Loading...
10-22-02 BZA Agenda . . . Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, October 22, 2002 7PM 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Conference Room I. Approval of Minutes - August 27 and September 24, 2002 II. The Petitions are: 1808 York Avenue North (02-10-65) Ricardo and Daria Pardo, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7 (A) Front Yard Setback . 1.6 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 33.4 feet for the existing home at its closest point to the front yard property line along York Avenue North. . 10.2 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 24.8 feet for the existing deck at its closest point to the front yard property line along York Avenue North. Purpose: To bring the existing home and front porch into conformance with front yard setback requirements. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7 (C)(3) Side Yard Setbacks .10.25 feet off the required 14 feet to a distance of 3.75 feet at its closest point to the east side yard property line for the existing home. . 8.25 feet off the required 14 feet to a distance of 5.75 feet at its closest point to the east side yard property line for the proposed dormer window addition. . 9 feet off the required 14 feet to a distance of 5 feet at its closest point to the east side yard property line for the existing front deck. Purpose: To bring the existing home and front deck into conformance with side yard setback requirements and to allow for the construction of a proposed dormer window addition to the existing home. Req uest: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 12 (A) Accessory Buildings . .2 feet off the required 5 feet to a distance of 4.8 feet for the existing detached garage at its closest point rear yard property line. Purpose: To bring the existing detached garage into conformance with accessory building requirements. . . . 1810 Major Drive (02-10-66) Celeste Shahidi, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7 (A) Front Yard Setback Purpose: Request: Purpose: Request: . .5 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 34.5 feet for the existing home at its closest point to the front yard property line along Major Drive. To bring the existing home into conformance with front yard setback requirements. Waiver from Section 11.65, Subd. 5 (A) Standards . 60 feet off the required 75 feet to a distance of 15 feet for the existing attached deck at its closest point to the Ordinary High Water Mark of Sweeney Lake. . 70.5 feet off the required 75 feet to a distance of 4.5 feet for the existing detached deck at its closest point to the Ordinary High Water Mark of Sweeney Lake. . 54 feet off the required 75 feet to a distance of 21 feet for the existing home at its closest point to the Ordinary High Water Mark of Sweeney Lake. . 70 feet off the required 75 feet to a distance of 5 feet for the proposed gazebo at its closest point to the Ordinary High Water Mark of Sweeney Lake. To bring the existing home, attached deck, and detached deck into conformance with Shoreland Regulations setback requirements and to allow for the construction of a gazebo on the property. Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 12 (A) Accessory Buildings . 2 feet off the required 10 feet to a distance of 8 feet for the proposed gazebo at its closest point to the principal structure. The gazebo would also not be located completely behind the home. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a gazebo on the property. III. Other Business IV. Adjournment 2 . I " -I' . . . Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 27, 2002 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, August 27,2002, in the Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Shaffer called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Those present were members Hughes, Smith and Planning Com Representative Shaffer. Also present were Staff Liaison Dan 0 Secretary Lisa Wittman. Absent were members Cera, Sell a ecording racken-Hunt. I. Approval of Minutes - July 23, 2002 MOVED by Smith, seconded by Hughes and motio the July 23,2002 minutes as submitted. II. The Petitions are: 4321 Avondale Road (02-8-48) Ron Engen. Applicant Request: 1, Subd. 7 (A) Front Yard Setback r . ed 35 feet to a distance of 27.8 feet for the at s closest point to the front yard property line along ue. required 35 feet to a distance of 28.4 feet for the droom addition at its closest point to the front yard line along Douglas Avenue. off the required 35 feet to a distance of 28.9 feet for the roposed deck addition at its closest point to the front yard property e along Douglas Avenue. 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 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 building setback requirements. ~ . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals August 27, 2002 Page 2 Olson stated that the lot in this proposal is triangular in shape and that much of it is subject to the 35-foot setback requirement because it is a corner lot. He added that the applicant would like to build a deck and mudroom addition. Smith discussed which variance requests were for the existing home and which ones were for the new proposal. Issac Felemovicius, applicant, explained that he is planning to which is rotting, with an enclosed addition in the same exac existing deck, Hughes asked if the proposed mudroom would make th Douglas Avenue. Felemovicius stated no. Shaffer clarified that the proposal wasn't for ad asked why the proposal was calling the additi misunderstood what the applicant was reque r a screen porch. Smith Olson stated that he Shaffer opened the public hearing. hearing. eing no one, he closed the public Shaffer stated that he would rat this proposal, but that a roo the existing deck replaced with a new deck in ould be okay too. MOVED by Smith, secon the following request ughes and motion carried unanimously to approve 35 feet to a distance of 27.8 feet for the existing home at its t yard property line along Douglas Avenue. d 35 feet to a distance of 28.4 feet for the proposed mudroom est point to the front yard property line along Douglas Avenue. r quired 35 feet to a distance of 28.9 feet for the proposed room closest point to the front yard property line along Douglas Avenue. · .3 feet 0 e required 15 feet to a distance of 14.7 feet for the existing home at its closest point to the west side yard property line. 416 Burntside Drive (02-8-49) Robert and Darcie Rossborough. Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 12(A) Accessory Buildings 2 . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals August 27,2002 Page 3 · 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. Olson stated that the applicants would like to build a shed to the south of their existing home and that it is proposed to be located 3 feet from the rear pro line. Darcie Rossborough, applicant stated. that they would like to j!J storage shed. She added that the neIghbors to south have .ffe like the proposed shed to be 3 feet away from that fence. proposed shed was movable. Rossborough stated that a 10 ot by 8-foot at they would d if the movable shed. Smith asked if the neighbor's fence is located on t~; Rossborough stated that 8 to 12 inches of the neighbor's fence is 10 n side of the property line. She added that there would be approximatel ween their house and the neighbor's house. Smith stated that the pro wouldn't be seen by anyone driving by. Shaffer stated that he didn't under setback requirements. Rossbor their deck if they conformed to applicants move the shed f that there is a slope in th this proposal because he proposed shed confo the proposed shed couldn't conform to ,hat the proposed shed would be closer to ck requirements. Shaffer suggested that the i'.i':',.."."""in the corner of the yard. Rossborough stated c@i . ZShaffer stated he would have trouble approving e any hardships and it would be so easy to make the k requirements. Shaffer opened t hearing. hearing. Seeing and hearing no one, he closed the public didn't see a hardship in this proposal. He added that there is proposed shed and that there are. different solutions that work. Rossboroug tated that she didn't know about the hardship policy. Olson stated that he did try to discourage her husband from applying for this variance. MOVED by Hughes, seconded by Smith and motion carried unanimously to deny the request for 2 feet off the required 5 feet to a distance of 3 feet for the proposed shed at its closest point to the side yard property line. 449 Meadow Lane North (02-8-50) Tara Mucha. Applicant 3 . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals August 27,2002 Page 4 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 yar perty line along Woodstock Avenue. Purpose: To bring the existing home into conform requirements. yard setback Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. . 5 feet off the required 15 fee proposed garage addition property line. of 1 0 feet for the st point to the west side yard Purpose: To allow for the co home. f a garage addition to the existing Olson explained that this lot is the existing home and one f instead of the required 15 that would conform to se o and that two of the variance requests are for ed garage to be 10 feet to the west property line ed that they are also proposing a breezeway uirements. Mark Ewald, Contract garage on the pr rt garage could nting the applicant stated that right now there is a small t the applicant would like to demolish so that a two-car Shaffer sta e Board typically approves a width of 22 feet for 2-car garage reque and tey do allow two-car garages to go into side yard setbacks but in this case it I e osed breezeway that is making the garage addition go into the setback ar e added that if a couple of feet were taken off the breezeway and garage additions they would then meet the setback requirement, or they could keep the proposed 24-foot garage and make the breezeway smaller. Ewald stated that the width of the breezeway was determined by an existing window. Olson stated that the existing garage is 38 feet away from the north property line to Woodstock Avenue and that they could build up to 35 feet to the property line. Ewald stated that when the neighbor to the west built their house, they were only 7 feet from the property line. 4 . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals August 27, 2002 Page 5 Shaffer stated that there should be some sort of compromise. Smith stated that he would like to see a smaller variance requested also. Ewald asked about doing the project in phases and not building the garage right away. Shaffer stated that then there would be different variance requests. Shaffer opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one, he closed the public hearing. . Request: o approve e existing 4$ ane North and if",Y. . sting home at Its ue. MOVED by Hughes, seconded by Smith and motion carried u the request for 1 foot off the required 35 feet to a distance home at its closest point to the front yard property line alo 3.6 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 31.4 fe closest point to the front yard property line along Woods MOVED by Smith, seconded by Hughes and foot off the required 15 feet to a distance of 1 its closest point to the west side yard propert rI nanimously to approve 1 he proposed garage addition at 1532 Mendelssohn Avenue North ( Kurt Templin, Applicant n 11.21, Subd. 7 (A) Front Yard Setback u d 35 feet to a distance of 21 feet for the existing osest point to the front yard property line along venue North. :the required 35 feet to a distance of 11.8 feet for the home at its closest point to the front yard property line along Street. t off the required 35 feet to a distance of 6 feet for the ~~oposed garage addition at its closest point to the front yard property line along Olympia Street. 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. Olson stated that this property is a corner lot and discussed which variance requests were for the existing house and which oneswere for the proposed garage addition. . Shaffer asked for some background information, because he noticed when he was at the site that excavation had already begun. Olson stated that contractor started to build the garage addition before a building permit had been issued. 5 . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals August27,2002 Page 6 Julie Hanley, homeowner, stated that their contractor had told them that he had received a permit and told the excavators to start working. Shaffer asked why the proposed garage is being constructed on the north side of the house, instead of the south side. Hanley stated that on the south side of the house there is a slope and retaining walls. She added that another reaso garage addition is being proposed on the north side is because it would align wi ingdoor. Shaffer stated concern about how far into the setback area be. Hanley stated that there would be about 12 feet fro street. Hughes stated that to have the proposed garage a5(!j' . would be adding to the problem and suggestin~;::m> . Street. Shaffer agreed and suggested that th'. rop match the 11.8 feet setback area of the existi hou in line with the house arage parallel to Olympia d garage be moved forward to Shaffer opened the public hearing. hearing. eing no one, he closed the public MOVED by Hughes, seconded the following variance requ h and motion carried unanimously to approve . 14 feet off the required closest point to th . 23.2 feet off th~ re "" closest point to' . 23.2 feet additio t to a distance of 21 feet for the existing home at its roperty line along Mendelssohn Avenue North. eet to a distance of 11.8 feet for the existing home at its yard property line along Olympia Street. 35 feet to a distance of 11.8 feet for the proposed garage oint to the front yard property line along Olympia Street. 1037 H Sennes 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. 6 . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals August 27,2002 Page 7 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. Smith asked if the existing house were in con also conform. Olson stated yes. nts and that the e than the existing Purpose: To bring the existing home into conformance requirements and to allow for the construcfo addition to the existing home. ard setback nd story Olson stated that the existing home doesn't meet setba proposed addition would not be going any closer to the p home and the footprint would remain the same. if the proposed addition would . MOVED by Smith, seconded by Hug the request for 14.5 feet off the re . existing home and proposed dor property line along Hampshire distance of 13.6 feet for the closest point to the north . n carried unanimously to approve feet to a distance of 20.5 feet for the itl at its closest point to the front yard North and 1.4 feet off the required 15 feet to a e and proposed second story addition at its erty line. rom Section 11.21, Subd. 7 (C)(1) Side Yard Setbacks 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. . Olson told the Board that the proposed addition wasn't drawn on the survey, but that it was shown on the site plans. He explained that one of the variance requests was for the existing home and the other is for the proposed garage and room addition. 7 . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals August 27,2002 Page 8 . Shaffer asked if the proposed additions could be moved 2.8 feet further away from the property line so that there wouldn't need to be any variance requests. Hughes stated that he thought a narrower garage wouldn't fit in well with the existing house. Olson referred to the survey and stated that there is a non-conforming shed on the property that is in an easement and that the applicant has agreed ve it. Request: is house and Sidney Meyers, applicant added that there would still be 15 f his neighbor's house. Shaffer opened the public hearing. hearing. MOVED by Hughes, seconded by Smith and moti the variance requests for 6.7 feet off the requir existing home at its closest point to the east required 15 feet to a distance of 12.2 feet for its closest point to the west side yard pr shed be moved out of the easement unanimously to approve distance of 8.3 feet for the roperty line and 2.8 feet off the ed garage and room addition at the condition that the existing e final inspection of the additions. . 1209 Pennsylvania Avenue N James Brereton A Iicant ctl n 11.21, Subd. 7 (C)(2) Side Yard Setbacks quired 14 feet to a distance of 6 feet for the existing osest point to the north side yard property line. the existing home into conformance with side yard setback ements Re aiver 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. 8 . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals August 27, 2002 Page 9 · 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. Olson stated that the applicant is proposing to build a conformin their existing house. He added that the applicant has signed dition on to ss form. Shaffer opened the public hearing. hearing~ MOVED by Smith, seconded by Hughes and moti the following variance requests: · 8 feet off the required 14 feet to a distance closest point to the north side yard pr . 1.5 feet off the required 5 feet to a south side of the property at its · 3.2 feet off the required 5 fee north side of the property at . · 2.6 feet off the required north side of the prope . To allow the existing d home. or the existing home at its .5 feet for the existing shed on the t to the side and rear yard property lines. t of 1.8 feet for the existing shed on the st point to the rear yard property line. 'stance of 2.4 feet for the existing shed on the cl st point to the north side yard property line. garage to be located to the south of the existing 4A 224 Janalyn Cire1'" Richard Sa aiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7 (A) Front Yard Setback 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. Purpose: 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. 9 . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals August 27.2002 Page 10 . 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. Purpose: To bring the existing home and deck into conformance with side yard setback requirements. Olson stated that the applicant is proposing to build a conforming existing home and that all of the above variance requests are fo to the rear of his e ing home. MOVED by Smith. secpnded by Hughes and motion carrie the following variance requests: to approve . 5 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 30 feet closest point to the front yard property line alon . 1.2 feet off the required 12.6 feet to a distan its closest point to the east side yard prope . 7.2 feet off the required 12.6 feet to a dista closest point to the east side yard pr h sting home at its Circle. for the existing home at feet for the existing deck at its III. Other Business IV. Adjournment The meeting was adj 10 . " , . Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 24, 2002 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, September 24, 2002, in the Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. McCracken-Hunt called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Those present were Chair McCracken-Hunt, members Cera an Commission Representative Pentel. Also present were Sta iai Recording Secretary Lisa Wittman. Absent was Planning .s Shaffer. lanning Ison and epresentative I. Approval of Minutes - August 27,2002 The members present at the August 27,2002 therefore the members discussed tabling the ere ot present at this meeting , 2002 minutes. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Pentel August 27, 2002 minutes until the Oc . The Petitions are: rried unanimously to table the 2 meeting. Request: ';pn 11.21, Subd. 7 (C)(1) Side Yard Setbacks the required 15 feet to a distance of 14.7 feet at its closest e west side yard property line for the proposed addition. ,w for the construction of a proposed addition to the existing home. ver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7 (B) Rear Yard Setback · 5.2 feet off the required 22.5 feet to a distance of 17.3 feet for the existing home at its closest point to the rear yard property line. Purpose: To bring the existing home into conformance with building setback requirements. . Cera asked how the size of the proposed addition compares to the existing porch. Olson stated the proposed addition would be slightly larger that the existing porch. ~ . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals September 24, 2002 Page 2 Moldestad, applicant stated that they found out they were .3 feet off the required 15 feet when they had a survey done. He explained that the current porch dimensions are 14 feet by 12 feet and that the new addition would be 16 feet by 24 feet, which is standard construction. Sell stated that from a building standpoint it makes sense for the addition to be 16 feet wide instead of 17.7 feet wide. Pentel stated that she doesn't see an issue with this proposal home was built off kilter and the encroachment is minor. existing MOVED by Sell, seconded by Pentel and motion carrie requests for .3 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance to the west side yard property line for the propose<flllj!, . required 22.5 feet to a distance of 17.3 feet for . 'sti the rear yard property line. to approve the et at its closest point and for 5.2 feet off the me at its closest point to 1945 Kelly Drive (02-9-57) Eu ene Selenski A Iicant Request: bd. 7 (B) Rear Yard Setback 19.6 feet to a distance of 11 feet for the t its closest point to the rear yard property line. Purpose: struction of a proposed deck addition to the existing corner lot and that the applicant is proposing to build a deck e 11 feet to the rear property line instead of the required 19.6 feet. stated that the lot is odd shaped and that the proposed deck addition g out of the easement area. Pentel asked if the new deck addition would be the same size as the existing deck. Roger Anderson, representing the applicant, stated that the proposed deck addition would be in the exact same place as the current deck that has been attached to the house since it was built. Cera reiterated that it is an odd shaped lot and that the applicant is building the new addition in the same as location as the existing deck. 2 ~ . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals September 24, 2002 Page 3 MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Sell and motion carried unanimously to approve the request for 8.6 feet off the required 19.6 feet to a distance of 11 feet for the proposed deck at its closest point to the rear yard property line. 1512 Alpine Pass (02-9-58) Leigh and Doris Rolfshus, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7 (A) Front Y k · .8 feet off the required 35 feet to a dista proposed porch at its closest point to t Alpine Pass. for the roperty line along Purpose: To allow for the construction of a p to the existing home. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, S 2) Side Yard Setbacks · 1.5 feet off the requir proposed porch add property line. . .4 feet off the r: proposed g north sid a distance of 12.6 feet for the sest point to the south side yard 1. eet to a distance of 13.7 feet for the living space addition at its closest point to the y line. Purpose: struction of a porch, garage and living space addition . ants are requesting the above variances in order to build a . He stated that the applicant originally submitted his he was meeting setback requirements and that he had attempted to ts. Leigh Rol applicant showed a model of his home and pointed out the existing home and the proposed addition. He stated that they would like to have a two-car garage. Pentel asked how the driveway would work. Rolfshus referred back.to the model and stated that the proposed garage would be tandem. Doris Rolfshus, applicant stated that their existing sun porch is 9 feet by 9 feet and that just a corner of it encroaches into the setback area. 3 . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals September 24, 2002 Page 4 Sell stated that this is a problem lot in a problem area and he commended the applicants for putting in a tandem garage. Pentel stated that this proposal is in keeping with other additions in the area and the way the applicants have designed it is respectful to their neighbor. MOVED by Sell, seconded by Pentel and motion carried unanimously to approve the following requests because it is an odd shaped lot and has topogr slope issues. Request: d porch at its · .8 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 34.2 feet fo closest point to the front yard property line along Alpine · 1.5 feet off the required 14.1 feet to a distance of 12.6 addition at its closest point to the south side yard pr · .4 feet off the required 14.1 feet to a distance of 13.7 and living space addition at its closest point to t e proposed garage ide yard property line. 2140 Kelly Drive (02-9-59) Geor e and Helen Peterson ub . 7 (A) Front Yard Setback . Purpose: To allow for the construction of several additions to the existing home. Olson stated that the applicants want to build a new garage, workshop, mudroom, deck, bedroom and bathroom addition onto their existing home. All of which require variances. . Pentel asked if the existing garage would be used for something else. Olson stated he believed the applicants were going to use the existing garage space fora workshop. 4 . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals September24, 2002 Page 5 McCracken-Hunt asked if the proposed new garage were a double garage, instead of the triple garage being proposed would it still need variances. Olson stated that building a double garage instead of a triple would be three feet further away from the property line but that the applicants would still need several variances. Helen Peterson told the Board she has another plan that would move the third stall of the garage back so it would line up with the variances in the front ould look and function better. She stated that the lot is pie shaped and that th t about building up but the foundation would need a lot of work and g i uld require a lot of re-plumbing. She said that the addition would help w' Peter instead suggested d questioned what I d that they would e thinks that her additions Cera explained that the Board needs to find some sort that would be in this case. Peterson stated it's a pie sh have nowhere else to build the additions. She add~ would enhance the area. . Pentel stated that she doesn't think the odd s encroachment into the front yard setba noticeably different from the other ho back doesn't really change much b addition. n this case really justifies the ated that the additions would be I-de-sac and that pushing the garage ould be the least seen part of the Cera stated that he thinkst requested are too much. lot but that she would be added that she does granted variance f r and the amount of the variances being k - unt stated that she realizes it is an odd shaped mfortable seeing encroachments to the back. She osed front porch and that the Board has in the past es. e request and having the applicants come back with with no third stall or a deeper garage. a they had thought about building the addition to the side yard t but there is a room underneath that would get blocked. Sell applicant extend the basement under the addition area. MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to table this request to allow the applicant time to redesign their plans. 7105 Duluth Street (02-9-60) Stephen Wegleitner, Applicant . Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7 (C)(1) Side Yard Setbacks 5 . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals September 24, 2002 Page 6 · 3.2 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 11.8 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. Pentel asked if the roofline would be extended and stat out. ddition onto compared to Olson stated that the applicant is requesting a variance to build their existing garage two-car garage. He added that the addi . an attached shed with no garage door. . Wegleitner, applicant stated that there would b would be getting rid of the shed that is curren take a tree out that is located in front the pro in the garage would betaken .out so th He said his intent is to expand the ga there would still be 31% feet remai . garage. e of line. He stated that they ot and that they don't intend to tion. He explained that the wall wouldn't need to be changed. torage of his boat. He added that en their garage and their neighbor's Pentel stated she noticed t asked if he was going to Wegleitner stated that the Pentel asked the ap garage addition. of the addition. don't have t s a door on the side of the current garage and o the side of the proposed new garage addition. rage addition would have a door in the back of it. as planning to have windows on the side of the ted that he is planning to have two windows on the side that there is a family room behind the existing garage so they build the addition to the back. McCracken- ed that she thinks the proposed addition is going to have the appea ce 0 hlrd stall garage without a garage door. Pentel stated that she thinks it will 100 e a third stall garage and more like a bump out with the addition of windows on e side. Wegleitner stated that it is only a ten-foot wide garage and that most single car garages would be twelve feet wide. He added that he is trying to keep the addition as small as possible. Cera asked what kind of hardship could be attached to this request. Wegleitner said that the lot is odd shaped and the fact that the family room is directly behind the existing garage which doesn't allow him to build to the rear of the property are hardships. . McCracken-Hunt stated that the applicant could choose to put an addition on the back of the family room and turn the existing family room into garage space. Wegleitner 6 . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals September 24, 2002 Page 7 stated that the family room is only twelve feet deep and that it runs across the back of the house and it would be hard to park with a garage located in that direction. Pentel stated that he would also have a hard time putting a car into the proposed bump out. Wegleitner reiterated that it is not his intent to create a third garage stall and stated that there is a hill in the back yard which limits the building options. Pentel stated that she thinks the lot itself does pose some challen provide some indoor storage. feet wide ide addition e-car garages. He e going to start McCracken-Hunt stated that the proposed garage addition and it would not require a variance at all. Sell stated that wouldn't look right and that City needs to take a look at added that the 15-foot side yard setback looks nice, but moving out of Golden Valley. Pentel stated that the Planning Commission Zoning Code. She said that part of the reaso flavor of the City. She stated that think at the Code to figure out how to mak about making changes to the 5-foot setback is to keep the ea to think about, and take a look ode more modern. . Sell stated he thinks the more c stated that lately the Board has that if anyone were to look didn't have a true hardshi variances in the past with result. "ty can get into garages the better. He eal hard on these types of variances. He added years worth of variance granted that over 50% r k -Hunt stated that the Board has granted imate hardships and they've seen legal action as a Sell stated that he this lot. Pen approval, ith Pentel that it would be tough for the applicant to build on re was a way that a condition could be attached to an at a permit will not be approved for a garage door. suggested having an eight-foot wide door instead of a 10-foot door icant would only need a 1.2-foot variance. Sell stated an 8-foot wide door would e it difficult to be able to store a boat. Wegleitner stated that he did consider an 8-foot wide garage addition but the wheelbase on his trailer is8 % feet wide. McCracken-Hunt asked what happens to the variance request if the Board's vote is two to two. Olson stated that a two to two vote would be a denial. McCracken-Hunt stated she is concerned and she still feels like the proposed addition is a third stall garage without a door. . 7 . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals September 24,2002 Page 8 Pentel asked if the applicant was looking to provide a storage area of 260 square feet, which is allowed in the Zoning Code, where on his property could he put it. McCracken- Hunt stated that perhaps the addition is for the family room and perhaps the lot can't handle that size of shed. Pentel stated that perhaps it is not up to the Board to figure out a way to store his boat. She asked if the Board denies the request if the applicant has the option of appealing it the Council. McCracken-Hunt stated that the applicant could appeal the Board's denial to the Council, which would create . ussion on third stall garages. MOVED by Pentel and seconded by Sell to approve the re and McCracken-Hunt voted no. 412 Gettysburg Avenue North (02-9-61) Kerry Krawczyk. Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 1 (A) Front Yard Setback . 5 feet off the re home at its clo Gettysbur t to a distance of 30 feet for the existing nt to the front yard property line along rth. Purpose: home into conformance with building setback Request: Section 11.21, Subd. 7 (C)(2) Side Yard Setbacks off the required 13.2 feet to a distance of 10 feet for the osed deck at its closest point to the south side yard property line. lIow for the construction of a deck addition to the existing home. Olson read the requested variances and stated that one request was for the existing home and the other request was for a proposed deck addition Sell asked how old the house is. Krawczyk stated that the house was built in 1925. She explained that she wants to build a wrap around deck, which serves as an entrance to the house. Cera asked the applicant about wrapping the proposed deck the other way around the house. Krawczyk stated that the air condition unit and a bedroom are in that location. 8 . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals September 24,2002 Page 9 Pentel stated that if the applicant were to request a 7 -foot wide deck than she wouldn't need a variance. McCracken-Hunt stated that the requested 10-foot deck is modest and that she doesn't see a problem with this proposal because there would still be a 10- foot setback to the side yard property line. Pentel asked what the hardship would be for this variance request. there would be no place else to put the proposed deck. McCra the house is small and the lot is very narrow and is tough to decks are more open visually than a building and added th several variances in the past for decks in side yards. I stated that stated that ra stated that s granted MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Sell and motion carrie request for 5 feet off the required 35 feet to a dista at its closest point to the front yard property lin 3.2 feet off the required 13.2 feet to a distanc closest point to the south side yard propert Ii sly to approve the feet for the existing home urg Avenue North and for t for the proposed deck at its 2495 Quail Avenue North (02-9-62) Thomas Robeck A Iicant Request: .21, Subd. 7 (A) Front Yard Setback . .7 feet 0 home at Ave 35 feet to a distance of 34.3 feet for the existing st point to the front yard property line along Quail Purpose: xisting home into conformance with building setback from Section 11.21, Subd. 7 (C)(1) Side Yard Setbacks foot off the required 15 feet to a distance of 14 feet for the existing home at its closest point to the south side yard property line. . 5.4 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 9.6 feet for the proposed carport 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 proposed carport to the existing home. 9 . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals September 24,2002 Page 10 Olson explained that the applicant is proposing to build a carport addition that would be 9.6 feet to the side yard property line. He added that the other variance requests are for the existing house. McCracken-Hunt stated that if someone wanted to put walls up around the carport they could. Olson stated that this variance waiver would be specifically for a carport and that the City would require another variance to build walls because it w be intensifying the use. Pentel asked about canvas roll downs being attached to th could be done without a permit. n stated that Robeck, applicant stated that he wants to put a roof ov that it would look architecturally pleasing to the str ..oe fence is five feet onto his property and that his in the back yard. e g concrete slab and ated that his neighbor's so he can't put a garage Pentel stated that if the carport were 9 ~ foot off from the setback requirement the angle hard to maneuver. plicant would only be about a reed but stated that it would make Cera asked the applicant why h Robeck stated that he coul made the most sense be a garage there. asking for a third car garage stall instead. fully enclose the carport and that this proposal rop off in the back it would be very hard to build Cera stated that i need a variance the size. could make the proposed carport narrower he wouldn't hat it is the size of the existing concrete slab that is driving . ing slab has footings. Robeck stated no. Pentel asked if it is a variances for a third stall garages. McCracken-Hunt stated yes and oard considers not having a second stall garage a hardship, but that stall garage is not a hardship. MOVED by Sell 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 Quail Avenue North, 1 foot off the required 15 feet to a distance of 14 feet for the existing home at its closest point to the south side yard property line and 5.4 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 9.6 feet for the proposed carport at its closest point to the north side yard property line. The motion died due to lack of a second. 10 . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals September 24, 2002 Page 11 The Board discussed how this request compared to the earlier request fora garage addition. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Pentel and motion carried three to one to deny the variance requests 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 Quail Avenue North, 1 foot off the required 15 feet to a distance of 14 feet forthe . ting home at its closest point to the south side yard property line and 5.4 feet off re' ed 15 feet to a distance of 9.6 feet for the proposed carport at its closest p in he h side yard property line. Sell voted no. 4812 - 33rd Avenue North (02-9-63) Carolyn Rask, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21 . 16.1 feet off the requir existing home at its 33rd Avenue Nort distance of 18.9 feet for the o the front yard property line along Purpose: To bring the e requireme MOVED by Sell, seconde req uest for 16.1 feet off t home at its closest p ome Into conformance with front yard setback el d motion carried unanimously to approve the 'red 35 feet to a distance of 18.9 feet for the existing nt yard property line along 33rd Avenue North. rfrom Section 11.21, Subd. 7 (C)(1) Side Yard Setbacks Purpose: 3 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 12 feet for the existing home at its closest point to the north side yard property line. To bring the existing home into conformance with side yard setback requirements. MOVED by Sell, seconded by Pentel and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request for 3 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 12 feet for the existing home at its closest point to the north side yard property line with the condition that a revised survey be submitted showing the ordinary high water mark for Bassett 11 . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals September 24, 2002 Page 12 Creek, as well as an indication of whether any portion of the property is in the flood plain. III. Other Business Olson stated that he received a request from the property owner a Avenue North to extend a variance request he received on Octo 31,2003. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Sell and motion carried u variance extension request to October 31,2003. Election of Officers: MOVED by Cera, seconded by Pentel and m as Chair and McCracken-Hunt, Vice Chair un IV. Adjournment . . 12 1 Gettysburg 01 to October d unanimously to appoint Sell ted or for one year. fi , .. . 1808 York Avenue North 02-10-65 . Ricardo and Daria Pardo . , . . . Hey Memorandum Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Dan Olson, City Planner Subject: 1808 York Avenue North (02-10-65) Ricardo and Darlo Pardo, Applicants Date: October 16, 2002 Ricardo and Daria Pardo, with property located at 1808 York Avenue North, are requesting variances from the Residential zoning code (Section 11.21). The applicants have approached the City to build a dormer window addition on the second floor of the rear of the home. This addition requires a variance from the building setback requirements. Also, a survey was submitted for the property and it was discovered that the existing home, front yard decks, and detached garage do not meet building setback requirements. The following are the requested variances: · The first requested variance is from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback. City Code states that the front yard setback shall be 35 feet from the front yard property line. The requested variances are for 1.6 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 33.4 feet at its closest point to the front property line along York Avenue North for the existing home and for 10.2 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 24.8 feet at its closest point to the front property line along York Avenue North for the existing front deck. · The second requested variance is from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(3) Side Yard Setbacks. City Code states that the distance between any part of a dwelling or structure and the side lot lines shall be governed by the following requirements: In the case of lots having a width of 70 feet or less, the south side yard setback shall be 20% of the lot width. The requested variances are for 10.25 feet off the required 14 feet to a distance of 3.75 feet at it closest point to the east side yard property line for the existing home; for 8.25 feet off the required 14 feet to a distance of 5.75 feet at it closest point to the east side yard property line for the proposed dormer addition; and for 9 feet off the required 14feet to a distance of 5 feet at it closest point to the east side yard property line for the existing front deck. · The third requested variance is from Section 11.21, Subd. 12 (A) Accessory Buildings. City Code states that a garage shall be located at least 5 feet from a rear yard property line. The property owner is requesting a variance for the garage to exist at a distance of 4.8 feet from the rear yard property line rather than the required 5 feet. . . . According to the City's file on this property, building permits were granted in 1991 for the decks that are found on the front of the home. It is unclear why variances were not required for these decks. The City's file on this property does not contain the original building permit for the home, but Hennepin County's property record system states that the home was constructed in 1925. No other pertinent information was found in the file. . Subject Property: 1808 York Avenue North Ricardo and Daria Pardo, Applicants . --' s ~ o () o '" ~ '(ApprOk. 1:77h;;i,; C".Rd. M:>. b) =--- ----..a.--_____~_ . 4- ,. ~ S .~ Industrial . Other .. . . (Revised 1/99) Petition Number O}. , I (7 ~"5 Date Received ~ I, J / D1- Amount Received 5 {). dD ($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: /1308 YOIt'K' AI. #P~ Go/~ IA/~, HAl 5~'f2Z. 2. BZA Petition Date 3. Petitioner: fiJt/Al?DO. f- lJrilf fA. PAf(DO . Name/~e ;iRK AJI.;t/adH ~ID€N' ~-i/, ,tW $S'f!Z- Address . Gity/Sta~p ~4/.1.' 7~5 5z-?, 1q /5 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: AfA 5. Legal Description of property involved in this petition (found on survey): J.of 32- l1/0Ck 3 <<He, AlA1~ tI~^'()~ 1/ ~F.fIJJ ~~ UIAl~f)of;; 6. Type of property involved in this petition: Residential: L 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. 8. (Staff will complete this item) Waiver of Section Subd(s). Subd(s). Subd(s). Waiver of Section Waiver of Section 9. Please attach a brief statement of the reasons. necessity. or hardship which provide grounds for the granting of this waiver. Attach letter, photographs, or other evidence, if appropriate. 10. A current or usable survey of the property must be attached. Proposed surveys are not acceptable. The survey must be prepared by a regis- tered land surveyor licensed in the State of Minnesota. The survey must show all property lines. buildings. and streets. The distance from the house and all other buildings to the front and side property lines shall be shown. The rear distance of any buildings from the property line will be needed, if in question. Also. the survey should show an approximate location of any buildings on adjacent properties relative to the side(s) where the construction will take place. If the survey is larger than 11" x 17". the applicant will supply seven additional copies of the survey for use by the Board. 11. To the Applicant: To the best of my knowledge the statements found in this application are true and correct. Attached herewith is my check in the amount of $ tj 0 representing the Board of Zoning Appeals Application Fee. ~12~ 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 ADJACEt,lT PROPERTY OWNERS: This petition is application for waiver ,of Ordinance(s) of the City Zoning Code. Please be aware ofany;po~sible 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.) printNamet~is fJR-msTKcYJEt !~6 !k7)l,j/) / . Comment ;/'1 ,') // .' // " ." /./ / // J / ..;;'-" ~ Signatu~el/b/~'. t,,~/ '.,.' .. Print N~me S~~ } ~Nlr-:ac . I Address. /7 ;<S'Voq kc. 11 () I . , . . !KJq(2f}1 Comment S~nature ~:fDeu~ .. Address ... /J'/d PrintName K()~T A6/lf6.vL ~EA-TI-!It . I Comment I/tIli<. Ao~. JJ() . I /+() FFfY1AIV s~natu~~ Print Name rt1d,-p Jf(JE Comment Address I %M . t/d&<. , ~G ( h<f2. 41-J /1 A f;:)(< C Y...j ,.II". Signatur$~~J/~ ~ Address /7 ;;2!>- (62)165 ~7J { . Print Name . Comment ., 6~9206. 7J6LPali Signature ~/JJe:IAl~ Address I ~ /1 ~./w6Dz;- PrintNameJU~h\}~.,. .. Comment Signature ~ ~ Print Name G-c"'lfiJ'~t/l5 ~U/~tA.- Comment Signature . Print Name Comment . Signature Print Name Comment: Signature Print Name Comment Signature Address J ~DI '}6:tGS M6.~. ~ f1 IfdL Address I 71/ ~.. ~~ ~ ,'\, \ Address Address Address. lOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC. LAND SURVEYORS REGISTERED UNDER LAWS OF STATE OF MINNFoSOTA 7601. 73rd Avenue North 66'1-3093 INVOICE NO. 20116 F. B. NO. ~~R-11 SCALE I" "20' 0- DENOTES IRON tom. PAUL DEMING PROPOSED LOT DIVISIGI . MinneapoUa, Mlnneaota 65428 &urutynfll Q!:trliflraf, 0;1../1 --~b ?~9-- ,,-, '-T- I - l'?1.1S- U. SI-IEO . ~ _ co :: .~. ~ ~ ~..._.,- :35.& 101. ~ J In z , Q Q t'I Q) ~ - - <:::I::: ...... Q' " '. - - - , ,-, -:x: , -L L_ :..) 0 >- 33.+ 3.6 ,-- ~. . ~. . . Q Q on ,. ,,?;) . , --) , " , , , -/350- Parcel A: (lO'S12~. Ft.) , , . Parcel B: (9,880 Sq. Ft.) All of Lot 30 and that part of Lot 31 lying Northerly All of Lot 32 and that part of Lot 31 lying of the following scribed line and its Easterly and Southerly of the following described line Westerly extensions: Bagior,ing at a point on the East and its Easterly and Westerly extensions: line of said Lot 31 distant 20.00 feet Southerly along Beginning at a point on the East line of said Lot said East line from the Northeast corner ofcsaid Lot 31 distant 20.00 feet Southerly along said East 31; 'thence Southwesterly to 'apoint on the Westerly line from the Northeast corner of said Lot 31; line of said Lot 31 distant 25.00 feet Southeasterly thence SOlltlwesterly to a point on the Westerly along said~e, sterly line frOll..t.!je. NOrth, west corner of line of said Lot 31 distant 25.00 feet Southeast- said Lot 31 erly along said Westerly line from the Northwest ./di=4ft,..Bloc .3; '''McNair Maner, Hennepin County, : Minnesota" corner of sa;id Lot 31. .' ',:"," ,Co, ,. .' ."" .' "". '_ ;., All in Block 3, "McNair Manor, HelUlepin County, . ..aemenla ahown ere lrom plaia oll8Cold or Inlonnallon provided by extension. Minnes'ota" We hereby certify Ihallhla la alrue and correcl repreaenlallon 01 a aurvay 01 Ihe boundartea 0' Ihe above deacrlbed land and Ihe location 01 all bulldlnga and vis- Ible encroachmenle, II any. llOlJI or On Said land. SurveYed by UI 'hla--22nd..- day 01 ---MtIY 24.0 I-S-F""tne ,. ,() () ;0' G"r. . 0 J "l 24.0 '" 5./ ; '" ... ~ ..n I o \) 0 '" Q) i.8 I ---1 19 87 /: A Raymond A. P,.rch, Minn. Ifeg, N~, 8743 . . . . ~~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . www.d~Um-vlt~ Y 1 0-4-02 HEARING NOTICE Board of Zonina Appeals 1808 York Avenue North Ricardo and Daria Pardo. Applicants Ricardo and Daria Pardo, with property at 1808 York Avenue North, have petitioned the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals for variances from the Residential zoning district. The applicants are proposing to construct a second- story dormer window addition to the rear of the existing home. This addition requires a variance from building setback requirements. Also, during the construction planning process, a survey was submitted and it was discovered that the existing home, front decks and detached garage do not meet 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 requested variances are for 1.6 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 33.4 feet at its closest point to the front property line along York Avenue North for the existing home and for 10.2 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 24.8 feet at its closest point to the front property line along York Avenue North for the existing front deck. . Section 11.21, Subd. 7{C)(3) Side Yard Setbacks. City Code states that the distance between any part ofa dwelling or structure and the side lot lines shall be governed by the following requirements: In the case of lots having a width of 70 feet or less, the south side yard setback shall be 20% of the lot width. The requested variances are for 10.25 feet off the required 14 feet to a distance of 3.75 feet at it closest point to the east side yard property line for the existing home; for 8.25 feet off the required 14 feet to a distance of 5.75 feet at it closest point to the east side yard property line for the proposed dormer addition; and for 9 feet off the required 14 feet to a distance of 5 feet at it closest point to the east side yard property line for the existing front deck. . Section 11.21, Subd.12 (A) Accessory Buildings. City Code states that a garage shall be located at least 5 feet from a rear yard property line. The property owner is requesting a variance for the garage to exist at a distance of 4.8 feet from the rear yard property line rather than the required 5 feet. This petition will be heard at a regular meeting to be held Tuesday, October 22, 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. ~ -., , . 1810 Major Drive 02-10-66 . Celeste Shahidi . .. . . . Memorandum Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Dan Olson, City Planner Subject: 1810 Major Drive (02-10-66) Celeste Shahidi, Applicant Date: October 16, 2002 Celeste Shahidi, with property located at 1810 Major Drive, is requesting variances from both the Residential zoning code (Section 11.21) and the Shoreland Management Ordinance (Section 11.65). The applicant has approached the City to build a gazebo that is not completely behind the existing home. This gazebo also does not meet the building setback requirements from Sweeney Lake. Also, during the construction planning process, a survey was submitted for the property and it was discovered that the existing home and attached and detached decks do not meet building setback requirements for the Residential zoning code and for Sweeney Lake. Below 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 request for the existing home is for .5 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 34.5 feet at its closest point to the front property line along Major Drive. . The second requested variance is from Section 11.65, Subd. 5(A) Shoreland Regulation Standards. City Code states that the distance between any part of a dwelling or structure and the Ordinary High Water Mark for Sweeney Lake shall be governed by the following requirements: All structures shall be setback 75 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWL). The requested variances are for 60 feet off the required 75 feet to a distance of 15 feet from the existing attached deck at its closest point to the OHWL; for 70.5 feet off the required 75 feet to a distance of 4.5 feet from the existing freestanding deck at its closest point to the OHWL; for 54 feet off the required 75 feet to a distance of 21 feet from the existing home at its closest point to the OHWL; and for 70 feet off the required 75 feet to a distance of 5 feet from the proposed gazebo at its closest point to the OHWL. The third requested variance is from Section 11.21, Subd. 12 (A) Accessory Buildings. City Code states that a gazebo shall be located completely behind the home and shall be located at least 10 feet from the home. The applicant is requesting a variance for the gazebo to exist at a distance of 8 feet from the home rather than the required 10 feet and for the gazebo to be placed in such a way as to not be completely behind the home. . . . The City's file on this property reveals that a permit was pulled in January of 1973 for the construction of the home and attached deck. It is not clear when the detached deck on the property was built. Attached for your review are the comments of Mr. Tom Hovey of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and Mr. Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer, on this proposal. As can be seen from the survey, the proposed gazebo lies within the floodplain of Sweeney Lake. If the Board of Zoning Appeals approves this variance, staff suggests that the Board add the following condition of approval: 1. The applicant move the gazebo out of the floodplain. . Subject Property: 1810Major Drive Celeste Shahidi, A plicant .f uJ 6 2 2 0 0 I ~ 7 :c ... .... 3 l. ... 0 j .... It 0 " ..I ~ .... ::I .~ 0 :r I ~. I ~ I) ~ ~ .6 ~ . w ~ ,~ I 4141~45 GJt RD. .::i . ..: ~ ~.' ;t ~ ....... 9 IL 0 . .... 0: ~ t:l ~ . 1&3. , . . (Revised 1/99) Petition Number 0).. - 10 .- <"G, Date Received /0 j I / () '). ,.. ) Amount Received ,SV, l) /) ($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: /3'/0 ~OV D./'V~)fjorlh 2. Go lei OJ rJIl//1 BZA Petition Date e-e[ e.s/e Jt1.0 h /J h I ~( Name/o/~ YlIJlJjov Drf'i/~ AJd~ ~ddress '; -/1 7 /l1/AJ}) City/SlalelZi.e ..., f.t:;/:f1,)?o _-6 /0 . U({/,? _ 5gg-- ~~S ~ Business Phone I Home Phone 3. 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: 5. Legal Description of property involved in this petition (found on survey): 6 6. Type of property involved in this petition: Residential: 'i Single Family _ Double Dwelling _ Multiple Dwelling Industrial Commercial Institutional Bus. & Prof. Office . Other . . . 7. Detailed description of building (s), addition(s), and alteration(s) involved in this petition. The site plans and drawings submitted with this petition will be the basis of any variance that may be approved and cannot be changed before or after the building permit issued. PJ~tJ~ € 6~~ nf/ts c h-et{, a; cttMt~ IJ no{ 6 Me ~1;CIO~' ~ , I . , ... . ~v life f[CJfo:Hd.. j/J2ebo ;cnd_ llJ()ISUJf/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. rovide rounds fo the ra tin of his waiver. Attach letter, photographs, or other evidence, if appropriate. leAS-e ,5{-e. .4f/;tJch~c!. /.cifl,y. 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 houst 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 aRplicant will supply seve!) ~dditional copies of the survey for use by ,the Boar~. . 11. r 0 the Applicant: To the best of my knowledge the statements found in this apQlication are true and correct. Attached herewith is my check in the amount of $ 30. 0 c) representing the Board of Zoning Appeals Application Fee. .. .. UNLESS CONSTRUCTION OR THE ACTION APPLICABLE TO THIS WAIVER REQUEST, IF GRANTED, IS NOT TAKEN WITHIN ONE YEAR, THE WAIVER EXPIRES. . . . The applicant will need to obtain the signatures of all adjacent property owners. This. includes all properties abutting the applicant's property and directly across the street. If on a corner, this means across both streets. NOTE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: This petition is application for waiver of Ordinance(s) of the City Zoning Code. Please be aware of any possible effect the granting of this waiver could have on your property. All property owners adjacent to the subject property will receive a notice of the Board of 'Zoning Appeals hearing, at which they may present their views. Your signature is required only to verify that you have been told about the request and gives the adjacent property owner opportunity to comment. (Comments can contain language of agreeing with the project, objecting to the project or other statements regarding the project) Print Name :.;.:{ fi ~ -{.ff L<;' ~ rA Comment Jflit Signa~ L Print Name IJ1W rn Comme~ b Signature Address (f'os Print Name }3 Comment Signature Print Name -4.fOyff::JJ?. I ~EJ) T~F; b E ~(/( t;~ ~ 10. - 10 ~ Comment LVAlvT Ie::> .'Sl?r-=.ME. yJlA//l$ I?EFd,ebdk Signature Address / f/,).o .#1.4/ die DR~ ./ - . . . PETITION FOR ORDINANCE WAIVER CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Dated: September 3,2002 THE PETITIONER RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS A WAIVER FROM THE 75 FOOT SET BACK FROM THE SHORE OF SWEENEY LAKE TO PLACE A GAZEBO FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: · During the past year we have completed extensive remodeling of the house. · We are now poised to continue the upgrading of the property. The continued proposed upgrading includes a new driveway, new landscaping and a new gazebo on the south side at the rear of the house. The gazebo would be "dry laid" on a bed of gravel on the ground and surrounded by a design of boulders and plantings. Further, low voltage.lighting will be incorporated intothis landscape to serve as a security measure and for aesthetic purposes. · This house has the reputation as being the "best built" home on the lake. This is because the property had extensive major pilings installed before any construction began. · The house was built 23 feet from the shore. The original and still existing deck that is connected to the patio at the rear of the house was built 4 feet from the shore. · The requirement of 75 feet from the shore for the placement of the gazebo would put the gazebo in the front yard. .We want to make the gazebo a part of the landscaping and garden plan because we need a screened area to escape the mosquitoes and still enjoy our property. · The gazebo would be approximately 10 feet from the house, more than 5 feet from the property line set backs and 9 feet from the shore. · The property has a high hedge and shrubs and trees surrounding it. The gazebo is only 7 ~ feet high. The gazebo could only be seen from the lakeside. · When completed, this proposed project will enhance the subject property, will prevent any erosion, protect the environment and will also be very pleasing to view from the lake. 'fRE~SP. CTFULLY SUBMITTED, " .....~~"- Ce este M. Shahidi r '-n"l.In"c.~~c. rOA . ~J~-~4!-JVJV V~~ VI V~ !V.4Q rv~ FRANK R. CARDARELLE Land Surveyor, Inc. (612) 941-3031 6440 Flying Cloud Drive . Land Surveyor Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Qttfttftt8tt QDt ~UtU~l! Survey For Ahhi~ Shahidi 1810 Major Drive Golden Valley, MN- Book . Page File ~ ~ {j' ~ "r.r ~ .'A \ .~~!' : .~ . 15'1 ~ cf! rt" "'~..y ~fb _ ' 7~o/'i.J>" "*' ~ r..... .. IIe..~". _ty',i.JJI.1/_...,J v...'V 0 . ,. ""or 3) " Clj S1. ~t 7-~' \.4' g . , I I , , I , ,. f j & ~ , 0.. ~ i, I I I / "i-tu ". ~ I JY~ fC~ \) -.J I .~ .l, ~ .:O~ 'l-1lJ ~ I"".f\[ J ~ I..'~'~~ V) "" :::: / Scale: 1"=30' . . Denotes Iron Mon.Found . 111"" -1If1 11_ 0"- .. . _ INS _ ..,..___ of . o..-..y ., lrIo ~o .. Lot 11 ~~. MWw....INSI\._of onla. " W'1 0<1 N/d ...... Ourv.ylld Ily m. Oft IhIo 30 t h d-tfll Spptemb~r ' ..lQQ..2.... Re y. 10-7- 6;1, Frank R. Cardarelle State Reg. No. 6508 ~u~ ~~~,vu, ~~.~v V..,I.&. t t4t oJt t '-'~I'" I "HI- f\.~\;I.L'-'I'" 1J1"'~ rl-\\;ICo t.lJ.1 t.lJ. . MiImesota Department. of Natural Resources DNR Waters, 1200 Warner Road) St. Paul,:MN 55106-6793 Telephone: (651) 772-7910 Fax: (651) 772-7977 October 14, 2002 Dan Olson. Planner City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427-4588 RE: Celeste Shahidi Structure Setback Variance, Sweeney Lake, City of Golden Valley, Hennepin County Dear Mr. Olson: I have reviewed the information you sent relative to the structure setback variance request at 1810 MajorDrive and have the following comments: I am opposed to the variances in question because by allowing the structures to exist this close to the lake several values associated with the lake are compromised, including degraded views and reduced water quality. The economic and natural environmental values of the shoreland are not being preserved by allowing the variances. . Additionally, by allowing these variances, little consideration is given to the neighbors, present and future, whose views would be further blocked. I have not been on the site, but from viewing an aerial photo of the neighborhood, it appears that the existing house already encroaches significantly closer to the lake than any other. The existing building pattern for the neighborhood is farther from the lake. I also object based on the amount of energy the citizens and City spent ensuring the "enviromnental friendliness" of the Hidden Lakes PUD. To allow these variances would be inconsistent 'Nith decisions made regarding the Hidden Lakes houses) just 1000 feet away. The percentage of impervious surface and the lack of a buffer of any kind arc other factors that concern me and are inconsistent with state shoreland development guidelines. To c.onc1ude, we are opposed to the granting of these variances due to the severity of the encroachment into the required setback, the inconsistency with existing development patterns,the inconsistency with requirements for new development on the Lake, and the environmental degradation that will result from umestricted development of the shoreline. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please feel free to call if you have questions. Sincerely, ~ . c: Celeste Shahidi, 1810 Major Drive, Golden Valley, MN 55422 DNR Infonnation: 651-296-6157 .. 1-888-646-6367 .. TrY: 651-296-5484 .. 1-800-657-3929 An Equal Opportlll1ity Employer Who Values Diversity ^ Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a ,.., Minimum of 20".4 POSl-Consumer Waste . . . Memorandum Public Works 763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax) Date: October 16, 2002 To: Dan Olson, City Planner Jeff Oliver, PE. City Engineer tff!. Public Works Review of Variance Request at 1810 Major Drive From: Subject: Public Works staff has reviewed the variance request at 1810 Major Drive. It is our understanding that the homeowner is requesting variances from the shoreland setback, as well as other variances. As part of our review, staff reviewed the letter from DNR Hydrologist Tom Hovey. We concur with the conclusions stated by Mr. Hovey. In addition, the site plan submitted by the applicant indicates that a portion of the gazebo would be located within the floodplain of Sweeney Lake. The applicant indicated that the gazebo would be "dry laid" on top of a bed of gravel. Based upon the topography of the site, and illustrated by the photographs included in the submittal package, retaining walls would be required in order to provide a level surface to construct the gazebo on. Therefore, the construction of the retaining wall would result in a filling of the floodplain. Section 11.60. Floodplain Management, of City Code outlines conditions for development within the floodplain. If a variance for the shoreland setback were granted, the applicant would need to either apply for a variance from the floodplain ordinance, or provide floodplain mitigation. Floodplain mitigation would include excavation below the flood elevation of a volume equal to the volume of fill placed. Work within the floodplain would also require review by the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission. Based upon the implications of the variances from the shoreland and floodplain ordinances, Public Works staff recommends that both variances be denied. c: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections Gary Johnson, Building Official G:\Jeff\Misc Memos\1810 Major Dr Var.doc Welcome to NorFab Building Components . . . Page 1 of2 Natural Series FEATURES: · Available in 10' 12' 14' & 18' · Pre-fabricated green treated 2 x 4 floor framing · Pre-cut 5/8" green treated plywood sheeting · Pre-fabricated 2 x 4 framed walls 52"w x 87"h with 1 x 6 tongue & groove cedar exterior · Pre-cut rafters & roof sheeting · Pre-hung door unit with cedar door & opening of 35"w x 75"h · Pre-fabricated cedar window lattice panels 49"w x 46"h · Pre-cut cedar exterior trim · Black fiberglass screen supplied with moldings OPTIONS · 2-tier roof · Cupola · Interior wall kit of 1 x 6 tongue and grove cedar · Interior roof kit of 1 x 6 tongue and grove cedar · Vinyl roll up windows · Cedar Door Lattice panel · Planter Box Comes with easy to follow instructions, video, &. all http://www.nor-fab.com/gazebos/natural.html 9/3/02 'r..\ 4p -:- ~ . . ~ o C~oOO~ & J 't () ~ ~ '0 o ~') e o ~ ~ CO o --:L~ C(D O ~ r~ o I <.!J "" ~ . ~ I () ~c&o 8(d 1~ e ~ e ~ ~ e H }. ~ tf\ ~ 1:\ ~.- -l - \ ''J,.~ t81! L _ '.~\)l~ ~ _~_ :.- i 18 t li ~~ ~ . ... M ~ ~ t .~ U) ~~ (1 ~bO ~ a ~aa_~ o ~\ ..~~ (\ ~ t , v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -\-~ .~ - Q..... ~ ~ Q -- ~ .,. ~ ~ ~p ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ to a.. ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . wwmci.gOMm_vlt~ Y 10-8-02 HEARING NOTICE Board of Zonina Appeals 1810 Major Drive Celeste Shahidi. Applicant Celeste Shahidi, with property at 1810 Major Drive, has petitioned the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals for variances from the Residential zoning district. The applicant is proposing to construct a gazebo to the south of the existing home. This gazebo requires variances from building and shoreland setback requirements. Also, during the construction planning process, a survey was submitted and it was discovered that the existing home and rear yard decks do not meet building setback requirements and setbacks from Sweeney lake. 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 request for the existing home is for .5 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 34.5 feet at its closest point to the front property line along Major Drive. . Section 11.65, Subd. 5(A) Standards. City Code states that the distance between any part of a dwelling or structure and the Ordinary High Water Mark (top of lake bank) for Sweeney lake shall be governed by the following requirements: All structures shall be setback 75 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark. The requested variances are for 60 feet off the required 75 feet to a distance of 15 feet from the existing attached deck at its closest point to the top of the lake bank; for 70.5 feet off the required 75 feet to a distance of 4.5 feet from the existing freestanding deck at its closest point to the top of the lake bank; for 54 feet off the required 75 feet to a distance of 21 feet from the existing home at its closest point to the top of the lake bank; and for 70 feet off the required 75 feet to a distance of 5 feet from the proposed gazebo at its closest point to the top of the lake bank. . Section 11.21, Subd. 12 (A) Accessory Buildings. City Code states that a gazebo shall be located completely behind the home and shall be located .at least 10 feet from the home. The applicant is requesting a variance for the gazebo to exist at a distance of 8 feet from the home rather than the required 10 feet and to be placed to the south of the home. This petition will be heard at a regular meeting to be held Tuesday, October 22, 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.