Loading...
04-24-01 BZA Agenda . Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, April 24, 2001 7pm 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Conference Room I. Approval of Minutes - February 27,2001 II. The Petitions are: 4505 Heathbrooke Circle (Map 5) (01-4-5) Ivan and Karen Brodsky, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7 (C) (1) Side Yard Setbacks . .33 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 14.67 feet for the existing home at its closest point to the west side yard property lines Purpose: To allow for the construction of an addition to the west side of the existing home. 6731 Golden Valley Road (Map 16) (01-4-6) . Qwest Wireless, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.46, Subd. 8 Yard Requirements . 14 feet off the required 50 feet to a distance of 36 feet for the proposed monopole at its closest point to the rear yard property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a cellular phone monopole behind the existing Historical Society building. III. Other Business A. Election of Officers IV. Adjournment . <' Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals February 27, 2001 · A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, February 27,2001, in the Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Acting Chair Sell called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Those present were: Members Sell, Hughes, and Planning Commission Representative Shaffer. Also present were Staff Liaison Mark Grimes and Recording Secretary Lisa Wittman. Absent were members Swedberg, McCracken-Hunt, and Chair Lang. I. Approval of Minutes - January 23, 2001 Purpose: Waiver from Section . (A) (1) Front Yard Setback MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Hughes and motion carried 23,2001 minutes as submitted. II. The Petitions are: 1120 Wills Place (Map 7) (01-2-3) Carol and Mark Weitz A licants Request: e . .5 feet off the r home at its c et to a distance of 34.5 feet for the existing the front yard property line .21, Subd. 7 (C) (1) Side Yard Setbacks quired 15 feet to a distance of 14.5 feet for the existing est point to the side yard property lines existing home into conformance with current Golden Valley ,uirements. Grimes explain a hold harmless a existing set sit For some reas error. didn't have much to add to this variance request. The applicant did sign t so they could go ahead and start with the work, because these are ns and they are only .5 feet off on both the side and the front setbacks. the home was built it was off by .5 feet, which was probably a surveying Mark Weitz, applicant, stated that the house was built in 1965. He referred to a copy of the 1965 survey, which showed the house had the proper setbacks at 35 feet and 15 feet so they never realized anything was wrong. He stated that when they decided to build an addition on the back of their home, and the builder came to get a permit, he was told he would need to get a survey and that's when they discovered for the first time that they were .5 feet off the setbacks. He stated that the addition is totally within code. They are just asking for a waiver for what's been the case since 1965. e MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Hughes, and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request as stated above. Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals February 27, 2001 Page 2 2155 Kelly Drive (Map 14) (01-2-4) George Abide, Applicant e Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7 (A) (1) Front Yard Setback The second variance is a little building along the side of their home. The code requires feet from the main stru ure requesting that the ac structure, but it w . 1.4 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 33.6 feet for the existing home at its closest point to the front yard prope e. Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 12 (A) Ac e . .11 foot off the required 10 feet to a. di accessory building at its closest poin accessory building to be constructed i et for a proposed g home; allow the he existing home. Purpose: To bring the existing home into setback requirements and to a building in front of the existin n ith current Golden Valley construction of an accessory Grimes stated that the applicant is requesti surveying error the building was built 1.4 1967. The variance is necessary in 0 placing on the rear of the home. riance, probably because of a slight r to the property line than the code required in or the conforming deck they are going to be e o issue. They are looking at building an accessory , basically in the front yard, less than 10 feet from their sory buildings be built totally in the rear yard, at least 10 st 5 feet from the property line. In this case, they are ilding be built in the front yard and less than 10 from the main feet setback requirement from the side property line. a sanitary sewer easement that exists along the side property line that out of. Grimes stated he is familiar with this property because he dealt regarding some landscaping and some screening from the industrial property that is a ss the railroad tracks. Our code has a requirement that there should be screening of industrial areas. Grimes stated the Abides would like some more storage space, and in addition to using this accessory building for storage, they're looking at also providing some screening from the industrial area across the railroad tracks and that is one of the reasons for placing it in that location. Sell stated it would fit in nicely here, but if this were on a standard street and there were an accessory building in the front it would be really noticeable. But in this case, it does provide some additional screening and it's along the railroad tracks. e Grimes stated this is a unique cul-de-sac situation and there aren't homes all around it. But it doesn't actually meet the requirements of the code. ... Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals February 27,2001 Page 3 e Shaffer stated there are a few different things in the code that it doesn't meet. It doesn't meet the front yard setback, it's not to the rear of the house and it's too close to the house, so it's actually three variances. Grimes stated that it wouldn't work to move the accessory building to the property drops off. tated earlier. The to the house. So this ting in their home and rty value and the in a unique setting so that it ding away from the driveway, be narrow and long. As you move tically and it wouldn't be able to George Abide, applicant, stated that there was one correction to addition they are adding to the back of the house isn't a deck, . accessory building is part of a larger remodeling project that their neighborhood. He stated he has intentions of enhancin neighborhood value in mind by doing this. This building would provide that screening. He stated that as you you run into the sewer easement so that's what dic toward the rear of the house it does slope down pr provide any screening. Hughes asked the applicant to explain th e meets all of the setback requirements Hughes asked about the fence t the home they contacted the C. be willing to sign a document t stated they were surprise they had been led to believ ide stated it's in the rear of the building and y property. Abide stated that when they purchased gr where the fence would be. He also stated he would (j he would be willing to move it if the City required. He ad the survey done that the property line was not where Hughes asked if t were not. They the fence down, g the applicant to remove the fence now. Grimes stated no they them to sign an agreement saying that if the City ever has to take tliable to put it back up. Shaffer state oncerns about the visual hardship because that's somewhat already been addressed. He d he has a hard time going for the hardship issue, because it requires 3 variances for a shed. The City typically would never grant that. He stated the Board has to define exactly what the hardships are, otherwise we're setting a bizarre precedent for the rest of the city. He stated he can certainly see why they applicant would want to screen the industrial area, but whether an accessory building is going to accomplish that or not, is another issue. The front yard setback is an administrative matter, and can be taken care of very easily, but the shed is a difficult one. We've had people tear down sheds because they are not to the rear of the house. MOVED by Hughes, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to approve the front e yard setback. Shaffer stated he wanted to make sure that it's clear what we're doing and why we're doing it. He stated the Board has never dealt with the hardship of a view before. .. ~ Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals February 27, 2001 Page 4 e Sell stated that were this on a standard rectangular street, he would say no absolutely. In this case it is legally in the front yard, but it's next to the railroad right-of-way, they've got a utility easement along the edge that they're trying to stay away from, the land drops 'off in the back, there is no neighbor to the east and wouldn't affect the neighbor around the corner, because the positioning of his house is totally different. Sell stated that the purpose of a utilit really need it to be where you ca ships for the three up a 6-foot fence Grimes stated that it is a unique situation, but we do need to come ug variances he is requesting. Grimes stated that as an alternative, t along the property lines. Abide stated that if they did move the shed to the back, then blowers would be hard to access. As far as a utilization hard paved along the side of the house. nmowers and snow s drop off and it's not Shaffer stated that in order to approve things we h Board tries to grant variances to meet requirement neighborhood. He stated somehow we have front yard, they could sue the City. If the B on what the hardships are. to s w there's an actual hardship. The d ne s and also to maintain the If a neighbor wants a shed in their is to grant this, then it better be very clear s for storage of lawn mowers and snow blowers you e d no one else in that cul-de-sac is abutting a railroad. ote against this, on the grounds that there isn't a hardship. Hughes stated there isn't positive than a negativ a hardship but visually, to close off the view is more ()f a MOVED by Hu feet off the requir allow the a sso the location 0 visual hardship. by Sell, opposed by Shaffer to construct an accessory building .11 t to a distance of 9.1 feet at its closest point to the existing home and to I 109 to be constructed in front of the existing home. Based on the fact of tary sewer, the topography, the abutting of the railroad right-of-way and the III. Other Business There was no other business discussed. IV. Adjournment Acting Chair Sell adjourned the meeting at 7:40 PM. e e 4505 Heathbrooke Circle 01-4-5 e Ivan & Karen Brodsky e e e e m Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Dan Olson, City Planner Subject: 4505 Heathbrooke Circle (Map 5) (01-4-5) Ivan and Karen Brodsky, Applicants Date: April 18, 2001 Ivan and Karen Brodsky, with property located at 4505 Heathbrooke Circle, are requesting a variance from the Residential zoning code (Section 11.21). The applicants have approached the City to build a room addition onto the west side of the existing home. The building of this addition requires a variance from the side yard setback requirements of the Zoning Code. Previously, this property received two variances: · In August of 1986, a variance was approved for this property to construct a room addition to the east side of the existing home. The minutes from that meeting are attached for your review. At that time, the applicant received a variance to build the room addition up to 26.4 feet to the east side property line along Major Drive. Since the property is a comer lot, the requirement is for the building to be setback 35 feet from the property line. · In August of 1987, a variance was approved for this property to construct a mansard roof addition to the north side of the existing home. The minutes from that meeting are attached for your review. At that time, the applicant received a variance to build the roof addition up to 31.1 feet to the north side property line along Heathbrooke Circle. Since the property is a comer lot, the requirement is for the building to be setback 35 feet from the property line. The current requested variance is from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C) (1) Side Yard Setbacks. City Code states that the distance between any part of a dwelling or structure and the side lot lines shall be governed by the following requirements: in the case of lots having a width of 100 feet or greater, the side setback shall be 15 feet. The requested variance is for .33 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 14.67 feet on the west side ofthe home. The City's file on this property reveals that a permit was pulled in September of 1967 for the construction of the house. No other pertinent information was found in the file. e e e ,sj ,~ 13. I. ~ '~ 12. L 'j' ,. ~ Subject Property: 4505 Heathbrooke Cir Ivan & Karen Brodsky, Applicants 5 "?" -6 ~~ . ::c: ...., ...., a:: ~ ., . ~ , , /',' 42,3$.25 ," . 5N 6 DETAIL OF TRACTS"E"i\.ND"F" R.L.s.NO.427 SCALE" =100' ------ - ., lIFATHBROOKE '" Ll.:og" 47'23" R=Q25.54 l ==38. 54 SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. 5300 S. Hwy. No. 101 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Phone (612) 474 7964 Fax (612) 474 8267 SURVEY FOR: KAREN BRODSKY SURVEYED: March, 2001 DRAFTED: March 30, 2001 REVISED: April 3, 2001 to change proposed addition dimensions per client. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 19, Block 2, HEATHBROOKE, Hennepin County, Minnesota. - SCOPE OF WORK: 1. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the above legal description. The scope of our services does not include determining what you own, which is a legal matter. Please check the legal description with your records or consult with competent legal counsel, if necessary, to make sure that it is correct, and that any matters of record, such as easements, that you wish shown on the survey, have been shown. 2. Showing the location of existing improvements we deemed important. 3. Setting new monuments or verifYing old monuments to mark the comers of the property. 4. While we show proposed improvements to your property, we are not as familiar with your plans as you are nor are we as familiar with the requirements of governmental agencies as their employees are. We suggest that you review the survey to confirm that the proposals are what you intend and submit the survey to such governmental agencies as may have jurisdiction over your project to gain their approvals if you can. STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS: "e" Denotes 1/2" ill pipe with plastic plug bearing State License Number 9235, set, unless otherwise noted. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certifY that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a Professional Engineer and a Professional Surveyor under the Laws of the State of Minnesota. ~\J2 ~. ~ ~Ol GRAPHIC SCALE 20 0 10 20 40 ~__~ I ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 20 ft. CIRCLE ",-- S 89.54'31" E 47.00 , , , I , , I , 0.1 ~, , , I I , I , , , FOUND IRON fOUND IRON , I I I , , , ~I_- .~: , , , , , , ElCJS11NG DECK I I ""' ::I, I I I I I I ", .;' N, , , , , --125.00-- S 89054'31" E on N --, 19 , , FOUND IRON II --' l 25 lLJ I . 10, ON O. .Il) 00 'f8 Iz ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 25 PffC. NOo 0.fO.f4?A dr1 e e e We are submitting this application to request a 3 foot set back variance on the west side of our property. The purpose of this request is to allow for the construction of an expanded dining room. We would also add a closet area at the same time, but that would fall within the set back requirement. The enlarged length of the dining room would allow for a longer dining room table, which would then be able to accommodate our growing extended family for holiday meals and celebrations. Currently we are unable to do this in our small dining room. The neighbor's house, which is adjacent, has a living room on that side with a window that is always covered by drapes. When the addition is completed there will be appropriate landscaping as there is currently. We have lived at this location since 1973 and have twice remodeled and upgraded our property. We would like to have the ability to further remode~ so our home would fully accommodate our family holiday meals and celebrations, which are very important to us. /---------..;.~ . -1 ~ r- f)! ~~ '" :I: >.) 51 ~fl \.)-;- illlJ) .,,,j .." IU;:.' 1.~ ::( IX j:."ll lj) Q' XI) lllt-- / ". [IL' 'b'~' "., ""'"'" '- i ~'-' ,''. j ~~ ~,..- ~\ I~ jU C) i "I ! (t, JOB NAME: IVAN AND KAREN BRODSKY ADDRESS: 4505 HEATHBROOKE CR. DATE: 4 - 2 - 2001 REVISIONS: ;z\f) _lfl << .....-1 Ill\!) O!D rill C)?f D~ ;z .- -lfl rO! >-C) 11. -. 50! ()~ l:?f -.:i. - ..... - () ~..... 0!1fi lil::!: 11. IS) fl.. :.'.)-; DD z< <-.0 au n.: \f)1ll <<(Ill mD \ ,~/", ./7./, I.!) Z-I -......I ~~ IU O! 1llC) ~fi l:1ll Ill~ !:till I , , 1 J !t \!l ~~~ G i.:J.... ~~~ Bli!~ lU 2 r:: i)~!!! x tic. iti "2'.0, .'.'..'.1.. " /j I i -~ -"--'~-, -........ I ! '~ )>.. - - - - - - - - ~--+ ~._~ = - - - 1,,t, _',.,. \ - ~,-_._-- -,..,,_.,-~. .- \ ',. ~ \ I / -Q- \ I , , 1/1''-, I = '.0 , i'-t I~>"/~ 77,., " /1), .,' /.....,.. H I / _.,,- ./, / / / ,/ / / / / / " / ~', -' /- /' . , /,- , /" / ~ l- ' , ,," '" _f , " , " / fROf05~~~~DITiON '_;~" ......_._ .... fR<J~~;'~~5;i-D~T10N. ... ....... .....~. / These are preliminary drawings, not Intended for construction purposes. ~~"" 4 0 1 East 78th Street Bloomington. MN 55420 612-888-2225 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0 ;z a i= is D <<( = n 9 UJ - If) ~C) 11. ~ Ii.. ! I .J PAGE# OF 1 1 MN Lio.#1797 / e e e \ ~ ~ f'ROfOSED ADDITION Joe NAME: IVAN AND KAREN J3RODSKY ADDRESS: 4505 HEATHJ3ROOKE CR. These are preliminary drawings, not Intended for construction purposes. ~,../ ........ . ........-: . - . -- ...- PIekkenP91 B U I L 0 E R S. 'N r. 4 0 1 East 78th Street Bloomington, MN 55420 612-888-2225 P AGE# 2 4 DATE: 4- . 2 . 2001 REVISIONS: SCALE: OF MN L1o.#1797 ~~ -------- ------------ ~ ~ ~ ------------ ~ ~------------ -------- ~ ------- ------- -------------------- -------- ------- ~ ~ -------- ------ ----- -------- ------- ~ ~ ------- ------- -------- -------- ------- ------ ~ ------------ -;; ~ -------- ---- ~ ~ ~ .~ ------- ~ -------- ----- -==--- ~ ------------ ~ 1------ ./ ~ __r ~ 1..------- . JO& NAME: IVAN AND KAREN &RODSKY ADDRESS: 4505 HEATH&ROOKE CR. These are preliminary drawings, not Intended for construction purposes. DATE: 4.2.2001 REVISIONS: SCALE: PROPOSED ADDITION ~"""P9I B U I L D E R S. I N r. 401 East 78th Street Bloomington, MN 55420 612-888-2225 P AGE# 9 4 OF MN Lic.#1797 . e e \ ~) PROPOSED ,ADDITION JOB NAME: IVAN AND KAREN BRODSKY ADDRESS: 4505 HEATHBROOKE CR. These are preliminary drawings, not Intended for construction purposes. ~~"' 4 0 1 East 78th Street Bloomington. MN 55420 612-888-2225 PAGE# OF 4 4 DATE: 4 - 2 - 2001 REVISIONS: SCALE: MN Lio.#1797 e JOB NAME: IVAN AND KAREN BRODSKY ADDRESS: 4505 HEATHBROOKE CR. DATE: 4 - 2 - 2001 REVISIONS: e e ~ 1/2" O)l:SOARD ROOF SHEATHING $0# ROO"IN<> PAfER ICE' AND KATr::R SHlt:i..P 9tARTER (,E:j),A..R SHAKE- 5HIN6LE5 TO HATCH EXISTIN<> "' VENT C,HUT;:.!;@f;:ACH JOIST 5/6" !iR'-(V{J...!...i_ CLG. DOUSL.!" 7'.X b" TOf fl"'T~ 51a"Y~Ai.LSTl)[)S 1b"o.C. 5 il2" Vi./.>.,LL IN5lhATrON "'>11:1 q V}..PCiR BARRIE:R~S:';,AJ... ,AT F'i.COR. 112" VRYY>J,~!,.,i... 5lJ...L SfAL;;:R, TAP:; Ai' !NT'E:RfOR THERMAX ;;)(" BOTTOM fLAT:' fJ14" T & G PL.'tV'iCOD Fi.OOR,fNG 2" X 5" RIM JO/S,.. 5E,AL AT SILL FLATt: AND F~OOR 5HEAn"HN6 ~ITH POLYURETHATE JOINT eE'ALANT 1" ICO "OA;>;D R=B PACIA TO. MATC,H EXI$TIN4> HAT'.H EXISTIM<> b" LAf eIDIN4> TO. MATC-H EXI"TIN<> 2X& TRE'APED fLA TE l"<ITH .t>.NCOR:: POL is ~.., ........ . . /. - ~ ~ PWdmnP91 a U I L 0 E R S. I N ~ 4 0 1 East 78th Street Bloomington, MN 55420 612-888-2225 "'Hi.. fiRE R~T"RVAi'lT POLY AT 6R"DE.5EALATl^IALL / $"(.Ei-OTEX, FIRe RATED, fOIL F,A.GEP INWLATlo.N SHE'ATi-lIN6 FNoOM FCCTINd> TO TOF OF BLOCK These are preliminary drawings, not Intended for construction purposes. SCALE: 8" CONCRETE SLeCK 10"X;l0" CONC8ETE fOOTING< P AGE# 5 OF 5 MN Lic.#1797 e e . e Page 2 August 12, 1986 . - Mah on Swedberg expressed his concern for the proposed 24 foot width and the serVl e door in front. Mahlon suggested reducing the width to 21 or 22 fe , noting his would reduce the side setback variance. During further disc sion, it becam apparent that the existing side entry to the house and the s ps would still be quired in the garage to maintain entry into the house. T service door would ovide access to that entry without raising the entire arage door each time. hlon Swedberg said this information changes his pr ous concerns to the 24 foot idth as the steps protruding in the garage area educe useable width for vehic s to 21 feet in the interior. Noting the above an the large setback from Orkla Drive a the house now exists and also the removal f the existing garage structure w ch is now non- conforming, Mahlon Swe erg moved to approve the waiv as requested. Second by Herb Polachek and up vote carried. 3A.06(3) b 86-8-21 (Map 8) Resident 427 North Westwood Drive Michal & Micha Garber The Petition is for waiver The petition was in order an consent obtain d from all adjacent properties. Mr. Garber explained his p posed addition. e The present home is 10 ted approximately 43 feet back from Westwood Drive. The present side setb ck from the northwest lot li is 11.72 feet. This setback was provide for by waiver when the housewa built in 1958. The existing house is ot exactly parallel to this lotli and the proposed addi- tion extending e house forward brings the closest cor er of the addition 6 inches into t previously approved setback. Mr. Garber xplained the interior remodeling t at would be done. There is also a small addi ion to the rear corner of e existing home and that meets all setbacks. nagan said this really is a minor extension to a previo s waiver other areas comply. Flannagan noted the angle of the si lot line and placement of the existing home to that line which is a minor e ension and ed to approve the waiver as requested. Second by Herb Polchek an upon vote carried. -22 (Map 5) Residential Heathbrooke Circle L. Brodsky The Petition is for waiver of Section 3A.06(1) front setback for 8.5 feet off the required 35 feet from Major Drive to a distance of 26.4 feet to the proposed addition from Maj or Dri ve. Major Drive. e e e e Board of Zoning Appeals Page 3 August 12, 1986 The petition was in order. Dr. Brodsky was present and submitted an additional signature of consent from an adjacent neighbor who had been on vacation. Dr. Brodsky described in detail his proposed addition of 10 feet toward Major Drive and an addition to the rear of his home that fully conforms. This is a corner lot that requires a 35 foot setback on two sides. The other homes adja~ cent face Major Drive. This home faces Heathbroo~Circle and the garage side where the addition is proposed faces Major Drive. Dr. Brodsky said there is a drainage way along the south side of his property that must be maintained because in rain conditions the water from adjacent properties above drains down to Major Drive. Mahlon Swedberg said he was bothered by the waiver requested because this area and home appear fairly new and evidently were built to conform to the Zoning Code requirements very familiar to what now exist. Approval of this waiver could establish a precedent for others in the area. Dr. Brodsky responded the area and his home are approximately 20 years old and while the codes are simi~ lar, he described aQain conditions he feels are unique to his orooerty, the corner setback requirements, drainaQe, and also the alianment of the houses to the south varies with the street. The proposed addition does not appear to him to have a siqnificant impact. The adjacent neiahbor to the south who it appears may be most affected. approves of this oroposal rather than building to the rear which would impact them substantially. The Board continued a lenQthY review and possible alternatives. The architec- tural considerations and interior uses were also reviewed. Dr. Brodskv noted his desire to remain in this area and he would not propose anything that would detract from the appearance of the neighborhood nor the ooeness of the neiQhbor~ hood. Acting Chairman Larry Smith closed the discussion and called for the Question on the proposed waiver. Art Flannagan moved to approve the waiver as reauested. notina th~ reauirement for two 35 foot setbacks on this corner lot. the drainage to the south which must be maintained and the lack of any other reasonable alternatives because of the conditions noted. Second by Herb Polachek and upon vote 3 ayes for approval and one nay (Swedberg). Motion for approval carried. There being no further business to come before the Board. it was upon motion. second, and vote to adjourn at 9:00 P.M. Larry Smlth. Chalrman Pro lem Llovd G. Becker. Secretarv . e e Board of Zoning Appeals Page 2 August 11, 1987 discussed in detail the location of the proposed ar e extreme topograp ear of the lot. T consensus that the topography severly limited 1 structure wholly to the rear of the house and Art moved to approve the wa1 ested which include 1ng side setback of the house. Second by Larry Smith an carried. 87-8-28 (Map 5) Residential 4505 Heathbrooke Circle Dr. Ivan L. & Karen Brodsky The Petition is for waiver of Section 3A.08 to allow the proposed mansurd eaves to over- hang beyond 30 inches to a distance of 31.1 feet from the north lot line. The Petition was in order and consent obtained from all adjacent properties. Dr. and Mrs. Brodsky were present. No others were in attendance. Secretary, Lloyd Becker, reviewed for the Board the previous waiver granted last August for a room addition. Plans were submitted this July and a permit ~ed for construction before the one year requirement on the previous waiver had expired. The permit was issued subject to the architect making changes which would eliminate or by design make a front mansurd roof that faces Heathbrooke Circle conform to the 35 foot setback. Dr. Brodsky and the archi- tect felt this design was necessary to meet the existing roof line and esthetics of the house and they elected to file for this waiver. Mrs. Brodsky described in detail the appearance of the mansurd. Lloyd Becker explained the zoning code provides for a 30 inch overhang, however, the mansurd is 48 inches and supported by several posts. Mike Sell noted this is a ~orner lot and the side along Heathbrooke Circle the lot is angled and widens the setback as it goes westerly and if the mansurd had been in that direction it appears no waiver would be needed. Mahlon Swedberg noted the advantage of esthetically matching the neighborhood and the intrusion of the posts into the setback was minimal. Art Flannagan said it was practical to provide for the mansurd and posts. Mike Sell moved to approve the waiver as requested noting this is a corner lot with two 35 foot setbacks required, the placement of the existing house on the lot and the lot line as it is angled along Heathbrooke and the waiver is required only along the closest point. Second by Kevin McAleese and upon vote carried. Mike Sell noted the two remaining items on the agenda and suggested to the chair the agenda be reversed to provide more time to address the 1314 Orkla item without undue delay to the petition at 6463 Westchester Circle. The Board concured and Mike Sell moved to revise the agenda and provide for 6453 Westchester Circle to be heard next, second by Art Flannagan and upon vote carried. e e e (Revised 1/99) Petition Number {)I- If - 5" Date Received +/3101 Amount Received -If So. 0 {) ($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: i.505 HE fJTH6RQOk E C(I<C~E' 2. BZA Petition Date 3. Petitioner: :::Z"U /J N )L K 11 If E;J 13 K 0 b S f!- f. Name . ' lfs'o5 H F 111f18/loof-E C/ f!- C. J..,F Address City/State/Zip '163'" J~ l? ~Cf9i/3 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): I-- /')'j J 0/ !l L- ["9 C if 'fl.- -, )-} e 7} r He? /! crt) ~E J .. F N8;1/Nr:: fJ I~/ C rJ ~':It/Tt } JI/Ii/4/1; 6. Type of property involved in this petition: Residential: V Single Family _ Double Dwelling _ Multiple Dwelling Industrial Commerciar Institutional Bus. & Prof. Office Other e e 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 apprbved 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 $ SO 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.) e Print Name "Iv\ d I t h D., Ge id {f2; 1\ Comment' tf~ /~ I-Iea'ff:, hrQO A,€. e, Ie-Ie _ a~. Jc~ aa M~-rve~~~~c- ~~.tnriZ(. Signature a~t6ld:/- /3. ~~ Address 45/6" 1k~,~i2. r!L.4eLe ,J (/ Print Name Veh() r a 1( L I 1\ I (f- Comment '-/5~ tleaM/;r(J(l~~, t!-/~ Signature j)~ ci(. #.j Address Print Name '~':\\\\\... \. E ,\~\ \'-\-.~'R. . \ cqltl \ ,'1 55'1dd- Comment Signature ~~~ <'~ , \"-4\},~~h \ J Address ~51b \-\scoJJ"QGCQC~ tvL \:;>\)\".1" N ~ S 1{. :t a. Print Name Comment a , L.~ i, -r A G~. S L C C' ~j (IJ G;:::~~O g ::ressb'V \5~ ~L Signature e J j {-'(' Ii e DeveJ/~ e Comment Print Name tJ I,.~ ~ I / ~A .A-J /. . I Signature Print Name Comment Signature -, / j . /' ,.,-J: L~ p "~-kJ---- /<}/6 -~~ "')''\ /)/V--...J Address '=r~e (Sh \f\J.~ "(1)0 t..v' v W- ,.~~4'1' ~~ /fJ~~ I V ____ tL ..) /' ~ .~ f2rv1 '7),2viY' , Address 11~ /i1~vv- i)--;ve. S. t "f~. .9 ~ Igna ure (.~ .. u...._ (J ;: v' e Print Name Comment Signature Print Name Comment: Signature Print Name Comment Signature e Address ~J;zo x;t,;;e/Jr~-./L (~~~ kiK;o.. ~7ef/1 -+r " ft:1 ~eVerA. ( e,er, ~ tt '" -I-/iN1e.s' - /.1.::' f -A""e Address Address Address www.n.goUro.v1l~ Y 4-5-01 HEARING NOTICE Board of Zoning Appeals 4505 Heathbrooke Circle Ivan and Karen Brodskv Ivan and Karen Brodsky, with property located at 4505 Heathbrooke Circle, have petitioned the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals for one variance from the Residential zoning district. The applicants are proposing to construct a room addition onto the west side of the existing home. As a result of this construction, the home requires variances from the following sections of City Code. · Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setbacks. City Code states that the distance between any part of a dwelling or structure and the side lot lines shall be governed by the following requirements: In the case of lots having a width of 100 feet or greater, the side setback shall be 15 feet. The requested variance is for .33 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 14.67 feet on the west side of the home. This petition will be heard at a regular meeting to be held Tuesday, April 24, 2001, beginning at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Conference Room, 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. e. 6731 Golden Valley Road 01-4-6 e Qwest Wireless e e Subject Property: 6731 Golden Valley Rd Qwest Wireless, Applicant . ~ .; I 3 I I I I I I I I I I .. '" == 18 I~ I I I. L ./ L lO~ _-.Jt- / 'ZG3 'H tis 481 5~ I I I 1----10~o. I I (1036 Os 512) ...: '0 ? t lU- ..., ""i -N.,,'SE-WE 'iZ D, 4&1 . e Go!../=" I----~----- 330 -----_-_"--~-~-c I h-IH5 ----+--IGI.S ---1 I e e e Hey morand m Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals Dan Olson, City Planner From: Subject: 6731 Golden Valley Road (Map 16) (01-4-6) Qwest Wireless, Applicant Date: April 18, 2001 Qwest Wireless, who is leasing property located at 6731 Golden Valley Road, is requesting a variance from the Institutional zoning code (Section 11.46). The applicant has approached the City to build a cellular phone monopole to the south side of the existing Golden Valley Historical Society building. The building of this monopole requires a variance from the rear yard setback requirements of the Zoning Code. Qwest has applied for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for this monopole to be located in the Institutional (I -1) zoning district. At the April 9, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission recommended to the City Council that this CUP be approved. The application is slated to be reviewed by the City Council at their meeting on May 1 st. The requested variance is from Section 11.46, Subd. 8 Yard Requirements. City Code states the required rear setback shall be 50 in width and depth, of which at least 25 feet adjacent to the property line shall be landscaped and maintained as a buffer zone. The requested variance is for 14 feet off the required 50 feet to a distance of 36 feet for a proposed monopole antenna to the rear yard property line. The Golden Valley Historical Society purchased this building site in 1996. The building was built in the late 1800s. No other pertinent information was found in the file. e e e \. (Revised 1/99) Petition Number 0/- 0 if - 06 Date Received 'tIll> j()( Amount Received I jtJ,CfJ ($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: '\P'l~ \ .r;;....V"i\--n BZA Petition Date l\ - 'L ~ - a '\ Petitioner: . ~'~~L-5\ v...j \\2-~\...-~~ Na~'l..\" ~c ~+\)~'n,"--\.0;\4~ ~Ii\ \C)\ Address City/State/Zip ~\d...' ~\cl~ CO<b~ Business Phone Home Phone 2. 3. 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: ~ ,V, ~ \~\~Q \C;\:\" ~~')~}.? 5. Legal Description of property involved in this petition (found on survey): ~t: ~ ~f\u+\-~n 6.. Type of property involved in this petition: Residential: _ Single Family _ Double Dwelling _ Multiple Dwelling Industrial Commercial _ Institutional 'i- 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 e permit issued. @ e 8. (Staff will complete this item) Waiver of Section Subd(s). Subd(s). Subd(s). Waiver of Section Waiver of Section Please attach ~. brief statement of the reasons. necessity. or hardship whicl1 provide grouncfs for the granting of this waiver. Attach letter, photographs, or other evidence, if appropriate. . 10. 11. To the Applicant: To the best of my knowledge the statements found in this applicat~n are true and correct. Attached herewith is my check in the amount of $ \~ representing the Board of Zoning Appeals Application Fee. "A~,,~0 UNLESS CONSTRUCTION OR THE ACTION APPLICABLE TO THIS WAIVER REQUEST, IF GRANTED, IS NOT TAKEN WITHIN ONE YEAR, THE WAIVER EXPIRES. 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: This petition is appiication 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 ,~\sv\.-tl'\~ ~~'-2 l\ ~~~ \~~-r:: mz.{\I\)~e. ~ Signature Address b1? ~J (j, V, ~ Print Name ~~S\S Comment ~ G.~()V~ ~~ ~ " ~ e Signature - Address Print Name Comment Signature Address Print Name Comment Signature Address e e e e Qwest~ Min349 6731 Golden Valley Rd. Golden Valley, MN PRIVATE Not for disclosure outside of QwestWireless L.L.C. Do not dIstribute or reproduce 'OAthout permission from QwestWireless L.L.C. LlOf/A/.lJA/?Y S17/?f7.ffY FOR- (Jlrssr #7/?ELESS (l/rES/' JJ7.1?ELES,s; COLL7E./V I{4LLE.t; H/./V./VESOut H/./V 34.9 e ~------ pSYD .-.J v~ (iOLPt.'. ~". ..~ //r-~~T_-~6~8':"_#').- 0'-' ~ / !b,Q I ..," '0'#>.... "c!) ......:.z. >>:~ ::::ffi .:~ ......z '.. ..I::' .. . . .ur 'J;,'} :;; ,. ~ :rl e '" ~ .. ;" ';:- <D w ,..: ,. '" ~ '" 0 ~ w ,. ~ ... 0 N l' -- 30 0 11111111111 GRAPHIC SCALE ~\\\~mUIUJI:1tJ/, ..:>~~ ~'O M. It. ~~q, ":;''';'Y.~~ .......r........ o,/t. ~~ ..:,.~~J,.-:01S ~;"J'<C ~ .J I.::t;v.. , 'O.f "i ij (ji~ 22440:': ~ ., -I .- jJ.' .0 :: :~ ':p ~ ~ Ii ", ,;. ,':D<.. - -G: ,f'J ;:; ....J. ot"t.. .,.......1.J1 "'~...}.'V $' .~\:.~;.~.~4~~ii"\.~~\,,# ~. ': ':""'SOLTON & t.tENK. INC. CONSUlTING ENGI<<:tRS << LAND st.IRVt'tORS , " "tS US, MGHiIlI.'t IJ. IIURNS\lU.L W\I s.sJJ) (tu) hO.o(l$Ot O1MCfI OR'II::I;S lit: -...ftI. _,0 1UD't ~_ ''IIIIUoWI..'AWf3.'''''NllWCINY,'y,j' , ,,'i>.~fI)' .~ v \ I .. .~.... ~ ~ ~ ~ Iw ~ "," .,,' " ~.' ." o CJ> N CJ> , .tJ"\~' " ," ." f\.~ .~ -.:1> .~ ..,i> .~ s NO TH UNE OF" RAA.ROAO RiGHT Of WAY S88"JO'18"E ~').. ,"" . ." .,~ .~ '<1$96 ' .~ .......... s ..... W l..... \ \ \ \ ,," .~ ~~" ." o I INE CORNER OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE HE 1/4 or SECT. 32 CHICAGO NORTHWESTERN RAILROAD 30 I I hereby certify that 'his" su,..,.".. plan, or r~porl was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and thot. I om Q dwy licensed Lond SUt'\/eyor und.,. the lows of the slale af Minnesola. FEET Signed the 19th day of September A.O.. 2000 /1-- Alterations to this dfOwing ar. prohibited without the express written permission of Bolton de: Uenk, Inc. Copyright 2000. Bolton &: Uonk, Inc. ...l.-~:i.- ~. Dennis M. Honse Minnesota Ucense No, 22....0 for Bolton A Uenk, Inc. k ..:. ~ ACCESS EASEMENT POINT Of BEGINNING LEGEND .0 . . . . FUlE IMlRANT (!) , . , ; WATER VN..VE " o. , , , MANHOLE . ~ ' . . , CATCH BASIN o . . . . POWERPOlE *, . . ,UGHT POLE )....CUY 1I21Jl. . . . TRANSfORuER El , . . . f1LCTRlC UOER l2J ,., . . lV PEDESTAL m . . . . TelEPHONE PEIlESTAl !'8!1. . , . AIR CONOlTIONER lID .. .. HANO HOt( o . . . . SEMAPHORE IllI . .. . CAS UETER s . , , . SJ.NlTARY SEWER Sf . . . . STORM SEWER ou . , . , OVERHEAD '{fIUTY UHES . . , , , IRON MONUMENT FOUND ,., ... ~ ~ ~ "".. 0 . . , . IRON PIPE MQNUWENT SET '~. Jt .,., EXISTING SPOT E1.EVAnON O. . , , OECIOUOUS TREE ~. ' . . CONIfEROUS TREE C?if . . , , DENOTES TREE AND 8RUSH UMITS e e e April 6, 200 I Mr. Dan Olson City Planner City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 RE: Petition of Ordinance Waiver Paragraph #9 Dear Mr. Olson: Weare requesting a backyard set back variance for the monopole because it in the best interest ofthe neighboring properties to have the pole screened as much as possible. The preferred location is in the tree line to the rear of the parking lot. Moving the pole toward the parking lot would place the pole out in the open. The landlord is also opposed to moving the pole. It is felt that because the railroad tracks pass directly behind the property line and the Golden Valley Country Club maintenance building is on the other side of the railroad tracks, the preferred location will have no impact on any of those properties. We have also tried to line the pole up with the existing Power Poles so as to blend in as much as possible. The existing power poles are approximately 112' in height. I have attached two photos showing what the view is to either side of the property. As you can see the property has heavy tree cover. If you have any questions or need additional information, please let me know. I can be reached at 612-272-0083 Sincerely .... ~ ~~'\""\~"J 000 G on Es te Consultant Qwest Wireless WWWCi.goUm_vl1~ Y 4~9~0 1 HEARING NOTICE Board of Zoning Appeals 6731 Golden Valley Road Qwest Wireless, Applicant Qwest Wireless, who is leasing property from the Golden Valley Historical Society located at 6731 Golden Valley Road, has petitioned the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals for one variance from the Institutional (1-1) zoning district. The applicant is proposing to construct a cellular phone monopole antenna to the rear of the existing Historical Society building. As a result of this construction, the monopole requires variances from the following sections of City Code. · Section 11.46, Subd. 8 Yard Requirements. City Code states the required rear setback shall be 50 in width and depth, of which at least 25 feet adjacent to the property line shall be landscaped and maintained as a buffer zone. The requested variance is for 14 feet off the required 50 feet to a distance of 36 feet for a proposed monopole antenna to the rear yard property line. This petition will be heard at a regular meeting to be held Tuesday, April 2001, beginning at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Conference Room, 7800 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.