The URL can be used to link to this page

02-26-13 BZA Agenda Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 26, 2013 7 pm 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers I. Approval of Minutes — January 22, 2012 Regular Meeting II. The Petition(s) are: 4505 Sunset Ridge Duc and Jennifer Trinh. Applicants (13-02-03) Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1), Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements • 6.5 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 28.5 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line. 2944 Perry Avenue North Scott Joraenson, Applicant (13-02-04) Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1), Subd. 11(A)(3)(b) Side Yard Setback Requirements • 7.5 ft. off of the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 5 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. III. Other Business IV. Adjournment ` This documen#is available in aiternate formats upon a 72-haur request.Please call � 763-593-8006(TTY: 763-593-3968)to make a request. Exarnples of alternate formats ' may inclucle large print,electronic,Br�ilfe,audiacassette,etc. Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Galden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 22, 2Q13 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley BQard of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Nelson called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Members, Boudreau-Landis, Johnson, Maxwell, Nelson'and Planning Commission Representative McCarty. Also present were Gity Planner Joe Hogeboom, Director of Public Works Jeannine Clancy, WSB Consultant Jupe Hale and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes — December 19, 2012 Regular Mestin� , Boudreau-Landis referred to the first paragraph on page five and stated that the ward "if' should be changed to the word "it" in the first sentence. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Boudreau-Landis and motian carried unanimously ta approve the December 19, 2012 minutes with the above noted correction. II. The Petition(s) are: 309 Turnpike Road Dmitri Rebrov�Applicant (13-01-01) Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1), Subd. 11(A)(3)(b) Side Yard Setback Requirements � City Code reqwires an increase in side yard setback area for houses over 15 feet in height. The applicant is asking for a variance from this requirement. Request: Wa�iver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1), Subd, 11(A)(3)(d) Articulation Requirements • City Code requires any wall longer than 32 feet in length to be articulated. The applicant is asking for a variance from this requirement. Hagebaom referred to a survey of the property and noted the location of the existing house and the proposed location of the new house. He sfiated that architectural drawings are nat required as part of the variance application process but his understanding is that the applicant has drawings available to shaw to the Board. Nelson asked about the dimensions of the proposed new house. McCarty noted that the dimensions of the existing house are 38.9 feet by 50 feet. Nelson noted that the existing home meets the side yard setback requirements. Hogeboom explained that hauses over 15 feet in height require an increased side yard setback. He added that the front of the house can be 28 feet in height. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 22, 2013 Page 2 Dmitri Rebrov, applicant, stated that the height of the side walls will be 21 feet. He noted that the proposed house would meet the side yard setback requirements on the north side however he wauld like the south side of the home to be located 12.5 feet away from the property line instead of the required 15.5 feet. He also noted that the front and the back walls of the proposed house would meet the articulation requirements but the side walls would not. He showed the board illustrations of the proposed house and said he could break up the look of the walls visually, but he feels the lot is too narrow to articulate the side walls. Nelson asked about the length of the walls. Rebrov stated that the side walls are 54 feet in length and the front and back walls are 48 feet in length. He stated that he had a design that included articulated walls however the articulated portions were too close to the side yard property lines so he would have then needed to request variances from the side yard setback requirements. He added that the south wall of the proposed new hause would be in the same location as the existing house. Boudreau-Landis referred to the proposed balcony and asked if that would be considered articulation. Hogeboom said no, the entire wall needs to articulate. Maxwell said he is not sure what is unique about the property that would require the requested variances. Rebrov said the size of the property 'rs unique and he feels he needs this size of home for his family. McCarty said the property seems to be a fairly standard size. He asked Rebrov if he had any floor plans he could shaw to the Board. Johnson asked why the application states that they are also requesting a varianee for the size of the garage but the staff report and agenda do not. Hogeboom stated that th� original plans for the house indicated a larger garage that would have needed a variance. The applicant has since revised his plans so a variance regarding the size of the garage is no longer needed. McCarty said he is concerned about the Board not having plans to review and said it is difficult to approve a variance request without plans or elevations, all they have to make their decision in this case is a box drawn on a survey, Nelson asked the applicant about the timeline for his project. Rebrov said he would like to start construction in May. Johnson asked for clarification regarding the section of the application where it states that the locat'ion of the propased new house would not have a negative impact on the property to the south in regard to sunshine and privacy. Rebrov stated that the proposed new house would not block any more sun than the existing house currently does. Johnson said he's concerned about impinging on the neighbor's privacy. McCarty said he is not sure if the Board can address privacy concerns. Hogeboom stated that the impact to the surrounding area is samething the Baard can consider. Minutes of the Golden Valley Baard of Zoning Appeals January 22, 2013 Page 3 Johnson asked the applicant if he had any alternative plans that the Board could look at. McCarty asked the applicant to explain why other options didn't work on this property. Rebrov stated that the house in alternate plans was too big and just didn't fit the lot nicely. Nelson opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Nelson closed the public hearing. Nelson said she doesn't feel like she has enough information and would like to see more plans. Maxwell agreed and said he would be inclined to table the propasal in order to see more detailed plans. Boudreau-Landis added that he thinks it would be best to see and discuss one plan rather than multiple plans. Johnson said the application seems incomplete. He also questioned the impact of the proposed garage having two doors. Hogeboom stated that the City Attorney has cautioned against adding conditions to variance approvals. He explained that an applicant's plans can change as long as they stay within the parameters of any variances given. He suggested the Board consider a variance for 3 feet off the side yard setback requirement (15.5 ft. side yard setback) which would ensure that house cauld only be built to 21 feet in height. McCarty said he does not see a hardship with this property. He added that it is a nice, flat, standard sized lot and that a house could be designed to fit on it without any variances. Boudreau-Landis added that there is also plenty of room to build toward the rear yard property line. He added th�t he doesn't think the proposal meets the criteria the Board uses when considering variances. Nelson noted that the applicant would be would be building the new house basically in the same footprint as the existing house however she agreed that there really aren't any unique cireumstances on this property. Johnson agreed that there is nothing about this property that wouldn't allow a house to be built followir�g the requirements of the Zoning Code. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to deny the variances as requested. 1410,,Tyrol Trail Timbercraft Remodelinq, Applicant (13-01-02) Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1), Subd. 11(B) Height Limitations • 2.5 ft. taller than the allowed 25 ft. for a total height of 27.5 ft. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 22, 2013 Page 4 Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and noted that it received a variance in September to construct a second story addition closer to the side yard property line than allowed. He explained that during the building permit plan review process it was discovered that a porkion of the second story addition would be 2.5 feet taller than allowed. He stated that this neighborhood is difficult when it comes to measuring building height because of the topography and the way the front yards slope toward the street. McCarty questioned where the height of the roof exceeds 25 feet. Hogeboom ref�rred to elevation drawings and showed where the portion of the roof exceeds 25 feet. Peter Murlowski, TimberCraft Remodeling, stated that this property and this neighborhood have unique topography and unique homes. He said he is attempting to make a bland, under-developed property fit in with the rest of the homes in the neighborhood. He explained that he was aware that the house was not supposed to exceed 25 feet in height it was just calculated incorrectly beeause it is difficult to determine which fa�ade is the front. He stated that he thinks having more than one flat roof line will be more pleasing. He clarified that he is not proposing to build any closer to the side yard (west) property line. Nelson asked Hageboom if variances wauld be required if this weren't a flat roof. Hogeboom said no because pitched roofs can be 28 feet in height. Murlowski showed a map noting the differences in grade around the perimeter of the house. He added that the portion of added roof height will not negatively affect anyone. Nelson opened the public hearing: Douglas Kline, 1508 Al�aine Pass, said he came to meeting to support his new neighbor. He stated that they have a tight-knit neighborhood and he along with other neighbors are supportive of this va�riance request. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Nelson closed the public hearing. Johnson stated t'hat this is a unique property. Maxwell agreed and added that he would have liked to have seen all of the variance requests at the previous meeting. Nelson agreed that it is a very unique property and that the proposal meets the criteria that the Board considers when reviewing variance requests. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance as requested. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 22, 2013 Page 5 1950 Douglas Drive North Golden Vallev Conqreqation of Jehovah's Witnesses �Michael Cave), Applicant (12-12-17) (Continued Iteml Request: Waiver from Section 11.46, Subd. 7 Side and Rear Yard Requir�ments. • 2 ft. off the required 50 ft. to a distance of 48 ft. at the building's closest p�int to the side yard (north) property line. • 19 ft. off the required 50 ft. to a distance of 31 ft. at the building's-closet po:int to the rear yard (east) property line. • 9 ft. off the required 25 ft. to a distance of 16 ft. at the parking lot's closest point to the side yard (north) property line. Request: Waiver from Section 11.46, Subd, 8 Front Yard Setback Requirements. • 15 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 20 ft. at the parking lot's closest point to the front yard (west) property line. Request: Waiver from Section 11.46, Subd. 9 (2) Accessory Structure Requirements. • 25 ft. off the required 50`ft, to a distance of 25 ft. at the storage shed's closest point to the side yard'{north) property line. Request: Section 11.46, Subd. 9 (B)(1) Accessory Structure Requirements. • The proposed storage shed will not be located completely to the rear of the principal structurc as required by City Code. Request; Waiver from Section 11,73, Subd. 3 Minimum Number af Off-Street Parking Spaces. • 11' spaces off the required 68 spaces for a total of 57 required parking spaces. Hogeboom rerninded the Board that this applicant's request was tabled at last month's meeting in order to have the applicant consider alternate options that would be less impactful on the neighboring properties to the north and east. He showed the Board the applicant's proposed new site plan that places the building further south on the lot. He explained that this proposal, versus the previous proposal, includes a variance request from the required amount of parking spaces because the building size has increased therefore the number of parking spaces required increas�s as well. He stated that Douglas Drive is proposed to be reconstructed in the future and noted that Director of Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 22, 2013 Page 6 Public Works Jeannine Clancy and WSB Consultant Jupe Hale are in attendance to answer questions from the Board. Clancy explained that a couple of years ago there was a planning study of Douglas Drive done to envision what it should be because it has not been reconstructed in over 5Q years. There was identification by the community to improve pedestrian access, improve the signalization, to accommodate the traffic that was there, but to also recognize that Douglas Drive accommodates a lot of varying land uses. She explained that since the planning study was completed the City has been working with Hennepin County to advance the project. She stated that a grant was received from Transit for Livable Communities to complete a 30% design. She referred to the Jehovah's Witnesses property and explained that on the Duluth Street side of their property the right-of-way acquisition is appraximately 29 to 30 feet, which is significant. She stated that she appreciates the opportunity to work with the Church on finding a solution so the City doesn't end up acquiring properties in total and can allow land use to remain as is. McCarty referred to the proposed storage shed and asked where it could be located without variances. Hogeboom stated that the shed would need to be located completely to the rear of the building unless it was built with frost footings. Tom Fournier, representing the applicant, stated that the shed would be built on a floating slab, not with frost footings. McCarty asked how much larger the proposed building will be than what was shown on last month's proposal. He als�o asked wl�y`it is larger. Fournier stated that the size of the building is driven by the needs of the congregation. Hogeboom stated that the size of the proposed building has increased by 200 square feet. Johnson asked if the proposed portico will remain. Fournier said yes. Johnson asked if the height of the building inereased, Fournier said no. Johnson noted that the applicant doubled the amaunt of setback area along the north property line in the proposed new plan and added a'f�nce so the building will be less intrusive on the neighborhood. McCarty asked if the fence would be 8 feet in height. Fournier said he didn't know at this point. Hogeboom said they can build an 8-foot tall fence but any fence over 6 feet in height wilf require a building permit. Nelson opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to speak Nelson closed the public hearing. Nelson said she thinks this newly proposed plan did a good job of addressing the Board's concerns. Maxwell said he doesn't like to see sheds located in front yards but there really is nowhere else for it to go without requiring a variance. He said given the unique features of the property and considering what is being taken for the road construction, he Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 22, 2013 Page 7 supports the variance requests. He added that the proposal is in harmony with the intent of the Zoning Code, it is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, it is a reasonable request, there are significant unique circumstances that are not created by the landowner and it won't alter the essential character of locality. Johnson questioned if there will be enough parking on the site and if the City has ta have a plan if there isn't enough. Hogeboom stated that there will not be any on-street parking available. Maxwell said he assumes there will only be a few times a year when parking could be an issue. Fournier stated that there is adequate parking fior the majority of ineetings they have and the parking lot is rarely full. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimvwsly to �pprove the variances as requested. III. Other Business Hogeboom said he would arrange for the City Attorney to come ta a Board meeting and talk about placing conditions on variance approvals. IV. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:35 pm. Nancy J. Netson, Chair Joseph S. Hogeboom, Staff Liaison t"-1�� t?� �'' Planning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Date: February 20, 2013 To: Board of Zoning Appeals From: Brett Angell, Planning Intern Subject: 4505 Sunset Ridge Duc and Jennifer Trinh, Applicants ,,� Background Duc and Jennifer Trinh, the owners of the property at 4505 Sunset Ridge, are seeking a variance from City Code to allow for the construction of an addition to their home. The addition would be approximately 36' x 30' to the east side of the structure. The lot to the east of the home was plotted to become Sumac Road. Though Sumac Road is officially platted, the City has no intentions to ever construct it. (The construction of Interstate 394 has eliminated the need for the road.) Due to the existence of the platted road,the proposed addition enters a front yard setback rather than a side yard setback. If the platted road did not exist, this project would not require a variance. In order ta vacate the right-of-way of Sumac Road, the homeowners an either side of the road would have to request a formal vacation. This would take time, and would greatly slow down the applicants' plans for the proposed addition. One variance was granted to a former homeowner of this property in 2001 to allow a non- conforming deck to be replaced. The deck was non-conforming because it was closer than 10 feet to the in-ground pool. Minutes from the September 25, 2001 meeting are enclosed. Variance The proposal requires variances from the following section of City Code: • Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements. City Code requires front yard setback areas to be a minimum of 35 feet from the property line along a street right-of-way line. The applicant is seeking 6.5 feet off of the required 35 feet to a distance of 28.5 feet to the closest point of the proposed addition to the east front yard setback requirement. � 6Q3 �---_``—,�.,--�.—�—'_ t �45t t 6�JT �it14 ` ----,---____�-45�1 � .e . . ia�t��ke,�-�otf C7r�a ., ,. �- �� ! ,?--,^.�.,..,,�1��— $ � u3 4S4g � �j � 8�79 614 � �� F ��3(J �` /i/�f t�4D �� 4t �_ � �.. � � � �. `''� � � ~� � 4720 47'4Cl � `'\ � \ 4fi3Y 708 � -- � +1��41 �`�`,,�'� ,i� � � ` � ` , _ � 7t7 � �/� / _ __� t_vi�:l5rr�.�� --� –° ---- g � �1f324 �' �1rn,a�+�rryFor,d �,,� a / N�rir�Tyrt�l P�rk. 4633 '` '��80�1 ti , --- - -�-- ^ s�a � .�' � ., � �—.._._..— ; �. �,... ,, � �484$ � ��itl �.:�. �`w... �'Ot �f t` f ` "; � 4�t7 � ' �' ;. ' '�.�� : /•� „ `'r��r+ f, p � ( .� . . � � � . .r`4 /� ~%"r, a1.„. �""t-� � � %}r 1 p ..� '� % � . � j� U�� ,i �` ' _,,.. `.t "+ s^` :^ 1 ^' �i^�. '�,� , � a y .,,.,. ;r' � . ^^� i ( $ r !� \ °�� 1 82A 1`'`. ,.-'""m~G80� A6�76 -' `� ,. , , � � � � �'�a� � � � �' f � �`� ,� /� _ ` � .»„``- ! � �y � _. ��° �-'''�' aa�� `�, �.��,,,i a��c� / � � `�.� / " ;'`��.�°��., � ��ae ' � �,, � ) �w ` '' �' ��` �"�.. % ( ��o� a�,a aaoo '�� ' .� �'� f;' 45A1 �'�,, � f p� � ° � �`ti, /`� � "� �`� — "�,_..`'^^-..,� � ` ,� 4�27 � � `" "^ '`. � � �� °�. `� � ,,� � ,. , �```",.,, �. `� � i i ii f� i i �d ��' �' � ��J�FJ :;'j�i �ijj/��,%/i�. �""' . � � �• t ii'��%/�`i%1ii �3AQ9 � `�4'sk�`"�_ �, °* x r.,,, � ��*.,,�, //�,/i j��J/J�S�i,' . S�;f�y "'`_-.. -. '^.�.. ��i��i��iilff� t+Jr��q '",v�, �� " ��" ��iri'�. .. w. ... ,.... .� " b ,. _, � � � � �� Subject Property �� ,.3�ia C �r� ��,:L me � "'a.� .� �„ m� . �. .. „ J a�_^�11�P m . a � .. . �. ._. _ ,.. ._ _.. ._ .,.. _,. . . � � -� � � Jn�� r�IE s �,ty i�-� �... ... ._ ,^° «__ , j ft ,�. - -, ni.v ' .. . .. . _.. .. ��¢ t^P;,. ... ..� ...... .. ... ... _ .. . . .—_. .e . . .I:F'�{�y ita,� .,. . ., � _.' .- ,. .. > >,_ ... . " _ .. .. ., , . Il�t'f5le7�v f I i „ _. <. _... , _-. ,„w ..�.,._,m �.,... ..._ . e.,.„ 1,{,�'*7 �s ro. ,.,. _ , .. , � a �� . �_ � _ w _.. �'�n. „�^ --- M.-,. ,. � . .�. .. _ . e.,� .. M,.. . ..,,,. ..w. .,m .. . �;, - �. .. _ �.�, . ,'�°v'. � s^' "�1d',�31i7�11+{y" " ••. , � x ;„-- ,, .��-•.- �.,.�..�-^` �—,,...,. _._._.._� I � � "p ✓. ""�m� �rt� �r.-' �-��-"` - ``�� 441� � � t :.w + 44dt7 ,� a f � � � � A4�1f1 �330 43f0 ` � � s' ,�' � � -`---� ' °'" ° �-----'� �.�: ��-----"`--�"` � °----...� ..�.._. b1.�<-�a;r,.iw��ae�ata� .w>�'+flflgect��-'�:•cas�aw5 � {y - . city of o2den $� va e Zoning Code Variance Application 1. Street address: 4505 Sunset Rid�e, Goiden Vallev 2. Applicant Information: Name: Duc and Jennifer Trinh Address: 4505_Sunset Ridge, Golden Valley Email Address: duc.m.trinh@gmail.com Phone Number: 612.293.7470 3. Provide a detailed description of the variance(s) being requested: We would like to create an addition onto our home towards the east praperty line. Unknowing to us, there is a street right of way to the east of the 4505 property(5umac Road) and although this street will never be built, the existence of this platted road requires the zoning staff to consider this side of the property with a "front"setback requirement. We would like to request having this project be only subject to the side yard setback reguirement, as this is a street that is never going to be built. We recognize that some type of right of way will need to replace the platted street for the public utilities that run through this area. 4. Provide a detailed description of need for a variance from the Zoning Code, including: • Description of building(s) • Description of proposed addition(s) • Description of proposed alteration(s)to property Description of building: Single family, detached residential structure. Proposed Addition: 36' x 30' addition on the east of the original home. 5. Minnesota State S#atute 462.357 requires that a property exhibit "practical difficulties" in order for a variance to be considered. Practical Difficulties: • resuit in a use that is reasonable. + are based on a problem that is unique to the property. • are not caused by the landowner. + do not aiter the essential character of the locality. To demonstrate how your request wiil comply with Minnesota State Statute 462.357, please respond to the following questions: Exp/ain the need for your variance request and how it will resu/t in a reasonable use of the property. The footprint of the original home is deceivingly smatl, with a tota!depth of only 19'and thus requiring an addition to the side of the home to create the living space that we desire. What is unique about your property and how do you feel that it necessitates a variance? The existence of the platted road, Sumac, on the east part of our property creates a situation where the city planning staff must consider this as a possible street, since it is p(atted that way. Since this is not a road that wi11 ever be built, we request a variance from the front yard setback requirement. Explain how the need for a variance is based on circumstances that are not a resu/t of a landowner action. We were unaware of the existence of this platted street when we purchased the property. Sumac Road was dearly platted before the construction of Interstafe 394, and we are requesting that a right of way be provided for the city urilities that run through this location, but that either we receive a vrariance from the front yard setback or that the street be removed from the p/at for this area. Explain how, if granted, the proposed variance will nor alter the essential character of your neighborhood and Golden Valley as a who%. We are excited by the front yard elevations that Sicor�a, 1nc., has been able to provide for the proposed remodel and we feel that that neighbors would enjoy the great architecture as well! The overall fa�ade of the home will be much stronger than what the current home provides, which not only will help our home but the property values of our neighbors as well. 6. 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 public hearing. Please describe alternate ways to do your project that do not require variances to the Zoning Code. The size of the addition would need to be reduced to about 20'in width (instead of the proposed 36'addition) and would take the addition and bring it as close to the north property boundary as was permitted(equivalent to the front sethack of rhe garage). We would have to reduce the size of the addition, overall, and remove the office from them main/evel addition and 1 bedroom/1 bath from the upper level plan. The architecture of this addition would not be as appealing as the fa�ade that we currently have drawn. 7. 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. We have provided scaled survey drawings of the property for your review and consideration. 8. 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�@�oldenvaltevmn.�o��. You may submit additional photographs as needed. To the best of my knowledge the statements found in this application are true and correct. I also understand that unless construction of the action applicable to this variance request, if granted, is not taken within one year,the variance expires. I have considered all options afforded to me through the City's Zoning Code, and feel that there is no alternate way to achieve my objective except to seek a variance to zoning rules and regulations. I give permission for Golden Valley staff, as well as members of the Board of Zoning Appeals,to enter my property prior to the public hearing to inspect the area affected by this request. � �..._. /1�� `'�.�. Signature of Applicant If the applicant is not the owner of all property involved in this application, please name the owner of this property: J�t�C 1�r �.6H � Print Name of owner Signature of owner � $150 Application Fee Attached (for Single Family Residential) _ $250 Application Fee Attached (for all other Zoning Districts) Please note: The City of Golden Valley will send notice of your variance request to all adjoining property owners as well as owners of properties directly across streets or alleys. Your neighbors have the right to address the Board of Zoning Appeals at your public hearing. You are advised to personalty contact your neighbors and explain your project to them prior to the public hearing. - ,�� t\� � , t � ,. -�► ,._ �.;;�� ,,, � �'��.�� ,�� ,+,�° ,' �� ,,, < , �,� �� . . . u , � , , .� � i' 4• E� � - � �. . f ; F i ,`t '� � . • a . , � ��'�{�t�4v�' `� � �,., # . �.. ��:� i! . �m•w. . �,y, �` `i't; a* �� . �. . . .� a' �., ,.. �• . � � - `., �,�,. , � `, �, �,� 1tr-r't� �{�•.a. «�.. .. .. , �1 . � � . i ��'�� - . . ., � . • '; �.. . f� .._ � ;k ,tr � . A ,�, u.� 4 r�""t �t � , t ti°�'r Z � , ��5 � rrY�Yi �` , . , ��` i , � � ! �� .. �.1��f .. ,�, 1' . � . �`'� ti. R'.h+_`� �Q.,t4 �� 1' ,� i � °� � '��r r� � R� ��. �•1/i'. r� 1. , .t�=I "S��C. � . � ,�_� ` � � . � .. ' , ��i� f :`_ ;` ��p «rc r. , � ;-� � -- �`, _-� _r� , :r ,r{i � . ,� � � � � 1 l � �.y � � �•t ;�. �*� . , _ ,�?�.�. . •, 4::� .;:� _ °� ,. , � �,`', �-.�.1 f� .� � \,�� ,'_�i�\ ��, `� �� ,,'a�:+� F y l 1 , �' 4 �- � f. �:'aw.�.a" , ` : - _ _ �R�, ..-" . . .. . �e;+�.'. '_ .. � Lf`!N f:� __ .•°:! i�. �ip, .'Ll, � A.'�a..�� :1' . - �t._ � , St!� ' ,�A{�� - �..` t►��'� 4 ��. '� �� .7.�. � ��4 ��'4. � � .'�w .�� •R ,�� . .:�L .;R��4� A'r�� . �',t',W � „ � a �t,_`�� " . ?. � - �� t�� r``�6�r,,�l. 1� ,t.��,� �i M-a,"�� ", � � �" _ � .'� ti •'�� ' . ��'t � .. � � T.r vti - � t;� .4^� 'i� � :. �'42, t'4.'a'S¢�}L T � � `f� �*�L � �{��, a ��- . �`��tx' �'�'.�,� �ti'��, d Yk ` +F��X'r . �`e �"�y�� ;� �� `��.. i �, a „� 17F+ �:,� �17r.., �%.• � :�,�, �.r � .f`i.. bPj ' !'1��p M1.' t.y+` _ � \�y �,�� . . .��,�' �t. .� y � RS`�, 1� � f . 1 . �� .�. i-�K' �' 1 � t T �m . ,. �YC r, .�`� p+� .; ✓ .Af y ,.,, . �� y �� t�. ":s+'� e� .w� �l t9�� k. `4"6E :.� . �bt�. . R }„ bT�� St,� 1 � .� r ..rM M � .� �� ` __ '-��at�. • `�-,��`:� ' � �s' �f s=„4e��7 ' ,� ":�a.� � 4 � � �� r� , .-� .- A � � � �� @ � w'J�• N ��,x S.� r��..� ��..1j� .,� � .� � � � `�� t" �. �i�[�# 7 � ' r 4. +' '�, •� r+. - `"� c��.. a. �+� it: � C`��r�y � �� .';��t44.� " a . � i '�1, . ``�,�r_1F��„ �` i a�7j� �°."� A � � � �,� y y�.: - � ..z+� .� �-��w' ' s ;it] w .,.,�_�.�/'�Ai' na.,�- °1"�'� �„ � �ti .�y `,� .,,m�f,��R�� u `��w � " '�' �� p 'w r�^t • . •`��- ,� .. ,�i '� xc�',�'� '� "' r� �c -'a's ri<�k'+r ��es„� � �''. p'• � rt�a '�,>� ?:m , �'w�„�. ' / �li' .�, � � � � '"4 fa,�.. t j�� ,f �_ � � �-��r��r _ • �"� �.. / �� l:- �f Sf''. yY . � ... �� 4�:.. .Y _{. . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals September 25, 2001 Page 6 Shaffer stated that since the applicant is replacing a deck that was non-conforming with a deck that is smaller he sees no problem with the requested variance. MUVED by Shaffer, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to approve the reques# for 1 #oot off the required 10 feet to a distance of 9 feet for the proposed deck addition at its closest point to the swimming pooL 701 Lilac Drive North (Map 12) (0 -9-43) ,��r„ Tennant Com an A ticant � �"r� .��, �;: � quest: Waiver from Section�11.36, Subd. 6 (A) Front ard_Requirements � � ., �� t��,, • 24.6 feet off the rec�uired 35 feet to a dis� ,�ce ofr'f�`0.4 feet for the parking lot at its closest poii�t to the front yard �'� oper��ine along State Highway 100. � � • 10 feet off the requi�ed 35 feet��a= i �`��e of 25 f�et for the existing parking lot at its clo�est poi�to t �.ront yard property line along State � �, ighway 55. ;; �: �� ,�,.. �, � ��```� Purpose: To allo . for the constr � ion �f ew parking lot and to bring the existing parking �t into confo ,�t�c� th rontyard setback requirements. s;%_ . . . ��;� �""""'�_ _ Request: Waiver fro � Se �' ��, . +�:"�(C) ('I} Side and Rear Yard Requiremen_ • feet o' � i ; d 50 feet to a distance of 35 feet for the existing par��lot a��t o � st point to the property li�ne along a prop�rty in the Resi e�� ing strict. �,� �.`� �,� Purpose: br `:��t' e isting pa k g lot into conformance with side and rear yard ` `��q remen#s. � , �� Requ�,st: �l:llaiverf m 3ection 1' .36, S bd. 6 (C) (2) Side and Rear Yard _�quir rnents . • 1 .5 feet off the req ired 25 feet a distance of 7.5 feet for the existing arking lot at its clos st point to th � roperty line along a praperty at 5738 Olson Memorial Hig way. 17 feet off the requir d 25 feet to a dis nce of 8 feet for the existing parking lot at its clos st point to the prop rty line along a property at 5730 Olson Memorial Hig ay. • 23.6 feet off the requ red 25 feet to a distan of 1.4 feet for the proposed parking lot at its cfos st point to the property line along a property at 623 Lilac Drive North. 6 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals 5eptember 25, 2001 Page 5 McCracke -Hunt questioned if this would be setting a new precedent o an 11-foot setback instead of a 22-foo etback on Olympia. Levey s ated the house next do as a 14-foot setback so the precedent has ready been set. McCracken-Hunt stat she would I'rke to ee more i mation on the floor plan. Shaffer stated he didn't think oard sh ul pprove the request because it would be setting a precedent. ,�.�-�' ��" Levey stated it just couldn't be done ny o way w' estroying�the low�r level of the hause. Sell stated he would rather see t applic a 10-foot addi �c�n es�ec�ia�„�r since the house next door has a 14-foot setba . st ted tha e additio. � n ��reallyz�'12 feet it's actually 11.25 feet. Sell stated he_ " justify 10 f et becaus f th��14 f� t set�iack at the house next ''�� : daor. y�.. `�.�- ��, Shaffe ed he derstands there are so e issues-u�. the`�c�� , but there aren't any real h ships on th' property. McCracken-Hu # statec�it w.o�uld help to t e the reguest until they c uld see a f or plan to understand the di ension�,�.of the rpoms. Sha sked Qlson to show the Board n aerial photo of the property at h��'n �r��g. . �;�: MO D by Shaffer, seconded by Cera and ��otion carried unanimously to continue the variance re uests to #he October 23, 2001 meet�rtg. �� 4505 Sunset Ridge (Map , 't- 2) Deborah Perkins and Rhonda Wi ins A licants Request: Waivec��'c Sec,tion 11.21, Subd. 12 (A) Accessory Buildings �., .. • � �.foo�` �ff the required 10 feet t4 a distance of 9 feet for the proposed deck �� addt#on at its clasest point to the swimmin� paol. ��,M��;, � � Purpose:��To�Ilow for the canstruction of a deck addition to the existing home. �� `�� Olson stated f�i ap cants are proposing to replace a deck on the south side of the existing home. He state � a�it was discov�red that the deck has always been less than the required 10 feet away from the pool and that is why the applicants are requesting this variance. McCracken-Hunt stated that with the privacy fence and the layout of the yard, there is not really a visual problem. Cera asked if there was a deck there previously. Rhonda Wiggins, Applicant stated that she tore the existing deck down and then found out there was a problem when she applied for the permit to build the new deck. She stated the new deck they are proposing is much smaller than the deck they tore down. 5 � a O (p �O W pWpZQ r� m M rn J � � H �Qmw � Q � �' O 'o, I I Z � �0 � N � � w � N W O WOUQQ � o 0 � Z I I � � ~ � w0� � � c~i z � � � � o z w q � CO p�p M � W20 �2 < � O W � � � � Q � Q N Q W p� � d N N � cn UX�V�F= y � Q � Z F O� �W Z> U � � \ > p (n � o � wOdcnFv � �' i� tn I= I- U _ � � �` o � �- � w> �� °z � u� � o } m � — 0 F- ti U 1-� � � Q m d" w U O o a �`�- � � af� O�� W VO " 2 Z y — a � ~ Z � J �� o `� WO=�� m? � x UQ '3 Z � m� 2 oO�O o J S �U�' Q'' W ?�"F-�Z � V C' F-- � w0 W w I�b� Q ~ �Z� V=lAZ �W Q � � � Q w O O C.� �r�a�01� F' W �W�LLJZ W g�'F-� H .. N li W W � _ �L,..I � � �� T r W � a m� �O� F' Z J a w � J � Z w w � F- Z Q ~ F}- �„i O� N�N� � H �QQ�= C�� O�� N rn O X n- � W U Z � W g w O J H Q i F-I- N � �=-tA� Z� � W� � � � Nd � Y �`- Y 0 � � 0� � C�W CJ � H Z ��.I � ZZ � � _ �O� W U�W 01-� � °w Q �U � J w Q p � � 2 � �� Q � Q O 3 x O� W x -� � �Qa W) Qp �W�- z `- c� z o (� Q c� c� � � �-+ cn ° � � c,� U g� L� U� U` Q fn W Z W Z �� F .. � I- U Z Q O r U Z � F- Z w tn }- � E � O �+- Q � Q L� � Z�= fn� W O ° � �- ° _ ° c`�n o ° � � c¢i� w� � ° = 0.� °w � Z �o � W `� ~ o �`n� � op�¢ �~ � °z fn U ?i W tn Li.. L� Q lyJ Z J � } Z � Q.' Y Y N N J � tn (!1 (n N fn (n (n (n (n(n Ul (n (n ~ Z c� � �p N � J M� � W�� Q Q C�m �0 Q � O � '�-`� � � � � � � � '�`'i � � '�� w�rn �nin cn W � II � °o?Q �WOQV�� 3 m 0 0 = o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 � Y '"� W �_ (� c�� U� z ii w �� w = U�a Z Z � Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z � a,T, >, �� Zpw� �Z �f � H�� 2 �Zj LLZO � � ww w w w wwww w wwwww w � o U � W p— o w ov� _ o w w Q oo � 00000n0000000o q �c°�rn W �� n O �wQ� �y uo�o � oLLZO?ooWoo� � � F� Z � m�F-Q t-H� � �()W F- (�J ,_Wj �W �7 W I I j �-1 mc Q�' °Z� �^ ��z Q � ¢aFp�VaW�� U � � � ° � I ��0 � � � �-F' W �aw ~ Z�'JJ � ��'-' W °°cnF- av�cn�v�� W � W , cv � w�� _�� ao O �zz �w=> ��F- `° �-1 I I o �x � o xi--oo , a a ¢ a �a � a J2W �.,i W22 F.�j WOFI- W N= ,� � CVO'i � ,� � I � � Z o � � ., � _ � � � � � Z z > � I �'+ � � �' W � �-- � � o 0 � o � � � 2� -�, I i�i Z � I OS � �-- � Q p :_: Z a "i`y U W �� 0. '-- � p O � �, ,� �.- - - - - - �__ - - - - - - - - _ � � a /I I �_� � I � � � / �� i � / � � � I Q I � � � I � <�i /� � c�'� � I I I 1 1 � I ' I I 1 � � i � � � r. I •`f I � 9'bf l „61,60.IG�-� � -, I �� ° - � - � f � ❑— — — �� s� 1 I � � ' ' -� I � �� I - Il �T--- -� �� o � � Jp� � �\ �„_�_�� ; �\ �\ 88.\ l � � � r�` N � I �4i �O�p �� \__� - --�_---_-� �� 1 \`I � 1 � rcai m � � q h ��g \� � �'°= N �\ --- \ee �\ I ' ' � � o� N � I � � Q' ,� 88� •_� '98&� \�� B. T� � � � � N d, I � � �---,� � � �� / � W� � � � q '��8e Q � Z gl �8\ \\ � �J l � � Q 4 WWW� � � _-� � � `� �� `� T�� I �W ° � T/� I ''��S$9� � /"\ � � ��J W� �l � � ♦_� ��'Z �� 7 �+ � t � �j �'' � �(� � �8 O l s� y � I r� � �. �n V t�i / .---�""'t3�4��i_ ��0�� \ � ^ � __ / 3 o z '�"�, �° �`T�^.J �"'�-�- � ��,� ro „\ ��l � � p _� � a a Y�y I � �vl o''�'�'� �-- cy \ ��Ql� � � �,' $ I �� :*� z �� s � i � ` ' ael � r i � �` , y� Z �� ` as . d I , ', �' ,' t 2,-_ ��-, , i , � o , a 1 <,��." � .i �� / � �� . �ot „ 9• � , v vl.v � o� � �, � ;g `� � � . � � I` 6s�_ ^� , ,� r . �r � <3 �, � �` o r �i I � �^ ' ^ ' I�J I � ,� � Q� y�� h� � �Z T � . :, �v � �9 �� h^�, �#i: :.,J: v v � 1 e �� / �� - , , ° � �� ° �;�v� o � � ;� � � �� ^'/ 'i ' e� �� 'p a j � ' ? � F� I � '� � � °,� �oW�, �% i �ii� � x I >< j � / � � W�� \ sQ s . � �j � � � V/ / � _.l / / N �--� � � I.y �'s� ° „ �i l � N �+ I =o j � I N �� aab� / � cV _� / O � � � / ;-- j � �yz �\ h�----1''� / � o E.., I l j ��%� j o �� SO � j $Z � j� L�, � X � i � �. . � '-f= � / Cr�n / / L1J C� �ZZ � �� -$8� � V1 J I n / ,�/cu��j � 3 -_-D'� I � I _ I��SgB--� � � I � e�g'� r � `6a.�'•` �09' \ `\-- �. �__ ��g8�3'' w u �'� / �� ! / � \ ?iy �___ � JgGO ,� E-i �.o c �a � '� 1 \� � 2 y I � �'� � � �s ' I r � D 9��=O -- � '� - �`8q1' 3 �-�-.� �r- �"�-�`. / I `• � l ;� � ��--��Sls� 3,S,O,gp � '�, -- g�' � ��. � � .._ / �------�\�N / ��o.n� � � a �� -� __b6g_ O II ��: � ��.' AA.� l� . L�J _�� -� Q�_ t �.��4 W: $ i � 1 '�� _ ��Q�: �[) � � .,r".a: � $ �l' L 1 J � i iy .� � $ � -_� �_ � tV E. � �� G � �i_ � N � �i ��,n u �> �� --• / h � � � C � � � "§�iW •=- J� � u�, �. �' �..� . E = 1 � I l.� � �„-Ki p.� ,� � '.. � � : L 1 J �� a i ��°.�.{� ♦ i ,� a" `' �_— �O� �� . � m S (7� \ I � ��.�.:e �� / � / °�� ...� � � r p! � � I � �° �.� � / � . � � �,� / / I .� � � } �"1�� C)� � _ #:>��. �=�, �� , __., ,., , � � ;� . Pianning Department ' - - - 763 593-8095/763 593 8109(fax) . . .. ... v _�3ti . _ . . . . . . Date: February 20, 2p13, To: Board of Zoning Appeals From: Brett Angell, Planning Intern Subject: 2944 Perry Ave N. Scott lorgenson, Applicant Background Scott Jorgenson, owner of the property at 2944 Perry Ave N., is seeking a variance from City Code to allow far the construction of a second stall to the garage. The proposal requires a variance to allow the south side setback to be reduced from 12.5 feet to 5 feet. No prior variances have been obtained for this property. Variance The proposal requires a variance from the following section of City Code: • Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(3)(b)Side Setback Requirement. City Code requires that the side yard setback be located no less than 12.5 feet from the property line for properties greater than 65 feet and less than 100 feet in width. The applicant is seeking 7.5 feet off of the required 12.5 feet to a distance of 5 feet from the closest point of the proposed attached garage addition to the south side property line. � �^' � 3742 3i25 � 3124 3f25 � i � . , �i�s r �� - € `—`-w�._.� � % ? /� 3t38 3it5 ; 3tt4 3tt5 �`-•-...�� J . / � 49571] ' . ^� � J�. E 3t�5 �i f � 482� � � � t � ,, 3t�4 3tf7t ' 3td10 3101 � � 3 � � �" 492Q r, � � ; �`.,,.� ,�" �------.,_ � i ? 3 ,� 3it7d7 � _r �,,,P.�--.'''�"' � �„ ..y �.. ._._ _ �. �.. .� .�. ,�. .� _. �....� ».�._ ... ,._ �.. .�. �. TriGan[7r_ _ ..., �,. .�.� .� �� `�' - 8 � ! � � . „�.—f`"'��..-�-`" _ ..-. -� y 3 6 ` ,� , ~ �� "' ; 302$ 3025 � 3p2f3 3Q25 �. -r .mo �- � � � g _. � ., -- �,._-- � _.---"�'"`--�'� � 49t11 � . �� /'�"�� A923 � 3U18 � �� 3d737 � r 493F ` ? �� Subject Property � � �� ,� ao�o �- _______..._ _�_��_�_._� , ' E �� '�' � 3L1�� 3tJi19 � 3t�U� 3UL1� s � � � � �� r �,..� �"'�� 4920 49UU r � E � ��Q � ,'��rri f. ��i ' { . ,� 494t7 @ �i�',/�if�i�!f 2J45 ' 294fi 2945 � �944 � � � �ii��f/�i�iil� � � , 5 _..��_ � ...., ^� •-� /�lf/f�,f�/�/r'/fi� � & 2:��ii�;!;��il;jifi ' d�748 ��. , � �. .� , � �" : � i � � 4 ��="�~ X il(,1�4}�. � � m� �.—,.,^ ' iJY,� GJY�J '� ��c <��J �.'�. ��.,C�e}3 i � ,y .,�,,. � �_.._..- . ... (j �J-�'. -. . ., d, j,,.� > <°°. tb ' w � 2J45 E x� '-r m c: ---�`� � 294t� � � — �, : 294C1 294t ;i 2940 2�J4t � 29A 1 °" � `" , � 2937 $ � " � -'� 3 2936 � R � 2937 > 299fi 2937 293'! � � �: � �e s ; r '�--- � � 2925 � � 293$ 4 d �"'~�� 2924 � 2924 2925 � 2925 � � 2J25 � � � � � �1 � � � ? .�'� .... h 2'9#2 29t3 , ��,� � � y ��,� ��,� �� ,� __��.� 3 � � , '1 � zs�o 2so, Zsc�� zs�, 2sa� z�o� 1 2so, � � I , � �. , �.._ �. � s ��,��.i.,:�vc�as,�ax,*�,�rete�tec�uc�s�s �„ ,�q.�� .� _.a .m _ ..��brer t�:� —. � � � �, ,�� . � �� . �.. .,. . ,�.,,. _ M.� _. � .��,_ �_.� ,. _. city o� o�d en � va e toning Code Variance Applicafion 1. Street address: 2944 PERRY AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY MN 55422 2. Applicant Information: Name: SCOTTJORGENSON Address: 2944 PERRY AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY MN 55422 Email Address: scottjorgenson3@gmaif.com Phone Number: 612-31Q4225 3. Provide a detailed description of need for a variance from the Zoning Code, including: • Description of building(s) • Description of proposed addition(s) • Description of proposed alteration(s)to property We are askinq for a zoninq code variance that wou/d a/low us to build a two car qarape where a sinQle car qarac�e currentiv exists on our propertv. Current citv codes repuire that i Z•$� � buildinq and structures be setback at a minimum of�feet from propertv line. We are respectfully repuestinp that a variance be qranted to allow us to qo within 5 feet of the propertY line and thus convert our sinq/e car paraqe into a two car paraqe. 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 landowner. • do not alter the essential character of the locality. To demonstrate how your request uvill comply with Minnesota State Statute 462.357, pfease respond to the following questions: fxplain the need for your variance request and how it will result in a reasonable use of the property. This variance would allow us to build a 2 car paraqe space where a sinqle car paraQe currently exists. This variance would allow us keea the aaraqe in the same location on the propertv and maintain the charm and characrer of a 1950's rambler. The desipn of this parage addition was specificallv chosen to keep& maintain the charm and character of the neiahborhood and reflecr the current 2 car familv needs of present dav construction. What is unique about your property and how do you feel that it necessitates a variance? When the home was oriqinafly built in 1948 most families had only one car and thus sinqle car garaqes were constructed to reflect the needs of families at that time. Given present dav family needs, 2 car families are the norm, not the exception as both parents usually work. Explain how the need for a variance is based on circumstances that are not a result of a landowner action. _We own 2 cars. Two car parapes reflect the needs of current families and are not the result of landowner aciion. Explain how,if granted,the proposed variance will not alter the essenfial character of your neighborhood and Golden Valley as a whole. We have attached an initial ser of drawinQS that will reflect the charm and character we are trvinq to achieve with this home addition. Our qoal is to maintain the charm and character of the home and keep the feel of the neiqhborhood we have come to/ove. 5. The City requests that you consider all available project optiQns 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 public hearing. Please describe alternate ways to do your project that do not require variances to the Zoning Code. We could move our entire home over 10 feet to allow enouph space for the proposed 2 car _paraae or build detached two car parape setback and behind our current home. Both options, while possible, we feel are not economical nor would thev maintain the character and charm of the home and neiqhborhooaf. 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 i5 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 attaeh a printed photograph to this application, or you may email a digital image to plannin�@�oldenvallevmn.�ov. You may submit additional photographs as needed. To the best of my knowledge the statements found in this application are true and correct. I also understand that uniess construction of the action applicable to this variance request,if granted,is not taken within one year,the variance expires. 1 have considered all options afforded to me through the City's Zoning Code,and feel that there is no alternate way to achieve my objective except to seek a variance to zoning rules and regulafions. 1 give permission for Golden Vatley staff,as well as members,. Board of Zoning Appeals,to s' enter my property prior to the public hearing to inspect the�-area a ed��iy this request. �.,�.rt,:::�,m r'� � r'� � ��,. ��M1 - yd� ;Sigha�ur�of A��licant _ ��'�.,,�--_...--': If the applicant is not the owner of all property involved in_�..is application, please name the owner of this property: �'� �.. -`� t ,,. }J , �c�,� J �:�qsz�S�� F�. ...-.r�, .J � , f` Print Name of owner ture of uur"�ner `; ,� , .._�..__.----`"; $150 Application Fee Attached (for Single Family Residential) $250 Application Fee Attached (for all other Zoning Districts} Please note: The City of Go/den Valley will send notice of your variance request to all adjoining property owners as well as owners of properties directly across streets or alleys. Your neighbors have the right to address the Board of Zoning Appeals at your public hearing. You are advised to personal/y contact your neigh6ors and explain your project to them prior to the public hearing. �N � '� d� � 9�i; 1� .{ 1��•/�� t E f. . �i � .��a._�. �. ,�•� : q�-.., �� 1 1� ,►, �.� �• � , >y ;•..y. I L� ,� �� jbl � � �� , '° �' �i� � � • �� l � : � f • .r"'i.�— '�'1�, ,, . : � 9s. +-' � �� %'r , �..��. ��.�� . �. : � ►.� : A�` e �. ' �iMlt;:! y`�.� � • � � � „ / � � � 'L'!' .. �':•i�.. \[ �9�"�• �4�Tl'r`s xf'�� I ''► I. y~�y. S' .M a / . . � ` Oi � !'� K ��1 \ � � � � , !� ��M��-S � ;% F�'1� �� . '�� ' w�"ot� �ai�d �� ,`,t�\ f ;l�. �� 1 a4� � •�L`# ,l/v . .k� '�..p, �k .�+� ' .: '',,q,5 � ��~�� }.�y � �/� '/ ,� �� q: � �f�:` ,:� Y aM��,(_.I .F ��; a�y...,.ay �. ',,.�:. .�� T'� i�l�- .„�'.'. �. 1 i�.. .�� 4k..� � ,�-... ( . 1: .�� . — �_ �. °��.�{� �:�� . ...i ?..:.i "':j�._ �r�� J r � .... Y � ...... # . � •+LS' g )� }� �'�a�-. �.�sF.� R � � r �, - ' '�i.. ;� ��,�," - . .. - f��. „ . . , • . :•. . . :: >��.� . , �,, '� ;,iy� ;w., �,3. � .. . . � .... � , .. . u� : � �. � ,. , i�� ':.'°`�'��x,�+�l ar, ,x S� � �.k '�, \U „` � P ,�I � � .� ^x"�.,; �'wp,��::� � 4 ` � ��' .� _ �� _ ` .h � � .��. � � .. .. �J y,�,• ,��i � �' 4 rr,�w ,'r¢ . �. � rs` i�`: .. ,�, �� p k�� +/�`�� .,}��:.'� � ��e.r� ' �� . . . t r y •�` • - ' /:. :.,�' ,�,.. �.� ' ';. 7� �.4 ��N';��. w��' . �I.� N .,^ �� e. R"�, ��w . � ��. .� .� .� j•,� , .I, � r y,p � `� _ '` !• ,, ...,. . �� , ,� �,� y �, �� ,�'� ,:xa• r � �f , r �. � r� ��1 `` '�� ,�+� 1 `'' � k�i� � � `� � ;��;,�►"'� � �:s � �h`f � � :� � °� �� t:� f , � '/ ►' � ; td � � � '',� *'Aw� �� ',��j� � �` � ' � '�- ,E.�� r. . '� � \ ��' ?. � ' i •��'. Building Permit Survey Prepared for. Scott Jorgenson . , . I ' I I N89 42'28"W I I � X a9�.o 131.99 (meos.) 132 plat) � �� g�3 8`q�9 � �`��A X 892� �g�' � ^ I I I �; a; I � � I I � � �-------------- 66.3 -------i------I 5 -I � C �9� 9`�,g I I � I W U � I I � �! � ' c � �j "� r r�'�� a� �� W � � ��` � I W I � o � � , � � � Existing House i � ,00 � ----- 34.5 ------► FFE=895.4� i I I r�' � p p � i I I"1 � Z � � � ( �� ----- 34.6 ------= O i a a . � � Concrete Sidewalk x 893.0 i I ^I� O _ _ _ .a a . � - - _ � _ � - � �I O _ � � 8g06 � a 2 i � I� � ,9RO � �9�• i �j � w � I I- \I I - c�,° 6`i�vminous Dr'iveway Exisfing Garoge o 5 ('� � v e ` GFE=894.8' ,�2 $g`Lg °� � I a. ° ; . �� 9 x "� � � ag�6 d,�g ------------- 65.7 -----i----- � � � � � I � i �' � a` ' � �.� i � a g �� 26 ,� �� x�8-'. ' �y`' ` 3 6 x --°--• �9 89 89 � N89 42'28"W R� , �� --Chain link fence I I I ( 132.02 (meos.) 132 (plat) I I Legend � • Found lron Monument Boundary Description: x 000.0 Exisfing Elevation The North 38 feef of Lot 18 and the South 57 feet � Manhole of Lot 19, Block 3, WDODLAWN PARK, according to fhe recorded plat fhereof, Hennepin County, Minnesofo. �� Power Pole Subject to ony ond oll easements of record. Reference Benchmark: Top Nut Hydrant at NW corner Lot 20. SCALE Elevation=895.26 (per City of Golden I/alley) 20 0 �0 2o ao 1 inch = 20 feet Bearings bosed on assumed datum. Job Number: 7496 SCHOBORG � hereby ce�tify that this certificate of survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and Book/Page: 76/12 thaf l am a duly Registered Land Surveyo� under the LAD SERYICES �Ows of the Sf te of Mi sofa. Su�vey Dote: 10-22-12 Orawing Name: jorgenson.dwg - 'N�. --------- Drawn by. KLB ------ ---- ------ —9 Paul B. Schobor Revisrons: 763-972-3221 8997 Co. Rd. 13 SE ((�'�'�c^ �Q� www.SchoborqLand.com Delano, MN 55328 Date: ___ ___,l_______ Regrst�ofion No. 14700 � 131.99' � 1 r_____-_____-_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ m x � z fD � 0 � � � � m � w D , °o fD � C (D Z , I � �,- - .,-�-�_,�� - --.,-�.. - ----- - - - �.. � � , .`: ::. ti 5,c>.'�� . '�. `t`�' �� 3T� "``. �.-� 4'��,��\ti�.. � �.��_�% \,'� .,�`. �� `,\� 1' • � �� `•,.,ti �� // � ,�� ;� , _ � �A /, , w t v. 4 � 4 4 �Y �/I��`` ��I�� 4� - � l -�..,i , .. •tl 1_<_x_x_ ___'__._1_',.�_>_ _ t_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._. ._._._._._._._._. '_._'_._"'.'._._'_'_._'__-._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.i � 41.80' �, 66.14' I '� o N� � N X �p � W N y � O Q O � "O tD � � ... .,� � W � �'I �c�lerte The Jorgenson Residence �. Gompany, �-I�� , 2944 Perry Avenue North N - -- Golden Valley, MN 55422 514 W_39"'Street gY: DATE TITLE REV Minneapolis,MN 55409 CSG 1.8.13 SITE PLAN 1 Tel.:612.822.2474 Fax:692.822.0144 �^'E 1in=20ft.Oin. SHEET � . �� s 0 c � m � ::•:::•::•:•::�:::•:::•:� � \ I � � � N � A p � � � N m — ._. ,�. . . .�. 24'-7 3!4" \\ !� _ �\ /% � � �- -� f=- i �� j �� / \ / 1 / 1 ��le�g�e The Jorgenson Residence & - ��p�y, L� 2944 Perry Avenue North -- Goiden Valley, MN 55422 N 514 W.39�'Street BY: �ATE TITLE REV tutinneapo�is,rotN 55�tos CSG 1.8.13 EXISTING GARAGE PLAN 1 Tei.:612.822.2474 Fax:612.822.0144 sc"1E '�/$"_'�'-Q" SHEET 2 ' Storage Cubbies 3 ' _ a a 0 3 Stora e� .......................... N � � _ ,w' _"__"_'_____'_'___� m - :.� -�_ � �� A � 6 O O , � _ = I �',--- �� ' !k \\ // � \ �� J cn _.,-.,__,_ J--- ,_ o-1 � __ _________ • � , � � �/ �� m ' a e�o;g _._._._._._._._._._._.l _._._._._._._._._._._._._._ � 32'-0" � mcn x� su - � � m o v =� o n o � � ��lett� The Jorgenson Residence ��p��i g-� 2944 Perry Avenue North �� Golden Valley, MN 55422 N 514 W.39'"Stteet BY: DATE TITLE REV Minneapotis,MN 55409 CSG 1.8.13 NEW GARACaE PLAN 1 Tel.:612.8222474 Fau:612.822.0144 S�^� 1!8"=1'-0" sHeET 3 � X � m ={ m � a m � r z � O z ... � •: � �� -_�� ;"-° I �o��t�� The Jorgenson Residence & ��p�y� L� 2944 Perry Avenue North — Golden Valley, MN 55422 514 W.39"'SVeet BY DATE TITLE REV Minnaapolis,MN 554os CSG 1.8.13 EXTERIQR ELEVATIONS 1 Tel.:612_8222474 Fax:612.822.0144 SCAL£ '��8��=1�-O�� SHEET 4