 and northerty or the center line or '/onof.jn Rood os plotted In sold oddlYlon. T-" I I~ I I I o Oenotes Iron monument x 000. 0 Oenotes exlsllng elev: Porcel Area: 18J8J..J'6 sq. rt. . DEMARS-GABRIEL LAND SURVEYORS, INC. 3030 H....bor .taDe No. Pqn,outh. JIN 51U47 Pln..a:(7tJ3) 55Q-090B Fez :(763) 5/J9-0479 MR. RICH BAKER S 897916" E 110. 00 <5' fo' ." \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I -- , " c=:> (~.~~~ ::; ~. '86/. 0/- ~ ~e( l~e 0(1 " ,c ~ ~ . C:" ro"} 7-t'" -0 ~-.I~ -It; :.' -/..' f'JVJ ~ 14.9 u ,,0 ~ " "" I ~ 10YOlj ~ "'I I~ ~ "'" 16.5 ~ , ~.~ ':j.: $S ~~ \\iN ~ 0) 27.0 ~ ~. .* U8 "" ~ ~ Existing HOl/se #224 "'- .J'o. 2 !lOr. 1Ir. = 860. 94 28.2 C>1:r'o<S'" (cll pO ~ " " -,.--- I I I I I I I I q. :;;.-.. C'~ ~ \ I hereby cerUfy that thi. .urvey plan or report ...... prepared by me or under my direct .upervision aDd that I am a duV Rap.tared Laaet Surve.ror Wlder the JaW'S 01 the State 01 Jlinne.-ota. As aune)"ed by me Wa 19th dq of "uV. Z002. File No. H774 Book-Pale 404/'11 ~c.< -- Dend E. Crook JIbuJ. R"I. No. ZZ414 ScaJ.e 1"=20' . . . . ~ WWW.ci.~Um~lt~ Y 8-9-02 HEARING NOTICE Board of Zonina Appeals 224 Janalyn Circle Richard Baker, Applicant Richard Baker, with property located at 224 Janalyn Circle, has petitioned the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals for variances from the Residential zoning district. The applicant is proposing to construct a new deck attached to the rear of the existing home. This deck meets building setback requirements. However, a survey was submitted for this building project and it was discovered that the existing home and existing deck do not meeting building setback requirements. This construction project requires variances from the following sections 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 requested is 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 Janalyn Circle for the existing home. . Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(2) Side Yard Setback. 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 greater than 70 feet and less than 100 feet, the side yard setback shall be 15% of the lot width. The requested variance is for 1.2 feet off the required 12.6 feet to a distance of 11.4 feet at it closest point to the east side yard property line for the existing home and for 7.2 feet off the required 12.6 feet to a distance of 5.4 feet at it closest point to the east side yard property line for the existing deck. This petition will be heard at a regular meeting to be held Tuesday, August 27,2002, beginning at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. If you have any questions or comments about this variance request, you may contact the Planning Department at 763/593-8095. Adjacent properties require notification.