Loading...
06-26-12 BZA Agenda Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, June 26, 2012 7 pm 7800 Gotden Valiey Road Council Chambers I, Approval of Minutes — May 22, 2012 Regular Meeting II. The Petitions are; 6931 Olson Memorial Highway RHT Properties, Applicant (12-06-09) Request: Waiver from Section 11.72 Fences Subd. 3(A)(1) Fence Regulations • 2 ft. taller than the 4 ft. height allowed for fences located in front yards Purpose: To allow for the construction of a 6 ft. tall fence in the front yard. III. Other Business Election of Officers IV. Adjournment ` This document is available in alternate farmats upon a 72-hour request. Please call � a� 7b3-593-8QQ6(TTY: 763-593rv3968)to make a requsst. Exampfes of altern�te fiarmats _ � rnay include I�rg�print, eleetronic, Braille,audioca�ssette,etc. � Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 22, 2012 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zaning Appeals was held on Tuesday, May 22, 2012 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm. Those present were Members, Maxwell and Nelson, and Planning Commission Representatives Cera and McCarty. Also present were City Planner Joe Hogeboorn.and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Member Boudreau-Landis was absent. I. Approval of Minutes —April 24, 2012 Regular Meeting McCarty referred to the second sentence in the fifth paragraph o.n page one'and noted the word "font" should be changed to the word "front." McCarty referred to the first sentence in the fifth paragraph on page three and stated that a comma should be added between the words "line" and "they." MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Maxwell and motion carri�d unanimously to approve the April 24, 2012 minutes with the above noted corrections. Cera abstained. II. The Petitions are: 501 Radisson Road John and Nicole Bean, Applicants (12-05-06) Request: Waiver fram S�ction 11':21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1), Subd. 11(A)(�) Rear Yard Setback Requirements • 15.42 ft: off the required 53.83 ft. to a distance of 38.41 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard (east) property line. Purpose: To �Ilow for the constru�tion af a new garage. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning Qistrict (R-1), Subd. 11(A)(2) Rear Yard Setback Requirements • 11`.17 ft. off the required 40.33 ft. to a distance of 29.16 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard (east) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a house addition. Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and explained the applicant's request for variances in order to allow for the construction of a new garage and an addition to the rear of the existing home. He stated that this lot is irregular in shape and the hause was placed fairly deep on the lot. He added that the existing detached garage will be removed. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 22, 2012 Page 2 Cera asked about the depth of a typical City lot. Hogeboom said there really isn't an average-sized lot depth, but this lot is deeper than usual making the rear yard setback larger than most. John Bean, Applicant, explained that he would like to expand his home because he has two kids and only two bedrooms. He stated that he doesn't want to build an addition on the frant of the home because it would require re-working the interior of the house and it would look like a big monolithic addition. He added that if the additian was built on the fronfi of the home four massive oak trees would also need to be removed. If they build the addition on the rear of the home only one oak tree would need to b� removed. He added that the topography of the property would also make an addition to the front c�f the home difficult and he also doesn't want to add on to the front ofi the house because it would impact the neighbor's view. He stated that he has also b�en wQrking w�th the neighbor behind him regarding screening the proposed addition with some trees or landscaping. Maxwell asked if the existing detached garage would t�e removed. Bean said yes and added that a large portion of the pavement would also be removed. McCarty asked the applicant if he had considered turning the garage 90 degrees or maving it more westerly sa that it would fit withirrthe setback area. Bean said he hadn't considered that but he would be concerned about the oak trees being damaged. He added that backing out the driveway is problernatic and he's not sure he would have enough room for a turnaround if the garage was situated differently. Hogeboom added that turning the garage 90 degree�wou�d be more visually impactful an the neighbor to the west. Maxwell asked if there are any other unique features of the property other than the topography and the ariginal placement of the house on the lot. Bean added that the depth af the lot is unique. Nelson said she thinks an attached garage and three bedrooms is a reasonable request. She agreed that it is a very deep lot and the house is set way back on the lot. She added that she feels the proposal meets the criteria the Board is supposed to consider when granting variances. It is keeping within the essential character of the neighborhood, the situation wasn't caused by this homeowner and the design of the pro�osed addition is the least impactful to the neighboring properties. Cera agreed especially given'the depth and topography of the lot. Maxwell also agreed and added that the proposed addition will be as far away from the rear property line as most homes are required to be. It is only because the !ot is so deep that this property has a larger than normal rear yard setback requirement. Nelsan opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Nelson clased the public hearing. McCarty said he thinks the proposed plan and layout are good, but the garage addition can be done withaut requiring a variance. He said he understands trying ta minimize the Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 22, 2012 Page 3 impact to the neighboring property but sti�l feels the garage could be situated in such a way as to not require a variance. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Ma�cwell and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variance requests: • 15.42 ft. off the required 53.83 ft. to a distance of 38.41 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard (eastj property line to allow for the construction of a new garage. • 11.17 ft. off the required 40.33 ft. to a distance of 29.16 ft. at its closestpoint to the rear yard (east) property line to allow for the construction of a hause addition. 500 Janalyn Circle Greq and Jeanne Mevissen, Applicants (12-05-07) Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family;Zoning District (R-1), Subd. 11(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requi'rements • 6 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance af 9 ft. at its closest paint to the side yard (east) property line. Purpose: To allaw for the construction of a screen porch on a portion of the existing deck. Hogeboom discussed the applicant's r�quest to construct a screen porch. He explained that the property was granted a variance in 1994 to construct a deck and screen porch, however only the deck was constructed at.that time, so after one year the variance for the screen porch addition expired. ' Nelson asked if the footprint pf the�deck will expand. Hogeboom said no and added that they are asking for the same vahiance that was granted in 1994. Maxwell asked if the deck could be re-built. Hogeboom said yes, the applicant could rebuild the deck in the same footprint and at the same height, but adding the screen porch is conside:red an expansion which requires a variance. Greg Mevissen, Applicant, stated they are seeking to build the same porch addition, in the same footprint, that was approved in 1994. He added that he measured the distance from the existing deck to the property line to be 13.5 feet but he is requesting the variance to be 9 feet to the property line so it wouldn't be confusing with what was approved in 1994. Hogeboom noted that the survey showed the dimension to be 9 feet. Nelson asked the applicant how long they've lived at this property and if the intention has always been to construct the proposed screen porch. Mevissen said they've lived in the home for nine years and they did intend to build the screen porch. He explained that Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 22, 2012 Page 4 when the deck was originally constructed the footings were built to accommodate the porch additian in the future. Cera questioned what could be considered unique about this property. Mevissen stated that it is an irregular shaped lot, the house was placed further to the east on the lot and the deck is already there so it would be awkward to move the entire structure. Maxwell added that this applicant/homeowner didn't build the deck or the house in their current location so the situation was not caused by Mr. Mevissen. Nelson asked if the neighbors to the east are aware of this proposal. Meuissen said yes. Rob Odden, On Time Contractors, representing the applicant, explained that th�re are some strategically placed piers on the corners of the existing deck in order to aceammodate the screen porch addition, so if they tried to move the structure they would have to dig up the footings. Cera asked if the footings are original to when the deck was built. Odden said yes. Nelson opened the public hearing. Rob Yost, 504 Janalyn Circle, said he doesn't have ar�y objection to the proposed screen porch as long at the existing footprint is the same. He asked about the height af the screen porch. Odden referred to an illustration and explained that the height of the screen porch will be lower than the existing peak of the house. It will also have the same roof pitch and be constructed with the same:materials as the house. Seeing and hearing na one else wishing to comment, Nelson closed the public hearing. McCarty said he is fine with the proposal because the deck already exists and the same project was approved in the past. He added that he would feel differently if the proposal was far a new deck and screen porch. Maxwell said he also �up�orts the proposal because of the property's unique shape and the way the house �s situated on the lot. Also, the homeowner didn't put the deck or the house in fheir existing locations and the screen porch will match the character of the existing hom�. Cera su�gested granting a variance for the current distance from the deck to the praperty line instead of saying it can be 9 feet away from the side yard property line. Hogebaam said he is comfortable with the 9-foot dimension as shown on the survey. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request for 6 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance af 9 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (east) properky line to allow for the construction of a screen porch on a portion of the existing deck with the understanding that the porch will not exceed the footprint of the existing deck. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 22, 2012 Page 5 8600 Duluth Street Greqorv and Kathleen Larson, Applicants (12-05-07) Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1), Subd. 11(A)(2) Rear Yard Setback Requirements • 17.6 ft. off the required 25 ft. to a distance of 7.4 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard (west) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage addition. Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and explained the applicant's request to construct a garage addition. He noted that this is a corner lot so the rearyard real'ly acts more like a side yard in this case. He added that the lot also abuts a nature area, so the garage addition wauld not impact any neighboring views. Cera referred ta the survey and asked if the existing shed is in a canforming location. Hogeboom explained that sheds are required to be located 5 feet from rear and side yard property lines. However, this survey states that the locat�on of the shed is approximate, so it is difficult to say if it is in a conforming location or not. Nelson asked what the setback requirement wauld be if this were not a corner lot. Hogeboom said the required setback would be'15 feet from a side yard propertyline. He noted that the house also sits at an angle on the lot so the garage addition would only be 7.4 feet from the property lins at its closest point. McCarty said he feels a single-stall garage is a hardship. Greg Larson, Applicant, explained that this proposed garage additian is part of a larger remodeling plan that may include living space or a deck above the garage. He added that the driveway is already fairly wide so he may not need to widen it any further to accommodate the second garage stall. Hogeboom suggested the Board add language to their motion regarding living space above the garage so there is no confusion in the future. Nelson opened #he public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Nelson closed the public hearing. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Maxwell and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request for 17.6 ft. off the required 25 ft. to a distance of 7.4 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard (west) property line to allow for the construction of a garage addition with living space above. , Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 22, 2012 Page 6 III. Other Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8 pm. Nancy J. Nelson, Chair Joseph S. Hogeboom, Staff Liaison t."X��.� t�.� �- Planning Depar�ment 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax} Date: June 20, 2012 To: Board of Zoning Appeals From: Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Subject: 693101son Memoriai Highway Meridian Services, Applicant Background Meridian Services, prospective owner of the property at 6391 Olson Memorial Highway, is seeking a variance from City Code to allaw for the canstruction of a 6 foot-tall fence in the front yard of the property. Front yards of praperties in the R-1 Residential Zoning District are considered to be the area that is within 35 feet of the front property line along the street. City Code does not allow fences taller than 4 feet to be located in residential front yards. Fences up to 6 feet tall can be constructed in rear yards (all areas beyond 35 feet from the front property line). Meridian Services pravides social services to the Twin Cities community. Meridian Services proposes to operate a foster care home at 693101son Memorial Highway. Foster care facilities are regulated through the County and the State; they are not regulated by the City. The applicant's purchase agreement for the property is contingent upon receipt of this variance. Meridian Seruices intends to provide care to two special needs children at this home, and states that a 6 foot-tall fence in the front yard would provide safety to the children in care. Variance The proposal requires a variance from the following section of City Code: � Section 11.72, Subd. 3(A)(1) Residential Fence Requirements. City Code requires fences in residential front yards to not exceed 4 feet in height. The applicant is seeking a waiver to this requirement to allow a 6 foot-tall fence to be located in the front yard. r � * 1� � ��� �� � ER1� I � ES Metropolitan Office:9400 Golden Valley Road,Golden Valley,Mimlesota 55427 Phone: (763)450-5010 FAX: (763)450- 5015 Golden Valley City Offices 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 Re: Golden Valley Zoning Code Variance Application. To Whom It May Concern: We are the prospective buyers of the property at 6931 Olsen Memorial Highway, Golden Valley, Mn 55427. We have signed a purchase agreement with the seller. We are submitting this application for a Zoning Variance prior to the purchase of the home. Our ability to purchase the home is contingent upon our request and your approval for a variance to the zoning rules. We are requesting the vaxiance to build a 6 foot non-scalable fence in the front yard to provide for the safety of the special needs children who will live there. It is our understanding that the rules allow for a 4 ft fence. Thank you. If you have any questions, you can contact me at 612-239-3768. Sincerely, /J �, � (� ( � C�L""`�` L«'—�`.�Ze� �_�_____--- Cheryl Vennerstrom Chief Operating Officer Meridian Services Incorporated r� � i i r�� ~� _� `g I 55U 545 � + r � j 7 200 / � .'-�.. .J- ..,{. � 540 �``�...._�. /�'./ •` ,� 7038 --,. 7030 5#5 '� f '> � 544 S37 � ,� 1 71d#1 �,� J' . � ,, ,r � �� �,�. f , '�', .� _.._ -,� .: ,' ��,` r :`y _, a A 5'��^ 5�� `,� ` ~`"��y�/ T12tI ��,,`f , '�f,,% 521 � 525 � 53t1 \ i' r' ,r"� 7£f31 G _.----=" ����~� � ' yt f''� � 4 7'2�1 �` �`,'= `,�-'`�c�'�. _—. � 6990 6A�fl$$7 il � ,-1.,"..---- / � f 7151 ��c��+ r 7fl�4t1 70�"0 5i17 � J_,�_,.�,�--� # �� ,.. ., f� � ,� � 71�It! € � �° " "' � , ��tsHvN��. , �„ �- �1�i1 `�1 SR, „ _�� � ° �a ,„� .�- ,� _ - _,, ,m- r3�1��+Y °- �" �-�m µo.55' ..m ����� 't�� .` OS�tYSt t,ABmc� � ..», ����*.Y �_ . ... . � � ,., .�. ... ... �e .� �,, .. e. _ w,., -- � �r�ttiesr+�r1�4�� � i ._ - ,. � .,, .,.. .. ,.. �}k�... —� ,� _. Su bject P roperty _ _- �,.�-�--�- � ' � .� � ,. .m -� � � � -� � -�-•-� � � g�ott � � _- �° �,,,�..-.r"""` �sto � ti � � _ �s�ao ;� � �. .. � � _ .� � �ss�7 _ �_.�. . � >g � ___ o ;�;,,. �.---�. .� �__�---_ ` `—� �, ,� �r . ,,-"--� _�,__,_..�--"' ����yr �� 1 4 ii l'// .. ,.,... .....-��A��.--^. '. ii� riii. ���h Yr�-.... �+°.�° ,. r._-�'�y_ � '., ��r� _�^--- ..._ � '�� 7tk4ti 7�01 ,�'ii ;'� -''��� � �/iir �/ �' �' �; r�,� �, '�. �83t� 435 7045 ���y �i� %�"• ~"�`"`. �` �y 6$17 fS$�i7 � ; t � . ,.�i�, ,\..� �827 ti � �s .'' ----..��; ; _ � 6850 �`'-.� � ' 7fl31 �`t�"'�� � � $84'itl �ti j� �� � "`�-__��_ r 425 � � � 'ti j s$��t � --�-�-,-�,:, � �, � 89fliY _....-._---'�" "��- � t383d1 �' � � y 1 a.,,.. '"-..^ �i$� 7t�25 ° � 1_�..—. � � r � ,.� .h'�� `�--� � 682fl �� �'"�- 41S 7156 71 d8 � �, � �, fi � 1 ~ �""-.._�#.q�,��._��� '� ; � � � �,���„^1 �855 � 68R5 `--.,. "°_ �."'`�,� /`� � .t '��\ �y , �83�s r�4�''�.``��'� $810 � �s� N�raFdwve,� _ �� , �� .� ` -�... r /r ,` `� `�,��� � �, „---__ _.. ., .. f k" �\ � 8835 `y�� �.. � v � � ! ,_, .� _. - � 34�Ci �. `". `�.. !F /� �` ` 6945 `�� \ �91�0 ` ��� ` .-. 69{14 8815 6845 � � �``�,.-. -_-,. 6�38 . ,I � � 330 _ `"` _--__ ..... . ............... ^� �, _..-.� , �--`--1_-�� B$20 `� &929 y~"�-_ w �., ',`--- "-�Ww ,,_. �``-�_ li�n�F��rlt � �sa� __.� w .� 68�p68�D � 3�ri �! -W ��. � u+ ��T``�,.. 6736 i � .. i � 6925 $J£J��S �'" �� 'i � � 31b � 3U0 � ��� �'`��-1. e, 6935 ;� .`�,� • *` -.���,. � `�� .—..-1� r I ..�� -,., M,a�rc�.in�-xt+k�t;�l.`��- uY`.3'K:i,::!�ULS:33:t5 - —�._ ._.....� z�.�! � '„�. ::�: .8�. TN 55 ;.. ::.:�:�::: -: _. � � �� ��: :�::::- E .. .r�r, - - .�=- .. . . .. .. .... .. .. . .. ..'���� . ."�. . �� �. �:�� `. '.. StLQOLdE ., ...��;,,::,;�� � :�-`_ ,",-� �:::.;_�:�:',� ::;:.�.- , c. „:��..:� � ,,,;;:��.:=—^�� f� The F�ge M Shoulder on TH 55 "� Utility tl�e Frpn�RO�ad� Service pitch Lines --_ . TAG R�A� . . . .� . . a . . . ..1.,��.���.. .. '-�''��.� � � : . : . . . -�r ., �Q � 1 �Curb & Gu 0 40 --."""�"� •4 - -- III � • � ". T: �,. 2O A ., .. . � ; . ' Scaie in Feet � . . >:.:.. :: � .:,. o , � r� � DEN�TES: FOltNO tRQN PIPE _� � � ( � � R , H4USE � s L_ r ._�_I � � w m ro 10Q.00 a•a � 'o ° ° o• a �ot L;ne Legal Description per C.O.T. 1176759 � „E,�e„e�n*�f,T,,,r rn�s a+w. wiwc.. on neroar The East 104 feet of the West 200 feet of that part of Lot at MEPM�EO 8r�E dl IMOER�w Ci1�t1 S!l�EMtiSIGx 30, "Auditor's Subdivision No. 322, HenneQin County� 1/�d�71E'�J1�S��TE�$TA�Y NESOTA.""` Minnesata", lying south of the State Trunk Highway as now 5,�,,,,,,.x.s,...�/JL?G. o,.,= Bn,no�z established and used across said Lot 3Q except the South 290 �°^�' �• °�� '""�"°� '0"' feet thereof PROJECT NO. THUMP1201 CER TI FI CA TE OF S UR VEY ,,,�,�,�,A,,� For Pefer Thomley C/aud,MN56303 For Property at.� 6931 Olson Memorial Highway ��.,,� City of Golden t/a/ley, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota K R A M E R L E A S D E L E O . . ., -• ... -.. ..., r, . . ... C�tyOf olden � va e Zoning Code Variance Application 1. Street address: �`�,3 / Q�so-�-, �Ii?e�r�c.rzc�.� ��..,���,�� ���� 1��.��, �� Ss�i.�--� 2. Applicant Information: Name: /�� T �rv����-� � �LL Address: �'I `�o C� �v-�.�-� (,��W.F� .�`��c;� �t*��-•-- �-c.�-�,. ,�-�� � S N�� Email Address: ,ta-�-hc,n-,�� ��, ( t.�i^�`c/�--�ct �s �c dt�'-� Phone Number: ��a — �3 �?— �7� �- p � ����-� �� /�.-.� 1 �f�t�°'� 3. Provide a detailed description of need for a variance from the Zoning Code, including: • Description of building(s) o Description of proposed addition(s) • Description of proposed alteration(s) to property ��-��_-._-��-�...�' .�.�-�. L�1.�.�. ��v���hC� G�--1� � �-�s ��� � �-�-� � �� ��._� � � ��� �� �'t�_ /� . 4. Minnesota State Statute 462.357 requires that a property exhibit "practical difficulties" in order for a variance to be considered. Practical Difficulties: • result in a use that is reasonable. • are based on a problem that is unique to the property. • are not caused by the fandowner. • do not alter the es5ential character of the locality. To demonstrate how your request will comply with Minnesota State Statute 462.357, please respond to the following questions: Explain the need for your variance request and how it will result in a reasonable use of the property. �'-/ .'s c,�c� r �.i..�c�:r-s-L-�: �C�( ' �F 1....:�' -f f� 2 cJ,'�,` r- Cc.�°� �,7,., � � �(G7"l� tZ. �`-�� ��`�C. � L—• ��c��.�-- L� L.�'2..� �-�1..�.� G� f°�'t.2..r'r�G.d.s;'Z�, ca � �-f- �°1C�`75CLi l�--1,..�r? �.-c'/1^C�-. ���r� �./r�? 5 ��_ � ;� S� � lL��e.'�S �`�-'�C.�'t��i� . L What is unique abou your property and how do you feel that it necessitates a variance? �- �c���,c✓�v�l i s �a C�-.,�c� C� � ✓�'tC�r`7 7c���� �C�G`�'� � T— ��l `` ��v���. S.3� , �.�c'.. �G �L.Y'-La S �v�e ��s �� ����z� � `� �L�.�'����—�...- Explain how the need for a variance is based on circumstances that are not a result of a landowner action. L�Y/�C.- C�L�c:� �/l_c��� �' G�c�° �o S�-� �lGG-2..� � 7�� C%l�c�'+.c-� l.�r`�,�- ;�e_L�E-� !'2-L,-C-r.f'S �-�1-�._ �a�L�'�P � ��-� � G.��`z%C..� ..�� C�� �`�--�-� Explai ��f granted, the proposed variance will not alter the essential charactEfof your neighborhood and Golden Valley as a whole. � ���- ,�s 1�,-�.� �Z� �,-� �� �._�_.�_,�.� �.� � �..��' � ��.v�2 S,c' �-g /L�.�--����� s ��-� �G t1i2 �;�c� .�r G�l-t— S�.r_.�t`.�.�-$_.r� � 5��'c.��s �°�-� ��'t-�e- �C-s . �r� ��� �.c�z.-�f> i�c� �— �1�l f-.�-t �1�� �—�—� : 5. The City requests that you consider all available project options that are permitted by the Zoning Code prior to requesting a variance. The Board of Zoning Appeals will discuss alternative options to seeking variance with you at the pubiic hearing. Please describe alternate ways to do your project that do not require variances to the Zoning Code. 7�"L�� � .-�v-� ��:.f �,,-.-�� �:- ���-,� � �GL�-, / , ���-c�'� ��t !� s G'� f�e. ��r�.;�-z � <- �--� % ��U�`l S C U...-��--, !-�.,P ���� 6. Please submit a current survey of your property. You must indicate the proposed addition, including new proposed building and structure setbacks, on the survey. A copy of Golden Valley's survey requirements is available upon request. Please note that this application is considered incomplete without the submittal of a current property survey. 7. Please submit at least one current color photograph of the area affected by the proposed variance. You may attach a printed photograph to this application, or you may email a digital image to plannin�@�oldenvallevmn.gov. You may submit additional photographs as needed. To the best of my knowledge the statements faund in this app(icatian are true and correct. 1 also understand that unless constructfon of the action applicable to this varfance request, if granted, is nnt taken wlthin one year,the variance exp(res. { have considered all options affarded to me through the City's Zoning Code,and feel that#here Is no alternate way to achieve my objective except ta seek a variance to zaning rules and regulations. f give permtssion for Galden Vaifey staff, as well as members of the Board of Zahing Appeais,to enter my pro{�erty priar to the public hearing to inspect the area affected by thls request. nature of pplican# !f the applicant is not#he owner of a!t property invalved in this application; p#ease name the owner of this property: �yr�n �-� ,�.�1 G��►' �����7'VY�}�`"��'Z�C��YGPit� Print lVarne of awner Signa#ure of owner _ $150 Application fee Attached (for Single �amily#tesidential} $250 Ap�licatior� Fee Attached �for ap other Zonfng Dlstricts) Please note: The Clty of Golden Valley wU1 send nofice of your varitrnce request to al!ad}oinfng prvperty owners as wel!as owners of propertTes dtrectly across streets or a1leys. Your nefghbors have the riqht to address the Boprd of Zoning Appeals at your publlc hearing.�You are adv�sed io personatly contact your nelghbors and explain your project to fhem prfor ro the public heartng. G1�� �'� r�K��, �;:, ,, � Planning Departrnent 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Date: June 20, 2012 To: Baard of Zoning Appeals From: Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Subject: Election of Officers Summary The Board of Zoning Appeals must elect its officers annually. Officers for the Board of Zoning Appeals include the Board Chairperson and the Vice Board Chairperson. The Chairperson is responsibte for leading the meetings. The Chairperson may also call special meetings if he or she deems it necessary, The Vice Chairperson assumes the role of Chairperson Pro Tem or if the Chairperson is unable to attend a meeting. According to the By-Laws of the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Chairperson cannot serve more than two consecutive terms in a three year period. In addition, the Planning Commission designee cannot serve as Chairperson. Chair Nelson and Vice Chair Boudreau-Landis have serv�d for one year in their current roles, and are both eligible for reelection. Recommended Action Nominate and elect a Chairperson and a Vice Chairperson.