The URL can be used to link to this page

12-19-13 BZA Agenda Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Thursday, December 19, 2013 7 pm 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers I. Approval of Minutes — October 22, 2013 Regular Meeting II. The Petition(s) are: 1800 Mendelssohn Ave. N. Danette & Marlin Henrikson, Applicants (13-12-22) Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3)(c) Side Yard Setback Requirements • 5 ft. off of the required 12 ft. to a distance of 7 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a deck/lift addition on the south side of the existing home. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 19 Paved Area Requirements • 3 ft. off of the required 3 ft. to a distance of 0 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new driveway along the side yard (south) property line. III. Other Business IV. Adjournment ' This dacument is availabie in al#ernate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call 763-593-800b(TTY; 7b3-543�3968}to make a request. Examples af aiternate formats rnay include large print,electronic,Braille,audiocassette,etc. Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 22, 2013 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, October 22, 2013 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Maxwell called the meeting to order at 7 pm. �,�� Those present were Members, Fonnest, Johnson, Ma�vell, Nelson and �lannmg;��., Commission Representative McCarty. Also present were City Planne� Jt��.Hogebc�c�m and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. ��' `�� a� �� -�� I. Approval of Minutes —August 27, 2013 Regular Meet�ng� ,=a� �'"� . �� .: x� MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Fonnest and motion carried un��imau��x�o approve the August 27, 2013 minutes as submitted. �� !� �� = s' F�> II. The Petition(s) are: ,� � � � �� 4615 Roanoke Road ��_��E=�� r � Kent Ashlev & Gina Berthiaume�;;Applic��ints (�1I��9-19) �� . ��,, � �== ��, Request: Waiver from Se��on '��I 2�1;;'Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requir�ir'�ents , . � t� ,g • 5 ft. off of the requii�ed��Q�ff ��p�a distance of 15 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north�`properfiy line'��G Purpose: To��1�,� for�th�; construction of a second story addition on a portion of the existing house��,� � � R3 a�� ck` � _x. Re est V1i�i�er��om Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(�`�leight Li�i��itions �a ` z$��;, _> • 1{;�ft.'��ler than the allowed 25 ft. for a total height of 26.5 ft. along the front ��G�� (stre�t si+��) of the property. Hogeb� �� o�iir't� explained the applicant's request to build a second story addition on the north side of`the existing home. He explained that the side yard setback requirement for this property is 15 feet. However, the side yard setback increases once the height of the house is greater than 15 feet, so in this case, the side yard setback requirement for the second story addition is 20 feet. He also explained that the applicant is asking for a variance for the height of the house to be 1.5 feet taller than the allowed 25 feet (for a flat roofl along the front (street side) of the property. Nelson asked about the height regulations for a house with a pitched roof. Hogeboom said a pitched-roof house can be 28 feet in height as measured to the midway point of the highest gable. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 22, 2013 Page 2 Dave Johnson, representing the applicant, explained that the architect drew the plans the way they are shown in order to match the rest of the home. He said he realized the proposal would need a variance while going through the building permit process and they considered several other design options but they will not work. Maxwell asked if the second floor addition would be flush with the wall of the first floor. Dave Johnson said yes. He explained that they considered a design that met the setback requirements for the proposed second story, however, it took away the ability to install a staircase to access the second floor. � � ,�� McCarty asked if the variance request regarding the height would stil� be n eded if� e side yard setback requirement was met. Dave Johnson said yes a �''state'��that on��:��a small section of the proposed second story addition is too tall ;�� :�, �� `�� P � :��, Nelson asked if the current home is a two-bedroom home. Kent As�i[�f ., App��cant, stated that it is a three-bedroom home. Two of the bedre��ms are:on t�� mar'n level and one is downstairs. Dave Johnson added that the applicant h�s a growing family and needs more space. # := : ��; .. `�� ,� ° ,; �p, �. Maxwell explained the criteria the Board considerse�rhen rev��wing variance requests. He said he understands that the applicant c�n'# �har��e whe�,�the existing house sits or when it was built. Ashley explained that dt��'to tt�� slo�"��a,��t�e lot only about two feet of the house is taller than 25 feet. Dave JoHi��on�aadde.d�that the backyard is fairly flat and the neighbors are a considerable d��ta`�� av►��r and°h��ie no windows facing this house. � � ��' �� $� Nelson referred the criteria �� r�� st consider and stated that she feels the variance is in harmony wh��he p��os�e �nd intent of�the ordinances, the variance is consistent with the Compre��ns�t�e Plan,��He request is reasonable, the slope of the lot �� sa., is a unique circumstance ancl t�� variance won't alter the essential character of the locality. She added t��f any othe'r t�pe of design would have the same impact. 3x ��& Andy Johnson asld�� th�� pplicant why he couldn't add on to the back of house instead of adding �=��cgnd level��i�shley stated that they have an existing patio they'd like to keep. A��o,�lie neig�tp��ng:backyards are open and building into the backyard would be more iri� ,act�u� to the neighbors. He added that there would also be added costs and ex�sting win��rs`i�irQ,uld be covered. He reiterated that they have extensively explored other=aptions. �axwell asked if there are trees in the backyard that would need to be remov��.¢Ash��j� said yes, there is at least one large oak tree and a lof of landscaping that would't�ave to be removed if they added on to the back of their house. Maxwell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Maxwell closed the public hearing. Fonnest said thinks the proposal is completely understandable and acceptable. McCarty agreed and said that since the second floor addition is staying on the same plane as the existing house he doesn't think there will be a big impact on the neighboring properties. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 22, 2013 Page 3 MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Fonnest and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variance requests: • 5 ft. off of the required 20 ft. to a distance of �5 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line to allow for the construction of a second story addition on a portion of the existing house. • 1.5 ft. taller than the allowed 25 ft. for a total height of 26.5 ft. along thc��i��a�t�street side) of the property. �� . � �� , � �� :- �, �� €: 1315 Angelo Drive ��£fv � �� ' � ` ��.' �� ? Mohammad & Mariam Vedadi, Applicants (13-09-20�� Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Fa��ily Zoning D��tr�ct, Subd. 11(A)(3(b) Side Yard Setback Requirements '_ �� , ��t � � b ? sm� ��°.:' ��G�S�a ¢ � F{`� • 9.5 ft. off of the required 12.5 ft. to a di�t�nce of�3 �t. at its�closest point to the side yard (north) property line. �� d��k��.�§ a� ,f� � z ��1�� . .�€� Purpose: To allow for the constr��kion o�� garage/bedroom addition to the existing house. .�� ; i;. �� °1�� Hogeboom stated that the applrca�t curr�titly h�� one-stall garage and is seeking a side �_.� yard variance in order to exp �� ti+��;�ge with living space above. He explained that the applicants received a vari ��fo� he s me proposal in 2009, however, it was not acted upon so it expired after orr��' � ear.�� ',�, ��,�� Maxwell asked abou��1�� ize ��l�e proposed garage addition. McCarty noted that the application states tha��he'" �ar�ge will be 12 feet wide. �;�� "�:�' Nelson no�� that� � variance ranted in 2009 allowed the ara e to be 4.5 feet from the ��_ ��_, :.� J 9 9 north side �I��rs lin�. Hogeboom agreed and added that the north wall of the existing garage is:_r�ot�arallel i��the property line so the proposed new garage would be further away from t�� p��erty line at the back corner. Fonn� est asked= bout the width of the lot at the front of the garage. Hogeboom stated that the lot is��mately 75 feet wide at the front. Maxwell explained to the applicants that since their previous variance approval in 2009 the laws regarding variances have changed. The Board no longer considers hardships they have to consider practical difficulties. He asked the applicants what they consider to be unique about their property. Lynne Shears, White Crane Construction, representing the applicant, explained that any addition to the garage would encroach into the setback area. She noted that the property backs up to a wetland area so building further back on the lot is not desirable. She added Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 22, 2013 Page 4 that the existing garage is also a one-stall tuck under with a slope on the north side which makes it more complicated. Mohammad Vedadi, Applicant, explained that the initial survey from 2009 showed that they had 12 feet of side yard area along the north side of the property. At that time they were granted a variance to build a garage addition 4.5 feet from the north side property line. After the variance was approved they realized that the variance they received would only allow them to construct a 19-foot wide garage which would not work and would not be functional. °k��,� , Shears explained that there are multiple issues regarding the constructi� � of th��arage. The ceiling height is only T2" and when the retaining wall is taken out the�rlvi�l��need b��r�s and � : posts where the cars would be parked. ��xi ��3 �� b � �� Vedadi stated that in 2009 they did not hire an architect before t{�� r�qt�ested a"�ariance and now they realize that the request they made in the past wa��not_��ausibl�ox�-le added that the survey has been corrected since then and that they �t�ve 15,�e�et oi��'yard area along the north side of the property where they thought they hadsl2 fee�,�e `� � ,4�� 'f�� ' ��e Maxwell asked the applicant if the existing exterio�structur�lTblock"wall will be removed. Shears said no and explained that that wall has to:k�ear weig�t�t so it can't be removed but there will be a partial opening of the wall be#;vfieen f1��two garage stalls. McCarty stated that removing the entire wall between the gar��e sta11� antl��I�[ng columns would make the space more open. Shears agreed that they.coutt��dd columns but it would be difficult to park cars in the space. << � �� :�;. McCarty said he is trying to under�}�nd ��iat is��if�erent with this proposal than the one approved in 2009. Vedadi S��fed��at t� e key difference is that in 2009 they didn't realize that the size of the garage the�rqwere g��nte�:approval to build would be too small to be functional and that they wou�dn't�� able��d open their car doors. Shears added that the garage still needs to� � �� retair�mg wall which is restrictive. fl 5 Fonnest referre��to th�e��hc�fio� submitted with the application and asked if the tree shown to the side of the exis#�ng �ai�age would be impacted by the proposed new addition. Vedadi stated that��si�n won'# hinder the tree but that they might remove it because it is unhealth`y. onn�sf ��1��c� �f the neighbor's tree will be impacted. Vedadi said that tree is no longer ther� vb� ecause it was lost during the last storm. L�k 3£ � � �� .�{?r Veda`�#i said tli��question is whether to expand their garage or move. He stated that the house�vvith on� �arage stall will be very difficult to sell or will devalue it significantly. He said they wanf t��stay in their house and it will be more valuable with a two-stall garage. Shears agreed that a two-stall garage is more appropriate for this neighborhood. Maxwell opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to comment, Maxwell closed the public hearing. McCarty said this is a difficult request in his opinion and he's not sure he understands the dimensions that have been discussed. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 22, 2013 Page 5 Johnson stated that the proposed garage won't alter the character of locality but he didn't see any other homes in the area that were this close to the side yard property line and were as tall as the proposed addition would be. McCarty agreed that the proposed addition is close to the property line but that he would like the applicants to be able to have a second garage stall. Nelson agreed that a second garage stall is important and will be an improvement to the property. She stated that the proposed new garage addition would only be 3 feet away from the property line at its closest point and will get further away from the property line as the garage goes back. She acxid��that this property should have a two-stall garage and where they are proposing to��ild it°��,really the only the place they can. _ � _�� x' ��; k��; Vedadi stated that their existing garage is 12 feet wide inside an��eir c��d`ot��s�s: n only be opened about 50 to 60% of the way. He stated that if they built��th� prc��osed s�ond garage stall any smaller they literally won t be able to open their car d��-s � = 4 ,_ ,J � d � 8a�� r. i ('- � $��. ' Johnson stated that a 2-story, 20-foot long wall that is 3 ��et �wa��firom t�fi� property and has never been there before is going to have an impac��th��neigh��r� g property. Shears stated that the house on the neighboring property [s 17 fe��way fir��`n the property line and that there will still be 20 feet between the finro horr�'�s. Vedad�:stated that only 9 feet of the garage is above ground so the new addition vuv�'t b� 20 feet tall. Also, it won't be just a garage sitting there if will be a full house �tlditior �whicfi�a�y�ll,be visually more pleasing. McCarty said a deck on top of a flat roof garage;��i�l�t not be as impactful. Nelson noted that � the Board has given similar variance��ar�x�ar��e a�cfitid�ns in the past. ,�� `�� ;:. McCarty said he is still struggling t�'f�gur��&out the math and what exactly changed befinreen this proposal and the one a�°�i=o� �� 009. Vedadi explained that in 2Q09 they thought there was onl y 12 feet of ��e yar��s pa ��available. The surve y has since been updated and they really have 15 feet of s�� r�d spac�Eavailable. McCarty questioned how the plans are �� different. Vedadi said:the plan��re essentially the same but the variance granted in 2009 didn't work because the`�� nc��k�ey were granted would not allow them to build a wide enough garage �le sta��d��#��proposal is not bigger and still has the same amount of interior space. Sfiears�r��erated �hat everyone thought the plans approved in 2009 would work, but iti�ur��d out the�arage addition as approved then was not buildable. �� a� ��t 3 � �>��ti�;�, Maxwell s�;�l h��hinks h�meowners should have a two-stall garage if possible. He stated tha�;the app��nt��ed to make the original variance they were granted work bufi it was not possik�� . He s��d he thinks the applicanYs plan is reasonable and is consistent with the Compr��ensiv�,�Plan. He added that where the house sits on the lot is unique, this applicant didn't build t�e house originally and that tuck under garages create certain issues. He said he thinks a two-stall garage is more essential to the character of locality than a one- stall garage. Nelson agreed. She said she wishes the proposed second garage stall wasn't so close to the property line but that the Board has approved similar variances for garage space in the past. Johnson stated that this proposed addition is potentially impacting what the neighboring property can do to their house in the future and reiterated that there will be an imposing wall along the north property line that doesn't exist now. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 22, 2013 Page 6 McCarty said it seems like the applicant would only need a 4.5-foot variance because they gained 3 feet of side yard space with the amended survey. He said he knows that having only one garage stall is difficult but he is not sure what the cost of a allowing a finro-stall garage will be to the neighbor. Nelson said if the proposal was for anything other than garage space she would agree. Fonnest asked the applicant if his variance request is all or nothing. Vedadi said yes because if they build it any further away from the side yard property line they would end up with a very small, non-functioning space. Fonnest said he agrees that this s�n��a perFect situation but that most properties in this neighborhood have a finro-stall �, ��ge sc�� e is supportive of the applicant's request. �� .� ��fl� �� MOVED by Fonnest, seconded by Nelson to approve the varian��'� requ��t for�.5��t:'off of the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 3 ft. at its closest point�t�O�i:fi� s�� yard (no�h) property line to allow for the construction of a garage/bedroom�additi�j� to the��xisting �� house. ��, , . ` ��}� °;,, McCarty stated that this proposal is really more th��;� g�r ge�i��r� a �econd story as well. He reiterated that he thinks a flat roof deck over the ��irage w��1d be I��s impactful and would still get the applicant a second garage stall Maxw� I stated t��t it is a tuck under garage so it � is like adding basement space, not a tall s�c�on�! �t�'�� Nelso��said she thinks that building a � garage with no living space above it wo��be a ega�r��,�l�t�a��well agreed with Nelson. � ,��k��t ; The motion carried 3 to 2. Maxwell,��'�'�i�est�a�d Nels�ir�'�voted yes. Johnson and McCarty voted no. � , ��r� ��;� �,��<<.. �� o�,� �� }5eq � t „f ��3 t�t�A �� i�� . 3900 Glenwood �4��nue �� e�� David Strand, Applicant i'�`3-09-21) Request: Wa��r�#� S� = ion 11.21, Sin le Family Zoning District, Subd. � D 9 12(A)(1)��cessa� ��t'ri��#ure Location Requirements �� • fi,e ro osed p��ol would not be located completely to the rear of the � � �t=� � � �� pr�l��pa��'��ure as required. ��t� � � �: ��;& Purpo�e T��Ilow for the construction of a pool. � p ��, �� =� F�� .��' Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 12(��)�`�I) Accessory Structure Location Requirements • The proposed pool house would not be located completely to the rear of the principal structure as required. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a pool house. Hogeboom reminded the Board that this applicant received variances at the August Board of Zoning Appeals meeting in order to build a new house on the property and to locate a pool Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 22, 2013 Page 7 and a pool house in front of the home instead of behind the home as required. He stated that as the applicant got further along in the design process he realized that the location of the pool and pool house needed to change slightly. Since variances are based on the plans submitted, the applicant is now requesting new variances based on the changes he is proposing. David Strand, representing the applicant, stated that the existing house has been removed. He explained that he is proposing to move the pool and pool house further west on the property. He referred to a site plan and pointed out the location of the poo��rtd;�ool house on the previous plans and on the proposed new plans. ��_�' e��,. �� , Maxwell asked why the location of the pool and pool house need tc��ang��Strand��tated one reason is that there is an electrical pole that would cost betw�en $5,000��C�d $�5,000 to move. He said another reason is that an auto pool cover only wor��o�,a`rectangular pool and the pool they proposed in the past was L-shaped. Kelly Pliillips;��pplica��added that moving the pool to the west helps them get out of the tre�� cano��as vu��g�§ k� �i. Nelson asked if the location of the pool is the only thi�g��n��rand explained that they are proposing to move the pool to where the pool��ouse v��and ��lrove the pool house closer to the driveway. s� �� , � McCarty asked if the pool house will be the sam�'size: 5��d�said yes. He explained that once the house was removed and the grad� was��overed they realized they were cramming the pool too close to the p��k.=He ncited t�i�at the pool will still be located 56 feet away from the front property line�� a� �� ,� F . �� ° � Johnson referred to the ap}�k%�atiQn��v�rli�re it states that there is a big grade difference on the properly and asked what that me�ns. St�and explained that a person looking at the house from the street won't be ab�� e the p�ool or the pool house. Phillips added that the goal is the meld the look of their prop��y into the park. � � Fonnest asked �iow far:�o tk��he pool and pool house are shifting. Strand stated that ��, the pool house wo�l,d shif� approximately 22 feet to the west and that the pool would shift approxim��ly,��7,fee�#o the west. He added that the pool house would still be located approxir�ate�� ee��ri�m �he side yard property line. � :�? Nelson asked abc��the pool house dimensions. Strand said the dimensions of the pool hous�::�re 12' x 26'. �;� Hogeboom �vted that if the pool house was behind the main house it could be located 5 feet from the side and rear yard property lines and the only reason the applicant is asking for variances is because the location of the pool and pool house have changed since the previously approved proposal. Stand added that the neighboring property owners are supportive of the proposed new location of the pool and pool house. Strand stated that he doesn't want his client penalized for his exploring and uncovering more facts that they didn't know the last time they were before the Board. He said that the plan Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 22, 2013 Page 8 they are currently proposing functions better and should have been the plan they brought to the Board originally. McCarty said he likes the architecture but he is still concerned about placing the pool in the front. He said he doesn't understand why the house can't be moved forward on the lot and be less impactful to the neighbors instead of the park. Strand said they did consider that and other options but the plan currently being proposed is the least impactful and intrusive to the neighbors. � a;=== �s Nelson said she has the same concerns that she had last time they cons��rec�'��riances for this property. She said that this proposal is nice but she is concerned, at�€�ut the ne�t,person who asks for an accessory structure in the front yard and that their ��oposa�;might `t be as attractive. Johnson stated he understands Nelsons concerns but�;��is pro��erty�� u„��ue and the design seems practical and there really isn t anyone impae�ed �a�r �t��s proposal. Maxwell 7 9 agreed and noted that there are many properties on Glenwood��Ave"�iae that. �ve accessory structures (garages) in front of the house. Nelson said sk�E think�,� ga�r�� front of a house is different than a pool house. She also noted that�rr� t�i,s n�nr pro�osal the pool and pool house will be closer to the neighbors to the w st��i�R}�i�ldi�s��ite��ted that the pool house � �will be 30 feet away from the west property line ar��addea��at they��ould build a finro story house 15 feet away from the side yard property lir��s. �� '�� : ��; Johnson asked about the fence height r�uirem�nts. �q�k��om stated that in this case, the fence can be 6 feet tall around the entire`��prop��,�a�� "t �-�� Johnson asked about the height��,�the pi-q os�'�.pool house. Strand said the pool house is 10 feet tall. Johnson said there will:be a��@��al of��feet of the pool house that is not screened by fence and the property is:un�� b�cause no one will be able to see it. �� a�� Maxwell opened the publie I��ar,��g. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Maxwell closed the ��iGc hearing. - �� . Johnson said h��think��thi��i�'�a�creative, good use of space and the impact on the neighborhood is CE�s th�r� it was with the previous house. �� $€k��.z �� e Nelson �id�s�� t�in1��I�e°design is beautiful but she is concerned about setting precedent � ,. for future reque�ts regarding accessory structures in front yards. � � MO��D by Jo��son, seconded by Fonnest and motion carried 3 to 2 to approve the followi�tg �ariaf��e requests. Members McCarty and Nelson voted no. ��x;.=„ ; • The proposed pool is not required to be located completely to the rear of the principal structure. • The proposed pool house is not required to be located completely to the rear of the principal structure. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 22, 2013 Page 9 III. Other Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 pm. �� , _ , s�� 9 a� ��a �� a : g . �� d��a. � : wt€ � � �°+ ;: �+�� . George Maxwell, Chair Lisa Wittman, R,!�co��fig Se�� tary 3. `�� °��k;:: ��` � �� ff�� q�� " <�.� E �� ' `h : ; �� _,��_. ��E ` s � �g°r � �� ; ,� �� „; � �� ' k ��. �� '��{� " <�� _ �� >� � � �°��' {�� {'' � ��$" �� a� . E.� T3 �� _ § F�� ,_ �� ;� a,�; a � �� . �a��saFF ; � �� .°.. iN �'.��" . 4ia� �� . _ m�� , . � � � Planning 763-593-8095/ 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: December 10, 2013 To: Golden Va!!ey Board of Zoning Appeals From: Jason Zimmerman, City Planner Subject: 1800 Mendelssohn Avenue North Danette and Marlin Henrikson, Applicants Danette and Marlin Henrikson are requesting a variance from City Code for the construction of a driveway extension, as well as a deck with a lift. The Henriksons propose to construct the driveway extension directly adjacent to the south property line and extend it into the rear yard. In addition, the applicants propose to construct a deck and lift on the south side of the house within 7 feet of the south side yard property line. A prior variance to build a deck within 9 feet of the south side yard property line was granted in 2008 but the deck was not built. A variance to expand the driveway was denied at the same hearing. The applicants are making several modifications to the property in order to make it wheelchair accessible. As part of the current work, the applicants intend to build a ramp to the main floor from the rear yard, construct a rear patio or deck, and install a lift on the south side of the house to allow a wheelchair to be raised from grade to the front door on the second level. It is the installation of this lift that necessitates the construction of the deck within the side yard setback. Mr. Henrikson removed a preexisting deck prior to the request for a variance in 2008. A variance to build a 5 foot wide deck was granted but the deck was not built. Now, in order to accommodate the installation of a wheelchair lift, he reports that the new deck must be 7 feet wide. The construction of this deck would extend into the side yard setback by 5 feet. A new ramp to provide egress from the main level of the house is proposed to be constructed in the rear yard. Access to this ramp from the front of the house would be via a new extension of the existing driveway along the south side of the house into the rear yard. This new paved area would extend all the way to an existing stone retaining wall; the survey provided by the applicants shows this wall to be constructed on the south property line. According to the applicants, the hardship that exists in this situation that necessitates the request for the variances is the grade change that makes a front yard ramp for access to the second level particularly difficult to construct. The proposed project requires variances from the following sections of City Code: • Section 11.21, Subd. 19 Driveway Setback Requirements A three foot setback is required between a driveway and a property line. The applicants are requesting that this provision be waived, so that they may construct a driveway to be within 0 feet of the south property line. • Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(3)(c) Side Yard Setback Requirements In the case of lots having a width of 65 feet or less, the side setbacks for structures 15 feet or less in height along the north or west side shall be 10% of the lot width and along the south or east side shall be 20% of the width. In this case, the south side yard setback requirement is 12 feet. The applicants are requesting 5 feet off of the required 12 feet to a distance of 7 feet at its closest point to the south side yard property line for the construction of a deck/lift. Staff believes that if all of the work on the property is done as anticipated, it would result in a violation of the section of the City Code that prohibits an excess of 50% impervious surface lot coverage. Therefore, it is recommended that the applicants scale back the size of the proposed work to avoid triggering an additional variance in the future. � ��} � 1�E12 19�5 99ik4 i9tt5�� ."� "��^ �� 1��54 � � - i "� 49�Q $400 � � � . � � : . � £�35A , �13t1� �� 9�5ti �IY1II" � � � � �ti q� . "`� � � t�. -�I�IU�bi. r,� �. �"?.� Z tii n'?.�"�'��C#��" . a��. � � 1$ZU� 1�'1t � �83E5 �� 3� � �� air � � � � � �` � 1$1& � 1$17 t8t6 1$17 O �� .- �� 18i2 1$18 1812 `� � � - � 1$tS � � . "v��' t�!!8� �� 1�s1$ �� 1�0$ � � ' 4�. i� �� Subject Property �� j�� 4 �� .� ,��a '�� ' � u, ,G��,+ �$��f AV� N 'EBUfl t8ili �� i':e�<�°'� � � 1$f3(t '� � 172D� �� 1 T2't '� � � ' �; ' i 7�tS � I � �" '�� t 718 � 4� � 13t 7 + � .� c 3300 �� , � , 1713 '� � � 1742 � � atr � � � � � 1 TU9 � '� � �` � � ' � 1 T� �� ' � � � 9 744 �� K "' �� . ° .�� +v 1TtIp �1701 �-�._ _��„��Aata.�� A��n�a��avqi��uimi�i�oi�iY�u�Nii�m�H+s��.�-��i hJ:��7�Y"u°1 .°�'--��.,. " '� 1636 M t7'C�3 A1t�� ,; ' � � � � ' � 5345 iG3� 163T� W � � � � i frl.��a�sr`.�°t ��"-' � 'lG32 �� 9533� � ass 163A 1f'3 ' � 7S2$ 1629 1G28 1628 � P�.YMC}IJTH ��+�' � �� ° ' ,sza �s� � � � � , � �� ' � �ssa as2� �ssaa �s25 � � " ��zz � t c�t� �e,a� � , � � ;� ��t.��' tszt� � 9�2i �a` �—��, 1520 .�� ;�� ' ��,. ' rv. , �� m ��R`TIFICATE OF SIJRVE�' F{3R: 1Vl�riin Henrickson 18a0 lt!Iendetssohn Ave.ll�iI Golden Valley,MIr� 55427 _ _. _ _ ._ __�__:_ ti'� � NO./B04 � � ' CONcR�I�f ;�Ri�/c'cNA�!/ /-S-f UILK-ol/7� L,�i ��,i ;3 33 : . /��tts� - ►�i ��7.' . y 93�6 �8 � ¢0 93H;a �t� �� , t 9 S//EQ r s ; i'•'' _' � i2 � r : f"" � - /zp.92.-NB9°5+6'4"O'�� -�- c j •. � , p,. . ; • q�9,9/ � ,.- s9. . .�'' z �� l7 4Z9:Q'° � ^ X4Z��13 � - -K933�9 , ¢c _ - - - - -'� � ►Xg3a. g� 3 ' . ` 3--T—T---T-- •-._-.--- _ :� . i � � ' . � LOT t9 I =� �, �, � � ivo, iBOO A�"72s3 7s Pt. •� ;� a � p � � ONF sra,�y �Q�a�►�� o � �,, w � , "' �� 7� i � x933.G o �,Qq,yTWALK-dl1� � � � � � . . ' ,,.{ � •1 . 1 � /aO1�tSE -.,� °.`;? �- � .. 6� -.., ( . C� . ...: :: . . .. :.. , � : .___ _ f� �... " ' � TUt.f� uaaER • Z �^ tgifumin DuS � Q� G�f/'i.9�E ° _ . . . � • . � � � 0 O � : �'.. CANT�b'.-�.':'. �� 3o O � L! ... '. . J4�3S�� METAL � tll � i j '.� A�E'f;t/�G31,RY : � � oSlI�O . . . . � � � io � I,�� . ' ' • M .j " 48b;L x �' � ��x93o.� ��o li.i � /7 ' ' . . Y----"----'---- �� ' � ��""Y"' _ . _ .�f�s 9Z�� v� STa.VE F��TFt/Nin6 Ob MkzaL / X4Z(oAZ , �e.` - - - '�_ _ _ 93�Z�t i m ':!�OiY[. W�K:.Xg3Sa"w��" sd�a � ' N0.19ZfJ ^/ZQ•�'f-38�°.5E+��1!"inl-- � � �-S"F � � _ . � �xox r w�r-aut -�{��w �3 ��s< ._ . 1 1�3 b Legxl Descriptioin: (Torrens) � Lot�9,Slock 5,LAKEVIEW EiEIGHT5, � including oae haif a�'vacated altey, - ` ezcegt the easteriy 17.OQ feet taken for rnad purposes.� Benchm�rk: S.W. Cor. TBS @ D/W No. 1720 Mendelssohn Ave. l'� N.G.V.D. 1929 adjusted elevation=934.68 fee�. � . ` I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by une or under �cale: 1"=20' my direct supervision and that I am a dnly Registered Land Surveyor under the iaws of the State af Minnesat�. a Denotes iran moaument �urveyed by me this 15�' day of September,2408. . x000.o=Existing elevation ,, earings a.re assumed � • Herb F.Lemire RLS Minnesqta Reg.Na. 13349 � 4416 Abbott A.ve.N Ro6binsdale,MN 5�422 Phone: 763�.537.0497 - �rfr�;: Marlin hienrikson<marlin128@gmaii.cpm> ��9z�ect: Fwd: £3�te: December 4,20i3 11:54;01 AM C$T x�: Danette Henrikson<da�fettehenriksonQgmail.com> ----•---°Forwarded messa9e----°--- From:MaMin Henrikson< ariin128�grnaii c�rp�> Date:Wed,DeC 4,2013 at 11:51 AM Subject: To:Marli�Henrikson vnarfin�2g@omaii cam> On May 3,2013!was deemed 100%disabled by the Veterans Administration.Due to Lou Gehrig's disease.Due to this disease.I wiil be eventuaily 100^/,paralyzed at some poim in time. We are requesting a 7 foot by 24 foot area on south side of fiouse to put in a harniicap eieyator starting in the east corner of the house going forward to the west corner of the house. fie eievator needs to be enciosed according to federal guidelines.According to q�a coMractors w�need approximately 7 fset out from buliding to instatl the elevator arid endo�ing walis.Elevator opening wili come out towards the front or west side ot the house to lead ir�o the front door.The extra are area in trorrt af the elevator witl be n�ded for wheelchair mobility. Due to the landscaping of our yard and height of bac�cyard compared to front yard.We would need a 96 foot handicap ramp to conform with federal guideliries.We have that measur�!out and it wouid go iMO the main drivavway which would be ending up on a downsiope of the driveway,which is a safety hazard. TREE n DRIVEWAYTO BE REMOVED SEPARATE BID ON REPLAC2NG DRIVEWAY WEST 1 ADD ELECTRIC BLIN�S � R� 1WDCURTAINS Z '�' � T/ S 12X12 3�� 0 12X14 144 sq ft g�q�pp � 166 sq ft � : � 30X16 FRONTROOM ALL CLOSET BEDROOM ET 7 FEET WIDTH 981 Sq R U�ER DEIX OR F1ALL NTfCMEN TO BE MADE �Sq R �TM � HANDIGV 76 sq ft 128 SG R = COMPLiANCE BATNROOM TO BE iROM NERE � NANDIGP TO FR� g KITCHEN �OW�E 4 ove oownniu 519 sq R � 239 sq ft � iSNERE � � nwnnnnn A 12X1z ADD ElEC7Rlt q1RTA1N5 � 145 sq ft SOUtFI ADD SLIDING G1A55 DpOR 7p p�C ALL T NORTH y ~ ' 35 sq ft � 9 ^^^^^^^ ' 6X6 �' v�no O PANTRV � DOOR TO BE ADDED T E t, ' � 9 � 75q R ,.�� r �� '��,✓ � ^,� WINDOW EILN DSCOVER r �' �. �� ,. - � � _ �29 sq ft � � T � $ PATIO ;p _ = 236 sq ft 2 �l�R c H o ?' PATIO BLACKTOP �� TWOORTMRF[SiEP5T06IlCKYARD 1265GR TWOORiMREESTEPSTOBACKY p SI.OVE DOWNNiLL FROM BACIfYA0.D r� 76 sq ft BACKYARD EAST 106 sq� SHED � CEMENT AROUND SHED m z n � P +P,. �' .+,+,. .a. H � ' I ��r' '' "dr �� .. �: � ;�. �� rs�., �t � � �� `� � `� ��4��' < ,�; � _ � �� ` ,��- �� y� ��, �: jAN� j� � ,} }' , `�� . k . �� '�� 5 ffi h f � p,.� � �Ai' � �� S ... . ��.r- � i� � � ��.: � ; � �... �� t� � � .. - �q� .i�.L/f v ��'., � � � � . .,. .. � ��Yy,�� . � s ..,` � w>. _ :.. . . _ � , . .. ��w. ..� '5.,. . � . �+r.,. v.... �:acw..w�„�wo:mw,...,.,�. � ... .�:"'.^ �:::3{r,.wy.,... � � � n.:'�„r"'�_ �°*"'+�fitm_r„ �l. y,y�.�. -�-!�1 ......... , d * � � � ��, y�:. . , . . . �, � �: , � �, � ��.. `L� .�.�� '�FP� �I"`_ . ��'� _ . �� ,� T ` . T- . . � ♦ f 4 r " '�.F � � .e r F�� r �..l�� A� . . S�. , . �g� � b �� r '-y� � , _;—� — .. . . ' . �� , y ��l �. �4 ` i . I � i _ ,'� -- �3 �+ �. ♦S. t' �: i, .. .. 1� , �". :M� *f. / h a `- -- t �� <+� � - - _+i ..t ha, __^r �'� ., i d y . ,. • f •. . - ``r�r y ' `- ,, + � , �`."' s � . �. . . . _ . . ' . . . �=, � . .. - � M 5 y � ' . ' s�- ... 1 � 5 � � . � � ...s�,e�:�- ,r �` t�`�'y ._ -t . , . .. - ,.�� x M�, � "` '` . � � �_ � �� —.�,. � .�^�: � a: -. ;�� ."""*� �► r°'. ' ! r. �' .�++��-�—_. ` E• -�""' -:.-.* . �, w,,� t� "'� �1{•� . '�� '-��,;� .�. .i. � ��+f�.. �. . x, , ,.-��'�` � • , ` ,�-, �. � �` • _ �<,� , � : * '' � -�- , �.St .�.." � , � � � ' �._ � ._ _�.— � _ _�__ � " � � �, � , Y �.'+. , ,� l,� ::" � ,.�'' . . � . ,, ,y, r y�'��_ �� i �� f �„�� • '�4, .�..�,.--��_ , �",. , ti __ ! ,� ` � .� � �� . k . ... � � � � _ �� '��,. � . — � . . .. x„ � . " . . i, �. ..' y -� �� kd1.��'�s. �� 3� '+tt 6i +��t��t i��'Y; y �r= _ � `_�_ =,��n � ; � �__:.` . _ �, '� �....._— � - n ;, ti - ; .,y _r. �, � �. , '� . ,� ' S`�' �';�"�� -��` �� /� + �` ,z � `�'` �fi �S� �3 ¢ s� ~� �"�`�_— �- "� � � .�' �:'� , . �� ` _ �� . a �� `' ,4 `?;;� t ; � `�� , � ,� � � • � �= � ' � ;. _ , � �, rt � �4��.`�'-,� ,� � ,. ? ,,�• ��'�� 4 _ ' � �' .�$ 1�i,;.i �l �4 , 1 `� ` .' "�,`idek��,"�'�, ��'?" '� , � � � T��t�� 4r�r f . �. ..k .'�Fl t�j..t!` � ��' .a��'� � •w, f ''� . ' . �� .« . ,. . ��. .�'y R ,''� ... � � . �i . ,�,' , .� +1., _ . e �.�� r , � . , .. a .,� ..•. " t . ..�;'. , � a '�' � �� , Y� * � � � '�� y �� ;� � < . �'��t , ` ", i, ' ,� ��r-�� ,� � `=�' � ry�� — 1 �°`x .� t ��a .y��{' 'r� , ii � .I.I��r . 1 x. t 5�4�"Lf�'. . ,+�P��i �`, � '�� '�"� tr►. �' _,_ • �i`�' - ��y ;�' 'k. r� '1^ �: � . ., �t �s i ,> � .,,.� � � • + a:� . ��'.- f��.�'� ,`� '�; T�� ; � �'�^ �, ��'�# �s� ,r; �I! � �4 '�� "''.-:��;-_ ,,a.. e, , �- a .�.. - �fa � -wk.,�', . . :.y �� ,-,. _ � t��., d' � . .r. ... � S �N s ti.0 .\ r. _ • B � �J � � ' ^ *... ,:�.� :��' } .. �� .. rv , � � �.4��-�� -.. ,} -; '�:f " � -�y.. � s�:. �`y.. _.�_ ' . � ► ��• � +. y .`. '�; � t. .- , '-. . . � I ��r � � i �—� �� t _ , . � . . .. �,:_ ` 4 ► y_ • . �� ..� , t,�� . �i � .. y . .�, , , T� �*—��+�°' c�. _ � - .. • �� - � . i��' f _ _ .' . . , . � �� . . � ,�� k: '� ' \ r � . . _ . 'a`r" a� � � � .�+. . ' „ w.: � � � ,. TM� i �' . . n3 '��PI I�/�w� iNl� ,��i � .i� .. .-j� ;�h� x. .. . , ,�, . . ... , �.. • _ _ � �� } ,�� v.�' � ��. � . .S r��.�. r'j "t •�'s�*. �ti a� ,�.� f . i . . � . • • � �. .�. , . �_-. . � . J. . .� �,; 4 ;.� '�ar' T . : �+r' . +.` .. �. � � . �: ., � p 9 ��. ' L�• � ��•�•4� ) � ��vM� �.3 .',1 ` . . `��1` V'� '�� "' �n _ !n . ��t`t7 . ��#� 3 � �Y . .. ... r�Y _ -�.rf�'� - t . � �. �� .` .. `�� ` , .ti, `, .,� � � ;; ;$* • � ,, -i� �, .; '- . �� ; �, ; w. �. : �._ �} � . __ . . ,:.:��. • �} ' _ _ , ' _ �i.;}� � � '\ �1 � .. ... �MC�l;. . � il .�v.s..�r . �1 �tl � .�. � ' � . . ;:� � . � , > , a , . >. _ I- �` T�� i �, �. � 1,� y < , _ � , , .� , ,. � # �'� . � '�s , �'*�`�,° :. � ��,; , � . ;-0�, :,, � « � � ,, • r � < �z�.' �` � �� r. ''ti � ��'w. _` - � �" �a'� ��35� � � �* ,, ,>°� � !`: �'--� , � �� !�`` � . � ��,; .a'�s k ��r � � FE�(" •. �f '�� # � � �-a.}pf�� "'.:.+6`4 � - Y �l.E,� 2. a � �. � � �'•�- _�! .. ` ��-� `# . i ��s � �'a. -� # � = 04 br i,.�',w ' . - <' a, E ; .1 �� _ ��, s � � �`��'a� �,� � .,�� ti� 1�.�r _ � �� t,�. � ,- ,. . � w � �l� .+ � 4��,"� .*: � ,,� 'i �'``',�� r ..'_ '�?.� � 1� • , �,� 1 � �' e� �' t 'r �° � ?° *� �� Y .7,. � 7 � .4� �. A� ��[f..'� � �1„� �` 1 dN` '`t , ."�\�°� � S r, e�� Y � ' � 1, '� k . r � `� �. $+ .. dd ' 4S ,. ' t �f ' - , 3 f � �� "�� .. �� ; 4 Y"' t ' � � � � . . -...: . � k . ,� . a' . . .. . .. �, ,. � b�'^s. . � � . , ¢ s x - �. t��} Y� �'a� �L".y{ � „� ' � • . Y� .f�°y '�`��.. } F�.�}]� � . ��. � A,a` . „� F `4�� '� . . � � � �'��a�y�;.� � ,R r � ��, n'�' ' •1 . �' . � � . � e�m4 ,�,- ,s& % � m � � s��$��s��'�� e � i�1�,J�',S . . ..« � +".:1 �� 7�!� � �a 7��5 �� a � Li � � � a, , . ,�. . „ aM ��- i' .; . ,� �� . }'�a � � � w,._ ,�".� . :9� w. ':. " � � � ��, YR< y � �yL,.�1' � ��A �,�, � `� ,r� �'+�' � '.. �. a �" 7�..r�:�,^Si^ , .. �� . ��`�c.,.' ,�,� . .`.1��,` . � '�y'"�,i�"£ r 1t '3 « . ;�_ '' �__a,,�"` . `•� : " ��y,, .� � . 1 ,._— � �_.} � r� �, � . � � % �'' '�► "'�_' `°^'`lo� �, :� �r �. s �. ' x��v��.� {��.� �i � .. ,.µ� �. . . � . � � . :�� , _ , � .i'�.r�i .� • `� �� -'j!�('�,,,�' .�_""-`_'5�3�.: ,. � � � �r �- � �� iY ' . ..� .'+' t � f� �� .. � , 4 . .v _ � �.r� `�G . � {.: _..- -, ' __ � �� : ., ' % �- � � � �� l �� ' . y.' �.� p .q �.\ �} � � � y . .w- "� , J .:..�.:.,, i!.'� *`x � f � I 7' _':ti i� �'j '�� ,: �. . t. Y�,y. ' ' �� I �i < �� r ."— �'-�t, �:'�9�M�,y•� A _- � � � �� . s - -_^ � '. �7__•. �G�'v' . ��'':.t � -' ,. , . ' �� '� �' : :w ��ti. �� .. , � . ti ,� , Y+„4 3='�- ..-�--'�- ��. _ $ �� +� . ,._ _ . . .. . - _ r - y�;.. . . . . .. . ,��•y- � .,- � ,:,. . . . ,�' d � �-'r�k y �_ _ • .. .., � � � ��`�-yy�_- �7 ' _ �s . �. � '"� � . � � ' � � ��;�.;v .� -. �� i�� ,`�� .»'b „„,'.* �. � ' d� � � � d'�w ril-`��`�i+T v i~3-,,�' �� ,.{ � ' . . �. � , � t ,��. `� �v � � �� -�; �. �. ,� __ �: ��r� � �� , : � ,-� , � � , . �. _x ,. _ o `� „��,- ', � -�� '4�'F�' y �:�L� � y_ � �.1- `��- � . „�y, � ,�.�, . � `'��ti �� ,'- ,a �' � � � . �l,. � ��1;-=y _ '�,� � �_`� ;,+' _ _ '�r , �. .�. �: .�Y '�.' .� ' � . .. . � �M..'s ��__ T. L Et�' � ,��rok. ��" _ S ,` . ,4f# . . ID�. i'.t _ �L, *.y � riPT �:j] � � . . .+Y,.nmp�'^`°v"u�.:. � _ s f � . . � * ' . . � � �.. �. F . � * .. . �.... r3za e.�,,, F �i � . � r. ..:�� y ' 4 , , .� . _.. . R a " 'i —.._.. . . r : , -� s a � . � s, � _,� , : `,� ,"a^'.�-- � �� i �� ' � � �� _ . ,, . + � r, .,;� � � ��tdtc�.��_'*�.��- ,,: .._. . �, ,* } -..•� � ',_{ f k �: '. _ .�. r �.« ri' �. .� ..v� �� ..� �- - s� �ri �" � . �. `-t..y, ,..'�#Rt�''i..° ��.. `t ' ��r;,;�. `R �, ; � ��h�3�.�� .7 T� Y�,-G,,��,e�� . •..� �i .?M�'?i�. �r r �� '1„�'-�y � ,� � � '�"�. �4 ,., � �,,,�, '�� .�,� , ��`- _ �; . � � ,� �,. Y-x - -�� , a - �j� ' �� .c: . � .'� �. . �� _' . •- ':.'--� ,�.. . , �Y`� �Y y ,� ti ��_�+ � n .. . .. . � � � • " , � , . �`'".'� , � >a t {� . � "�fe�.i - �K �,Y .4 s ' ,�`� . � � � !, �, �� S+ � { � '� � ' �� ° } �� , `. ,� 4 + �4.. _ ��, d =x �' � � �� } `��,. ;..� 4 J'�4` }.. r�� S_ �„�- �� %�, l y � . "� ��} , . � ^^^��...�� }t,y t ✓ � r,_Y ,� i ��,� �w� �N+, uY'� _. _ � *t�� :� `'�' . �� • � �..f7�' �, �f V�*� ��. � �+�, � � 4 .r� �y,,,vr , 't, "`'e �„ �„�"'z�w�, �.-�c � � �t _. .. . "„ 'tit� ','�" " �`, a�� t � ��,,,�/�` " -i � � 9 - � .'-"' ++. .. � i .c�', �r ' . i - ...� � �`�r r:".'�: � f. � ,r� '. ,, j .. � �� ,��'_ ; � -. i �r� 't .� . • ,� . ,e . �. �..�y �� .. . .-� �, . � . �� . ��.: • J . j . a � . t.�.. ._ �.,:� _ -� �.. rr . . .� •.'�� ` � al+ ' ' ' .� .:_ ; � � . � t . ,. .,� . . . Y.. ��'. � „ .� . . , r .. I. '" . . �:* • '.. .� . .,.�� .. .. .. .y„�, ". .. . �,.�'w.. ': " .•'.... . � .•� � " o � .r.� */, . „�'��•. • _. * y. ,��«, s " y'_ �'i-. '.a �; �l il � - 5tA�� • � Pt�� . � �.� � � k � �' i � '�i� , 1 � ��i,i, a i ��r�ry �� "Y �+ s � i' 1 (. � � . �� ,� .s; . �. ,��. ;� 1 �,�;� ' ,� ;�;`t � � „� � ' �rr��. � � �� W 4. 's' �`}fSY'y � r � y R o �� .� � Y� �� +! f: l�t,�r " ' ''�� .,�r'�g � � „� ` � � , �, � <h° <' .�` ��' }�r�' {�,R ,� �(1 '.,,F � 43� F i I',=�J"� � ry t�..' . . . .. ��Q,�r'.��y.'4T.'. k.� ��,I,l:.�t '� � � ,' .'�F � �rA ,�!#[A"s'� `< '�� ' :� e i":'< "$��+�-�•� " �s,�� . *- rk�' , � .''�,� ' � ' � � ,t R<, � �� • ,� ^;� !�.+'�R�►; * t�� ' w j"i ,�'# �� . �t ah��,t ' ��, + � s q t �� . 3 � . ..� �'��` �> ! �b � � .� +� �' �'��. � , , �� ,.X � �� . � �, ,� . �;; _ :� - � � .� � � � � _ , � _ , y .. �-�a� :.. i',7 . 5.4 f 3 �... §; .. �r4 '�-s'��'r . �. `�� , . � . ;� ,�'k � , , .� M ry� a ...'� ,� .. � . k :Y61/`.]�Mr:...:. Yu�[, '�� J , i � � r - r +, r } >': i Y ,�s9� r . �''�� ze-'a�_ � � .<, ,�as.. y� ..y`��. :: . . .r, .f � .I'r "'4 . ' ��7,�. � ��5 r'� #�� r p i _ I`� ..z�Z � ��.¢� .� � � � i� .. .� „� .��, t.• "S. ' . .. � � , .A� ..4 •�. . _,��T��; - . . . . �=�h� � '� � . � � #` . � e�' �.,,{ 1' j ` . . . .. „•� '� . R-r. •.j � p. . : � '*, ,,, � �' �� "m c �. `'S° �'"° �!{�w � �' " '�i .�..; � �.` at ��, . P � Ar �E . °��., ��`� r `" t e� � � :r" � ,s� �.� I 3�°"�.�4� �� j�.�t.�Q� «t _ � '� -�: �� ,.�.ti.. � 3 .��'�,L, - ...R �� k` � '' � �� r� �i�� [ m '� °' rr a 1`� � ' - � '. io �.: , !!� '��.� : Y - r �i � ' r .. ' y�� . ,� . , �-9 , ,� �� .:: r ��a c � �ti �. ��4 , � � � � � " � � � � ` . " � � a, n``!� �'r d,. �.. � a� 1 �t r o ,- N C � � � � '�#�� C � � # `� �,; �� , d �,�t � � �! � $ +► ' , �� ° i x,h � � �'> �F �'��r.� + ��:�� .__.... i �.+,��.� ��.. C �.�� r�� Y� �' �.: � '�� ,�t � ��M1 �{a' �` r �+" �,: r,�� o �i ' ''�� Z �.,i � . r'M1r .r� ,p„`. . �3n �� y i.# . ,y�,'�� 1�Y; , y . � � ' '� "� �`�"� � t r� '� ��`" - > ��,��... � ' , ..�`� .� „�� 'i�.;; , R �a'�{WE c.�'_'. �r�� ..J�E,;,,.� '��',�( ..( ' . . �a ° „q� � � � ,�*' k� ; r� � �i c �' �"5t.r � �� a � �� ' � �• � � o°o '� � a�� '� P ''� `' '� ' t� o y`� . .�'�• �!� �, �°, 4 � I+w F" 4 4� �.. `'aF �. . O � �f /..r ,�, ,1 4 � O� � '� S � � � a . . �� . � + � .'�.. .. � t� �� Zimmerman, Jason From: Zimmerman,Jason Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 12:56 PM To: 'marlin128@gmail.com'; 'danettehenrickson@gmail.com' Subject: variance application for 1800 Mendelssohn Ave N Danette and Marlin, As you know, I have been reviewing your variance application for a public hearing before the Board of Zoning Appeals on Thursday, December 19. The information you initially provided with your application was minimal, but I appreciate the additional information you have since provided—as well as our phone conversations—that have helped to clarify some of the issues your variance application raises. The Board will want to discuss with you any possible alternatives that may help avoid needing a variance or may reduce the impact of any variance that may be granted. I ask that you consider this ahead of time and be prepared to consider potential changes to your plans or explain why your proposal is the most practical one. If you could provide me with any additional comments on the following before the hearing it would be appreciated: a) Is there any way to reduce the width or the length of the proposed blacktop area that extends almost to the back of the property? b) What could be done to reduce the amount of impervious surface created through the construction of the blacktop and patio areas? c) Is it necessary to install both the ramp and the lift to provide wheelchair access to your home? d) If the ramp were installed in the front of the house, what configuration would be required? Thank you and please contact me if you have any questions. Jason Zimmerman lason Zimm�rm�n J City Planner � City of Gold�n V�fiey �� ._ ,� ,� 7804 Goiden V�Iley Roed �Gold�n Valley,MN 55427 �?��s 7�3 s�.�.sa�� .s�s s�.a9(raX) ��bs.s��.��s(rTV} �.��x �{ ; m i � ��,� city of �l3 � ��- ��/ olden � va e Zoning Code Variance Application 1. Streetaddress: � ��(� �%�C�� -�J J��",��' �� 2. Applicant information: Name: �r-Y��:TTC "� ��-"('� I r�i � �'`"j Y'i ��C?f`�l Address: �� I�� r l�I�� 5�� ,�if � �� I � 4� - '_ j"Y11i� ��7� `�� Email Arldress: �C�t'l�'�"'� � �`'1�'_a 1'{"�i K;�"?I'1�� C��J'�G�i � d �-C'J�rl � Phone Number: �j� Z "— ��(c�� '�� 3. Provide a detailed description of the variance(s) being requested: ��;� ��-}�' �l�' ��°��' �-'�1� St�'� ��-}-l'1 �j��::. U � IIC='C�� -�:' +� ��1�.�.('l i C�f'� �.�1�� I�L'.(,rl � . �:.�, � �� ' �`�� ,.�,tvf l�'�;�a � �� e�z�G'� ��?lrl�fl � � Yl�l,iR1�:.� vc."�11 s 4. Provide a detailed description of need for a variance from the Zoning Code, including: • Description of building(s� • Description of taroposed addition(s) • Description ofi propased alteration{s)to praperry . 5. 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 ianciowner. • do not alter the essential character of the,locality. To demonstrate how your request wil! comply with Minnesota State Statute 462.357, please respond to the following questions: Explain the need for your variance request and how it witi resuit rn a reasonable use af ti�e property. ►�4��1�.��t` �i.�� tr�-� �1�� What is unique about your property and how do you feel that it necessitates a variance? fxplain how the need for a variance is based on circumstances that are not a result of a Eandowner action. Explain how, if grar�ted,the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of your neighborhood and Golden Valley as a whole. 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 ta do your proj�ct that da nat require variances to the Zoning Code. 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 cansidered incomplete withou#the submitta! of a current property survey. $. 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�C«��oldenvalleymn.gov.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. 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 regulations. I give permission for Golden VaNey staff,as well as members af the Board of Zoning Appeals,to enter my property prior to the public hearing to inspect the area affected by this request. I�� Signature of Applicant . If the applicant is nat the owner of all property involved in this application, please name the awner of this property: �a�e.�� n ri��s or� ��-- Print Name of awner Signature of owner � $150 Application Fee Attached (for Single Family Residential) $250 Application Fee Attached (for all other Zoning Districts) Please note: The City af Go/den Valley will send notice of your variance request to all adjoining property owners as well as owners of properties direct/y across streets ar alleys. Your neigh6ors have the right to address the Board of Zoning Appeals at your public hearing. You are advised to personally contact your neighbors and explain your project to them prior to the public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 25, 2008 Page 6 ell apened the public hearing. Seeing nd hearing no one wishing to comme , ell c ed the public hearing. McCarty "d he can see other ways #o ,the applicant to build a without needing a variance. � Segelbaum said he i omewhat persu ded by addin - level of safety by fowering the deck down. He s�id he u rstands th the appli �t would like more usabte space but that is not a tremendous har ' . He s id he uld prefer to grant a lesser variance because he can see the advanta o I e ' g this deck. Kisch s#ated that the grade is more o ns int in this case. He agreed that it is a safety issue to lower this deck and he c see he be fit of the proposed deck design. Nelson agreed that the gra m this cas is a hardshi nd the applicant is not asking for a huge variance. She sai he is incline to support this osal because it is a side yard and not a front yard. Sell agreed and ted that if the east pr erty line were straight thi � eck would no# even be an issue. MOVED Kisch, seconded by Nelson a d motion carried 4 to 1 to approve ariance reque for 3 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a istance of 12 ft. at its closest point to side yar east) property line to allow for the c nstruction (replacement) of a new deck. mber McCarty voted na. 1800 Mendelssohn Avenue North (08-09-16) Marlin Henrikson, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 19 Driveway Setback Requirements • 3 ft. off the required 3 ft: to a distance o# 0 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new driveway. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(3)(c) Side Yard Setback Requirements • 3 ft: off the required 12 ft. to a distance of 9 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new deck. Minutes of the Golden Va{ley Board of Zoning Appeals September 25, 2008 Page 7 Hogeboom stated that the variance request listed above regarding the construction of a new deck should be removed from this agenda. He explained that the proposed new "deck" is really considered to be a landing and that 25 square feet of stairs and landings can be located within a setback area. He stated that the applicant has agreed to work within the parameters of the zoning code regarding the construction of the new stairs and landing without requiring a variance. Hogebaom referred to the variance request regarding the construction of a new driveway and explained that the applicant is asking for a variance from the driveway setback requirements in order to construct a new driveway right up to the south property line. He noted that a portion of the applicant's proposal involves constructing a patio and there has been cancern by staff and neighbors that this proposed pati4 area will be used as a driveway and not as a patio. Hogeboom stated that the applicant has been made aware that cars will not be ailowed to be parked on the patio. McCarty asked about the reasoning behind the zoning code amendrnent in 2005 regarding driveways. Hogeboom said the language regarding driveways was added to the code in 2005 in order to require that driveways be paved (not gravel) and that they aren't paved right up to the property line. Segelbaum asked if it would be appropriate to add a condition of approval saying #hat the proposed pa#io could not be used as a driveway. Hogeboom s#ated that the City can not restrict a homeowner from driving over a patio and the code already addresses the issue of parking on patios. Marlin Henrikson, Applicant, explained that his existing driveway comes to within approximately 1 foot of the south property line. He said that he is proposing to build a new driveway that goes right to the properiy line because he doesn't have a flat spot to park on. He added that he has a disabled relative that visits so it would also help to have a flat spot so she can get in and out af her car. He referred to the proposed attached patio and stated that cars will not be parked on it. He added thafi he is also proposing to build a retaining wall and fence so fhe area will be safer for the neighbor#o the south. Sell asked the applicant if he is intending on keeping the existing tree that is located approximately in front of the driveway. Henrikson said he would like to keep the tree because it shades and cools the hause. Kisch referred to the survey and noted that there is 14 feet between the applicant's garage and the property line and questioned how a flat spot would be created and how usable the driveway would be if the tree remains. Segelbaum said he assumed if the tree were removed then there would be a flat parking area on the driveway. Henrikson referred to photos of his properly and discussed the location of the driveway and fence. McCarty said it appears that the tree would be in the way of the proposed new stairs. Segelbaum asked how close the existing driveway is to the property line. Henrikson said the existing driveway is approximately 1 foot away from the properiy line. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 25, 2008 Page 8 Nelson referred to the survey and asked if the area in questian was paved at any time in the past. Henrikson said yes the area was paved but it was in really bad shape so he removed the pavement. McCarty said he thinks it would look cleaner to have the entire driveway follaw the same line instead of having part of the driveway a fvot or two away and then having another part of the driveway right an the property line. The other board members agreed. Henrikson said he intends to install a curb along the edge of the proposed new driveway to help direct water away from the neighboring property to the south. Hogeboom explained that in order for the applicant to replace his existing driveway in the exact same location the applicant would need to prove where the original driveway was located before it was removed. He noted that the as-built survey shows that the existing driveway is 2 Iocated feet away from the property line. Sell apened the public hearing. Ginger Dunlap, 172p Mendelssohn Avenue North, asked the Board to deny the variance request. She said she has a right to have a 3-foot setback from the property line for the proposed driveway. She noted that the applicant could have a flat driveway if he removed the tree that has been discussed. She added that there is no hardship in this case and that the existing driveway has never been "blacktop". She referred to several pictures and stated that the proposed driveway will be a safety hazard and that her family has the right to breathe clean air and they won`t be able to if cars are parked that close to her door. She referred to the staff report regarding this variance request and said the proposed pafio area will be used to park cars on and that the applicant is just calling it a patio so he can build it right to the property line but she knows the entire thing will really be a driveway. She stated that the applicant started the work on his property without talking to the City or to her and that he removed the existing staircase and buried the debris in his front yard. She said he is doing this work with no regard to her even after she told him that his new driveway had to be set back 3 feet from the property line. She said she has tried to talk to the applicant several times about his plans buf it is futile because he is going to do whatever he wants to do. She said she caught him in his yard with a metal detector and shovel trying to put in new metal stakes. She refierred to the survey and noted that the applicants existing retaining wall and fence are located completely on her property and he has dug holes 5 to 6 inches into her yard. She said the applicant has "skirted" around the code requirements and she wants this variance denied. McCarty referred to the existing retaining wall and fence and asked if the applicant is the person who installed them: Dunlap said the applicant installed the wall and fence before she moved into her house. Paul Grandbois, 1720 Mendelssohn Avenue North, asked the Board to deny the variance request becausethere is no hardship. He reiterated that there would be a flat spot to park on the driveway if the existing tree were removed. He showed the Board pictures indicating how much room there would be to park if the tree was removed. He stated that the applicant started this project with no permits, variances or plans. He stated that the Minutes of the Goiden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 25, 2008 Page 9 applicant told him that he was gorng to build a driveway leading to his backyard and that should be able fo be done with enough room to follow the setback requirements. He said the only thing that has changed regarding the applicant's plan from the beginning is that he is now calling part of the driveway a patio. He said he knows that this "pafio" is really going to be a driveway and asked that it be required to be set back 3 feet from the property line. Sell asked if there is a previous survey on file that would show where the driveway was originally located. Hogeboom stated that there are no other surveys in the City's files. Nelson clarified that because there is na proof of the location of the driveway that used to be on the property the applicant can't replace it with a new driveway in the same IoGation. Hogeboom said that is correct. Segelbaum asked about the definition of a patio versus a driveway. Hogeboom said the zoning cade doesn't define a driveway so staff uses the"dictionary definition. He noted that when he first spoke with the applicant he was referring the project as a driveway, not part driveway and part patio. Kisch asked if the proposed deck would be located the required 15 feet away from the side yard property line. Hogeboom stated that he erred in calling the landing area a deck and that is why he is removing it from the agenda He reiterated that the applicant should be able to build a landing within the 25 square feet allowed. Segelbaum said he is alsa concerned about the location of the applicant's shed. Hogeboom said the applieant's shed does conform to the zoning code requirements. Sell noted that the shed on the neighboring property to the south is only 6 inches away from the praperty Jine. Dunlap said she would be willing move her shed. Henrikson said he realizes that his retaining wall and fence are located Ms. Dunlap's property and he intends to move them back onto his property next summer. Grandbois, referred to the survey and reiterated that there is 14 feet between the applicant's house and the praperty line. Fle stated that the applicant's plans show that everything is 6 inches over the property line or he wants everything to be right on the prnperty line. He said he wants to make sure that everything is located on the applicant's side of the property line. Kisch said he is still uncertain about where the previous driveway was located. He said if there was proof of where the driveway used to be located he would feel more comfortable allowing the new driveway to be built in the same location. Otherwise, he would like to see the driveway built 3 feet away from the property line: Nelson agreed that without proof of the previous driveway location the applicant should keep the driveway 3 feet away from the property line. Kisch referred to the concerns about the patio really being used as a driveway and said that it is hard for the Board to say what the applicant's intent is regarding the use of the patio. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 25, 2008 Rage 10 Segelbaum asked if the Board has the authority to require that the driveway and patio be separated. Hogeboom said the City cannot limit access to a backyard. McCarty asked what the Gode says about driving over a patio. Hogeboom said a patio can be driven aver but cars can't be parked on it. MOVED by Segelbaum to deny the variance request for 3 ft. off the required 3 ft. to a distance of Q ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line to allow for the construction of new driveway. The motion died due to the lack of a second. Kisch suggested tabling the applicant's request to allow him time to provide proof of the original driveway's location. Hogeboom noted that the City does not have any proof on file of the original driveway location. Henrikson said he has proof of where the original driveway was {ocated and he would be willing to have his request tabled. Dunlap asked if the applicant comes to the City with a picture of a pile of rocks i�that would be considered proof of the driveway location. Hogeboom stated that the Director of Planning and Development will look at what the applicant submits and make a decision. He added that he thinks it will be hard for the applicant ta prove where the previous driveway was without having an old survey. Kisch said he wants to give the applicant a chance to prove the location of the previous driveway. He stated that he thinks no more work should be done by the app{icant until the City has the proof that has been requested. Dunlap said the work the applicant has done so far looks horrible. Nelson explained that the Board has to go by what the zoning code requires and not by how things look. Kisch stated that if it turns out there is no proof of the previaus driveway's location then he thinks the Board wifl agree to deny the variance requesfed. MOVED by Kisch, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to table the variance request (per the applicant's request) for 3 ft. off the required 3 ft. to a distance of 0 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line to allow for the construction of new driveway. The applicant has until the October 2008 Board of Zoning Appeals to prove to the City the location of the previously existing driveway. III. Other Busin s 231 rd Av nue Nort ontinued (tabled) Item Hogeboom remin Board that the property owner at 2310 Byrd Avenue North came before them at th ` 24, 2008 meeting requesting a variance to build a deck. At that meeting that ard ble applicant's request to the September meeting in order for him to co ack t he Boar er he had time to consider al#ernative designs for his propo deck. He ated that the licant has no# proposed any alternative designs so s s therefore ask g that the Boar o�cially deny this variance request. Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 28, 2008 A regular meeting of the Golden Iley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, ober 28, 2008 at City Hall, 78 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Sell ca e meeting to order a pm. Those present wer embers Ki h, Nelso y, gelbaum, Sell, and Planning Commission Representative McCarty: o pr se e City Planner ,foe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa n. t. Approva inutes — ptember 2 ; 08 _ MOV y Segelbaum, second� d by Kisch and motion carried unanimously to approve t eptember 25 minutes as s mitted. II. The Petitions are: Continued Item... 1800 Mendelssohn Avenue North (08-09-16) Marfin Henrikson, A„pplicant � Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 19 Driveway Setback Requirements • 3 ft. off the required 3 ft. to a distance of 0 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the constructian of a new driveway. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(3)(c) Side Yard Setback Requirements _ • 3 ft. off the required 12 ft. to a distance of 9 ft: at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. � Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new deck. Hogeboom reminded the Board that this proposal was tabled at last month's meeting in order to allow the applicant time to provide proof of the lacation of the previously existing driveway; Hogeboom stated that staff has reviewed the photos submitted by the applicant and has determined that the edge of the driveway shown in the photos is landscape rock and not the edge of the previously existing driveway. Therefore, if the applicant wants to expand the driveway all the way to the property line he still requires a variance. Minutes of the Golden VaNey Board of Zoning Appeais 4ctober 28, 2008 Page 2 Hogeboom added that the variance request listed above regarding the proposed deck was removed from last month's agenda but is back on this agenda per the applicant's request. McCarty asked Hogeboom to discuss the recent Planning Commission discussion regarding setbacks for patios and other paved surfaces. Hageboom explained that Golden Valley currently has no setback requirements for patios. He stated that he researched surrounding city's requiremen#s and most of the cifies he spoke with require a 5-foot setback for patios. He said at this point staff and the Ptan�ing Commission are considering requiring a 3-foot setback for patios because it would be consistent with the driveway setback requirements. Segelbaum asked if a new driveway could be reconstructed in the same location as the previously exisfrng driveway. Hogeboom stated that any part of the previously existing driveway that was paved can be replaced in the exact same location. Segelbaum asked if the City has received an updated surfrey of the property. Hogeboom explained that the City would not require a survey in order to allow the applicant to replace the previously existing driveway in the same location: However, he has suggested to the applicant that it would be in his best in#erest to get a new survey because there has been some discrepancy regarding the exact location of the previous driveway. Marlin Henrikson, Applicant, said he misunderstood the Board's request regarding obtaining a new survey: He showed the Board several pictures in order to demonstrate where the previous driveway was located. He stated that the area in question used to be blacktop but it had disintegrated so much that he put rock there to help with drainage issues. He stated that he also wants to place a curb along the edge o#the driveway to help with the run-off from his driveway. Kisch said it is difficult to understand the distance of the driveway shown in the pictures in relation to the survey. Sell agreed that the pictures show landscape rock but it is hard to tell where the edge of the driveway is located. Hogeboom stated that the survey shows that the existing driveway is located two feet away from the property line and reiterated that if he wants to replace the previously existing driveway he can, but without a variance the 3 ft. x 11 ft. new driveway area in question must be located 3 feet away from the property line. Henrikson stated that the top portion of the previously existing driveway was located approximately 6 inches away from the property line and then it tapered away from the property line approximately 2 feet. Hogeboom reiterated that the survey is the only proof the City has right now regarding the location of the previous{y existing driveway and it shows that it was 2 feet away from the property line, Kisch referred to the proposed new deck addition and asked the applicant if the dimensions of the deck are 12 ft. x 5 ft. Henrikson said yes. He referred to a picture of the previaus deck location and s#ated that he would like to have a one level`deck as opposed Minutes of the Goiden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 28, 2008 Page 3 to the previous two smaller levels. He stated that the previous deck was 4 feet in width and he would like to build the new deck 5 feet in width in order to make it easier to move things in and out of the house. Kisch stated that an 8 ft. x 5 ft. deck might also work. Henrikson stated that there would be approximately 6 feet of deck space on one side of the door and 3 feet of deck space on the other side of the daor. McCarty stated that he wasn't sure if the applicant really needs 3 feet of decK space behind the screen door especially since at last month's meeting he was willing to consider building a 25 square foot landing area instead of deck: Hogeboom said it was his misunderstanding that the applicant would be willing to build a 25 square foot landing area. Henrikson said a 5 ft. x 5 ft. landing area wouid only give him 1 foot of space on either side of the door. Kisch asked if 25 square feet would be considered a landing area and could be bwilt within the setback area but if anything larger would be considered a deck and would have to meet.the setback requirements. Hogeboom said that is correct. He added that when he originally looked at the applicant's proposal he thought a 25 square foot landing would work. Kisch asked the applicant if he would be willing to compromise on the size of the deck. Henrikson said he would rather remove some of the deck to the right side (east) of the door. Sell asked the app{icant if he is proposing stairs leading from the deck to the back yard. Henrikson said yes. Sell asked #he applicant if he is proposing to move his shed. He stated that the shed shown in the pictures is his neighbor's shed, but that he is proposing to moVe his shed to a conforming location next summer. Segelbaum referred to#he driveway issue and said he would fike to see an outline with dimensions of the paved area written on the survey. Kisch agr�ed and stated that if the variance is denied tl�e applicant will still be able to build a new driveway in the same location as the previously existing driveway. Henrikson asked if he could pave the areas of the driveway/patio area that are not in question. Sell said yes and reiterated that he can pave a new driveway in the same footprint as the previously existing driveway. Sell opened the public Mearing. Ginger Dunlap, 1720 Mendelssohn Avenue North, said she doesn't care if the applicant replaces the previously existing driveway in the exacf same place. She just wants the driveway of the 8 ft. x 11 ft. area`in question to be located 3 feet away from the property line because it is right outside her dining room. She stated that there is no hardship in this case and the applicant has not proven where the previously existing driveway was located.� Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 28, 2008 Page 4 Dunlap asked if the applicant installs gravel in the 3 feet setback area if he will be able to park on it. Hogeboom explained that the applicant is allowed to drive over any gravel area, but he will not be allowed to park on it. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Sell closed the public hearing, : McCarty asked if the pavement has changed since they heard last manth's proposal. Nogeboom said nothing has changed with this property since last month's meeting. Kisch said he would support the variance request regarding the deck because if it were considered to be a landing rather than a deck it could still be 5 feet in width. Nelson agreed and said she was concerned about the width of the proposed deck more than the length. MOVED by Kisch, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to approve a variance for 3 ft. off the required 12 ft. to a distance of 9 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property fine to allow for the construction of a new deck. McCarty suggested the Board make it clear that they are approving a 12 ft. long x 5 ft. wide deck. The Board agreed. � Segelbaum referred to#he variance regarding the driveway and stated that he doesn't see the necessary hardship in this case. He said he hoped to see a new survey that clearly showed where the previous driveway was located. McCarty noted that at last month's meeting there was discussion abou# calling a portion of this proposal a patio. He asked if that patio portion is still being proposed. Hogeboom said yes, part of the proposal is a patio but the applicant will not be allowed to park on it. MOVED by McCariy, seconded by Kisch and motion carried unanimously to deny the variance request for 3 ft. off the required 3 ft. to a distance of 0 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line to allow for the construction of a new driveway. 0 Toledo Avenue North (0'�10-15) Donn elson A � licant � � "� � � � �i � �; Request: iver from Sectilon 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(1} Front Yard Setback Req ' ements ;! �"�' � ,;----� ;,-- • 1.6 ft. o r '' e"�d 35 ft. to a distance of 33.4 ft. at its closest point to, ' r q�yard {west) property line. �,, �, ,r � � Purpose: "allow for the c �structio"��f a garage. � � , Hogeb stated that the applicant cu ently has a 1-sta - arage. He explained that it is the plicant's intent to tear down the isting garage and bui�new 2-stall garage in its , � P ��I�LLY ADA�TED HaU�1`N � Minimum Property Requirements `, Sfi. Paul � � �� Regional Office SP�CIALLY ADAPTED HOUSI�IG {SAH) Minimum Property Requirements Tabte of Contents Statutory Requir�ements � Ramps and Walkways � Garage and �Carports q. Doorways 5 Hallways 5 Bathroom 6 Kitchen 11 Bedroom 14 Electrica� �4 Windows 15 Fiooring 16 Security an+d Et�erger�cy 1� Laundry 17 4ther Housing Requir�ments �7 Condominiums and Tawrnhouse �g Statutory Requirement ❖ Governing Law 38 U.S.C, Chapte� 2�I or 3�.4401 through 3G.4410 mandates that any hQUSing unit a�quired,_ constructed, ar remodeled using proceeds from the Speciaily Adapted Housing {SAH) and Speciai Housing Adaptations (SHA) Grant Programs must A Meet the MPRs, and ➢ Include features necessary to accomrnodate #he veteran's disabilities. ❖ Minimum Proper#y Requirements ➢ Are alasalute conditions under the governing law for the housing grant. ➢ Were dev�loped by the experience and knowledge of experts who have gained an understanding of the residentia( needs of veterans confined, or (argely confined, to wheefchairs. Ramps and Walkways ' ❖ Most homes must have finro ramps and/or walkways that are ➢ Suitabte for ingress and egress, and ➢ At different locations within the house. ❖ At teast one of the two'ramps must ➢ Provide a direct means of emergency egress from the adaptive bedroom area, and ➢ Be clear of potentiat fire hazards. 1 ❖ Ramps and waikways must be ➢ Permanently insta(Ced; and ➢ A minimum of 3 feet 6 inches (42 inches)wide for existing, arid ➢ A minimum of 4 feet (48 inches) wide for new construction. NOTE:1t is recommended far ramps to be covered with adequate overhang protection against inclement weather, if practical: Ramp, Watkway, and Driveway ❖ Slope of ramp, walkway, and driveway ➢ The ramp and walkway must have a slope af 8% or less. The calcutation for an 8% slope is: far every 1 inch of rise (height}there must be 12A5 inches of run {length). A If a driveway is used as a rarnp it mus#comply with slope requirements. lVOTE: All driveways should comply with the same slope requirements as ramps whenever possi#�fe, °:• Treatment o#Watkways and Ramps ➢ Non-Slip Finish wi!! include, but is not limited to ➢ Broom fiinishe� of concrete surfaGes ➢ Buif# in efectric coiis ➢ 1/4 inch spacing befinreen decking boards, and ➢ Metal grating. Ramp and Watkway Handrails ❖ The ramp or walkway must have a handrail unless the slope is less than 5 percent. The handrail must ➢ Be installed on both sides of the ramp or stairs ➢ Be a maximum height of 30 inches 2 ➢ Have a hand grip with a minimum of 1-112 inch diameter ➢ Be a minimum of 1-112 inch to a maximum of 2 inch clearance from any mounting surFace ➢ Be smooth, con#in�QUS, and taninterrupted in the verticai or horizanta! plane ➢ If necessary, be turned down or turned into the parallei wall to avoid dangerous projec#ions, and ➢ lf nece�sary, ejcter�d a minimum o#1 #oot beyond #he end o#any s#ainaray or ramp ending. R�mp ant� W�Ik�nray Curbs an�d Guards ❖ The ramp or walkway must have curbs or guards if a handraii is instalfed. The curbs must be ➢ On both sides of the ramp or walkway ➢ A maximum heigh# o#5 inches ❖ The guards must be ➢ A maxirnum he�ght of 5 inches, and ➢ Designed fior drainage ❖ Ramp and Walkway PlatForms must ➢ Be provided at a11 wheelchair entcances : ➢ Be equal in height ta the house floor level at wheelchaic entrances ➢ Be a minimum of 5 foot by 5 faot in size, unhindered by handrails, gutters, etc. ➢ Be constructed of non-slip materials ➢ At a minimum be provided every 30 feet of the ramp ➢ Be provided at any 90 degree turn in the ramp ➢ Be reasonably level with a maximum slope of 1/8 inch per foot for drainage 3 ➢ Have a clear area of 1 foot 6 inches of width beside the door entrance oppasite the hinge, and ➢ Be unnbstructed. Connect�ng Walkways and Ramp to Garages and Carports ❖ Watkways and ramps must ➢ Be installed if the garage or carport is detached from the home, and ➢ B� covered to protect the veteran €rom exposure to inciement weather. Garage and Carport *:* A garage or carport must ➢ Have a minimum overhead dooNopening height of 7 feet far existing struc#ures ➢ Have a minimum overhead daor/opening height of 8 feet for propased construction ➢ Be a minimum of 14 feet 6 inches wide and 24 feet long for single-car garage or carport ➢ Be a minimum of 24 feet wide and 24 feet long for double-car garage or carport ❖ The width of the garage and carport must ➢ include'a minimum of 5 feet, unrestricted wheelchair rna'neuverability on at least ane side of the vehicle, and ➢ Allow ample space for the veteran to park a specially equipped vehicle(s) and to provide access to the vehicle, as necessary. ➢ If the veteran uses a platform on his/her vehicle, sufficient space must be provided. 4 Doorways •:* Atl dQOrways, including patio doors, that are wheelchair in9ress/egress passageways must � Be a minimum af 36 inches wide ➢ Be easy opening. Idote: A patio door must be the minimum width of 7 feet wide to accommodate the 3fi inch opening A if a threshvld is ins#alled it rr�ust be beveleet and have a maximum height of 9/2 inch, and ➢ A variation to the width of#he doorway requirement is ➢ The minimum width of 32 inches is allowabte if it is not feasible ta widen the doorway to 36 inches wide. ➢ Be protected from inciement weather by a canopy or overhang. ➢ NOTE; Ingress/egress doorways to whgetchair ramps or walkways must always be a minimum of 36 inches wide with no altowable Variatian. Hallways ❖ Haltways r�ust fi�ave ➢ A minimum width of 48 inches. If the minimum width is not feasible ta obtain, then a variation af 42 inehes wide may be allowed with a waiver. ➢ Turns from#he halfway into any rooms, including bedraoms:and/or bathrooms, must have s�fficient space for safe unobstructed maneuvering of a wheelchair. ➢ Ingresslegress routes. 5 Bathrooms � NOTE: At least ane bathroom must be conveniently loeat�d near the veteran's bedroom. ❖ Bathroam ftoor area must ➢ Have a minimum 5 faot ciear area turn diameter to provide for wheelcMair maneuverability ➢ Have a minimum 4 foot clear area in front of all fixtures, and A Have flooring that is non-slip under both wet and dry conditions. Note: Non-slip is defined as Static Coefficient of Friction must be a minimum 0.60 wet BafiMroc�m Toilets ❖ Tailets must have ➢ A 3 foot unobstructed access#o the side of the toil�t'for ease and safe #ransfer firom fihe wheeichair ➢ A 4 foot unobstructed area in front af the toilet for wheelchair access ❖ Toilets must have grab bars that are installed at the side and rear and must ➢ Be a minimum of 1-1/2 inch diameter, and ➢ Support a minimum dead weight af 250 fbs ➢ Be at approximately 2 feet 9 inches high or at a height that is convenient to the veterans needs ➢ Be installed with a minimum of 1-1/2 inches to a maximum of 2 inches of clearance from the inside of the bar to the mounting surface, and ➢ Extend the tatal length of the toilet plus e�end 12 inches past the front of the toilet on the side wall. 6 , ' Bathroom Vanities and Sinks NOTE: In most cases the sink is included as pa�t of the vanity countertop. Pedestal or wall hanging sinks are ailowed provided there is unrestricted maneuverabitity �:• Vanities and sinks must ➢ Be a minimum height of 2 feet 3 inches under the counter and a maximum height of 2 feet 10 inches A �e a minimum depth of 2 feet 3 inches _ ➢ Have a 3 foot wide knee spa�e under the vanity and sink:for wheelchair access ➢ Have rounded corners on vanities ➢ Have plumbing wrapped or covered to prevent the veteran from abrasions or�burrts uport cantac�, ar�d A Have a GFI (ground fiault interrupter) electrical outlet located for easy access to the veteran while seated in the wheelchair. ` ➢ Have single lever fau+�et controt tocated within easy reach from the wheelchair. Ba#hroom �llirrors *:• Bathroom mirrors mus# ➢ Be lowered or tilted #o accammodate a veteran while in the seated position, and ➢ Be at a maximum 3 foot height to the bottom edge of the mirror. 7 Bathroom Medicine Cabinets . ❖ Medicine cabinets (if installed) must ➢ Be instatted at a height and iocation to attow easy aceess to the veteran while seated 'm the wheelchair, and ➢ Have adequa#e drawers and starage space for the veteran's personal hY9��Q equipment and supplies. Bathroom`Passage Doorways ❖ Passage dvorways #o the bathroam must ➢ Have a minimum opening of 36 inches ➢ Be a pocket door or if a swingin� daor is installed it must swing out of the bathroom, and ➢ Not obstruct wheelchair maneuvering when open. Bathroom Roll-In Showers NOTE: A roll-in shower is required in an adaptive home and a bathtub is aptional ❖ Roll-In Showers for existing construction must ➢ Be a minimum of 4 feet by 4 feet interiar finish ➢ Have a minimum of a 36 inch opening ➢ A maximum floar slnpe to 114 inch #0 12 in�hes �f length ❖ Rotl-In Showers for new construction must ➢ Be a minimum of 5 feet by 5 feet interior finish 8 ➢ Have a minimum of a 36 inch opening � Have a maximum floor slope to 1/4 inch #0 12,inches of length ❖ Ifi a roll-in shower for new and existing construction is built on site i# must have ➢ A flo�rr drain with a 2 inch diameter, and A The floor drain instaHed at the rear of the shower stall. ❖ Pre-manufactured roil-in shower stalis for new and'existing construction must have ➢ A floor drain with a minimum af'l-112 inch diameter, or ➢ A 2 inch ftoar drain must be ins#alled ifi it is passibte to instail and/or an op#ion of the manufacturer. ❖ Roll-ln Showers for new and exis#ing construction must ➢ Have n�n-slip flooring, and ➢ Cannat have a curb installed #o separate #he shower from the rest of the bathroom floor. ❖ A built-in bench is a veteran's option, it is not an MPR requiremen#. Shower Head ❖ The shower head must be ➢ Hand held, and ➢ (Jn a sHding bar Water Control Lever ` •'• Water Controls musf . ➢ Be accessible from the`wheelchair for water temperature contro! 9 ➢ Be singie lever, and ➢ Have fihermostatic or pressure-6alance contro!to avoid sudden changes in water#emperature. Shower Grab Bars � ❖ Grab Bars must ➢ Be instalted on three wails of the shower ➢ Be a minimum of 1-1/2 inch diameter ➢ Be.installed approxima#ely 2 feet 9 inches high ar at a height that is convenient to the veterans needs ➢ Support� minimum dead weight of 25Q Ibs., and ➢ Be installed with a minimum of 1-1/2 inches to a maximum af 2 inches of clearance firom the inside of the bar to the mbunting surface. NOTE: In some applications, the veteran may request that a bar is vertically instalied. This is an option tif the veteran and is atic�wabl� if used in conjunction with the horizontal bar appiication. Bath tub ❖ There must'be a 4 foot clear unobstructed area to the side of the #ub. *:• The bath tub transfer platform must be ➢ The width of the tub and a minimum of 18 inches in length ➢ installed at the rear af#he tub, and ➢ Of a height that allows ease of transfer firom the wheelchair. ❖ Bath tub faucets must be ➢ Accessible fior water temperature control both, when in the wheel�hair or immersed in the water, and ➢ Thermostatic or pressure-balance controlled to avoid sudden changes in water temperature. 10 Bath Tub Grab E3ars ❖ �rab Bars must ➢ Be in�talled on the:rear and side wa�lls of the tub ➢ Be a minimum of 1-1/2 inch diameter �' Be installed at a height that is convenient to the veterans needs ➢ Support a minimum dead weight of 2501bs., and ➢ Be instatled with a minimum of 1-1/2 inches to a maximum of 2 inches of clearance from the inside of the bar to the mounting surface. NC)TE: In some appfications, the ve#eran may request that a bar is vertically installed. This is an option af the veteran and is aliowable if used in conjunctian wi#h the horizantal bar application. Kitchens ❖ The kitchen arrangement must ailaw for adequate maneuvering room for the veteran. There must be a rninimum ctear unobstructed diameter of 5 foot by 5 foo# in the center of the work area far wheelchair maneuvering.' ❖ Electrical outfe#s must be located for �asy access to the veteran while seated in the wheelchair. Outlets near sinks must be �FI (graund fault interrup#erj type ❖ Electrical switches for the fotlowing items must be installed on the face of the cabinets or conv�nien#ly place #or#he veteran's use: ➢ Garbage disposal ➢ Vent#an ➢ Range hoad,:and ➢ Lights. I1 Kitchen Cabir�ets and Work Counter�s ❖ S#andard cabinet heights are acceptable but must have ➢ Storage areas accessible from the wheelchair and contain putlout shelves ➢ A minimum 3 foot wide opening under the kitchen sink f4r wheelchair access, and ➢ Slide out drawers and shelves on #he lower cabinets. ❖ Standard counter heights are acceptabie but a minimum af one work caunter must ➢ Be a mir�imur�wid�h of� feef wide ➢ Be maximum 2 feet 10 inches high, and ➢ Have su�cient space underneath to accommodate#he needs of the veteran in a wheetchair. Kitchen Ovens and Ranges *:+ Ovens rnust ➢ Be instal(ed at a levei convenient for the individuai veteran while seated in the wheelchair ➢ include a built-in range with _ ➢ Qpen space underneath far wheelchair access, and ➢ Con#rols toward the front. •.- A fre+e �tanding r�nge must ➢ Be located at the end of the row of cabinets, and ➢ Have fronUside controls. iMPORTANT I�OTE: Each veteran has individua� r�eeds ar�d the 3AH Agen# must research and be considerate of those needs. Some variatians of MPRs are allowable with the proper waiver request. 12 Kitchen Sinks � ❖ Kitchen sink cansiderations ➢ Have a minimum of a 3 foot wide opening under the sink far�nrheelchair access � Be shallaw enough to all4w for a minimum 2-foot;3-inch clearance fram the bottom af the basin to the floor, so that the veterans aceess under the kitchen sink is not impeded. ➢ Separ�te disposa{ sinks must be instafled. Note: For a sink/disposa! combination;the dispasal sink should be offset sa tha#the veteran has full wheelchair access. ➢ Wrap or cover plumbing to protect the veteran from bums and abrasions. ❖ Faucets must ➢ Be single-lever control, and ➢ HaVe hose and sprayer Kifichen Appliances -:• Special appliances to a�d the veteran'must be inciuded in the kitchen. (i.e. dishwashers, food warmers, microwaves, etc.) ❖ Refrigerators must be ➢ Doubie doar, side-by-side refrigeratar/freezer cambination, and ➢ Located to allow for unobs#ructed access when the door of the refrigerator is open: Bet�l'flC�17'1 13 ❖ Veterans bedroom must ➢ A{iow at least one clear area for maneuvering with a minimum diameter of 5 feet ➢ Have a minimum 4-foot clear access to the closet ➢ Have a minimum of 3 feet provided on at least ane side af the bed for transfer ➢ Have a cfear minimum opening of 4 feet between the end af the bed and the opposing wall ➢ Be accessibte from a wheelchair ➢ Provide a direct means of emergency egress firom the adaptive bedroom area,and ➢ Be ciear of potential fire hazards. Electricat Requirements ❖ Electricat outlets must ➢ Be a minimum height of 18 mches, and ➢ Have an unabstructed access from the wheelchair. :• Wall switche$ must ➢ Be a maximum height ofi 4� inches, antl have an unabstructed access from the wheelchair. NOTE: {n an existing home, outlets, switches, and thermostats can remain at the existing location, as long as the veteran can access them from the wheelchair. if the switches, outiets, and thermostats are moved for remodeling or a new addition, the relocated fixtures must be installed at the 18 inch and 48 inch height. Electrical Requirements 1�. ❖ Electricai Utility Boxes ➢ (n new hames the electrical utility baxes must be located so the veteran has unobstructed access from the wheeichair. The maximum h�ight to the#ap breaker is 48 inches and the box must be near an egress point. A In an existing home moving the electrical utitity box is an option for the veteran and can remain at the existing location. ❖ Electrical outle#s near water outlets such as bathroom vani#y, I�athroom tub, shower, kitchen sink, and/or laundry #ub, must be GFI {ground fault interrupter) type. ❖ Garage doar openerg must be autornatic with direct control that is ➢ Remote control, and/or' � Button controi. Windows ❖ Windaws must ➢ Be operational while seated in the wheelchair ➢ Have a locking systems that is operational while seated in the wheelchair ➢ Have a maximum sill height of 2 feet 9 inches ➢ Be located #o allow the veteran maximum visibility-t6 the exteriar of the hc�me, and ➢ Have maintenance-free frames (aluminum,vinyl, steel) Flooring •`• F'iooring must Is . ➢ Nof impede wheelchair maneuverability, and ➢ Have a minimum of 5 foot by-5 foot non-slip flooring (under both wet and dry conditions) inside#he hame at the wheefchair ingress/egress doorways. NOTE: Carpet is not eonsidered a non-slip materiaL ❖ Carpeting mus# be ➢ Closely knit ➢ Low pile, and ➢ Padded with a durable fiber type carpet pad. NOTE: Because of the repetition traffic pattern of the wheelchair, rnost rubber carpet pads break d�wn under the constant stress, fherefore fiber pads, eith�r synthetic or natural, are required. (Carpet may nat be glued to the flaor} Securiiy �nd Emergen�y Re�uirem�nts ❖ Smoke de#ectors mus# be ins#alled � According to local and federa! regulations p tn the main portion of any living area in a(! leveis of the home ➢ At the entrance to each bedroom NOTE: Meet ULS (Underwriters' Laboratories Standard) No. 217. (hard-wired with a battery backup) - ❖ All wheelchair exits from the home must be welt ligh#ed for security and sa#ety ❖ The foHowing are acceptable for existing homes ➢ Security alarms ➢ Interior/exterior phone outlets ➢ Intercom system ➢ Carbon monoxide unit, and ➢ Delayed door closures. 16 r : � Laur�dry Appliance R�equirements *.• There must be a 5 foot by 5 foot turning radius in frant of all laundry appliances. :• All laundry appliances must be front loading, to accommodate the needs of the veteran. Other Hous�ng Requirements ❖ Exterior of Proposed Cons#ruction ❖ Mus# be maintenance-free including A Siding ➢ Windows, and ➢ Doors ❖ Exterior of existing home ➢ !f a new additian is added you may 'rns#all mainten.ance free materiafs ta the existing structure to match the new addition � if a new addition is added it is not required to install maintenance free rnateriai if#he veterar� elects #o match the ma#eriais of the exisfiing home. ❖ Heating installation must � Meet�r exceed buiiding code requirements. ➢ Be adequate for healthful and comfortable (iving conditions. NOTE: It may be necessary for some veteran's to add zoned heating or addi#ional heating to some rooms of the home. �3 Thermostats must ➢ Be installed at a maximum height of 48 inches, and ➢ Have an unobstructed access from the wheelchair. 17 NQTE: In an existing home, thermostats can remain at standard heights, as long as veteran can reach them. ❖ Air-Conditioning Air-conditioning isn't a required adaptation, howev�r, a ve#erans disability may dictate the need for air-conditioning. It is the veteran's option to decide to install central ar individual room air-conditioning units. Condominium and Townhouse Requirements ❖ At teast one suitable means of access must be provided to furnish the veteran with level ingress and egress from th�condominium ar tawnhome ❖ If the structure does not provide one levei means of access ta the unit, ramps, ramp platforms, lifts, and elevators may be u#ifized to eliminate any elevation difference between interior and ex#erior floor leve{s. •3 if the unit is located above the first floor, a single SAH qualified exit may be acceptable. NOTE: A!I other specially adapted features wili bE required under this variation, with the exception of the requirement for two emergency,exits. •3 Exterior emergency access p The condominium ar townhouse must be accessible to fire fighting and evacuation equipment from the exteriar of the unit. No unit can_be lacated higher than the highesf ground emergency euacuation ladder system. The SAH Agent must check with the fire department to con�rm the height of the evacuation equipment. , ➢ The location of the veteran's unit must be registered with the local fire authority and emergency rescue units. ❖ Interior emergency access ➢ If the veteran is bedridden, the condominium or townhouse must 18 # ➢ Contain an externally maunted electrical device that when activated firom the inside will aid fire or emergency rescue persannel to locate the ueteran's unit. •:� The bedroom window of the unit must ➢ Be of sufficient size to atlow acce�� by emergency personnel, and ➢ Nave exterior markings to show the iocation of the bedroom. NOTE: All windows in the unit must be large enough to allow access far emerg�ncy personnel. NOTE: Ve#erans must be encauraged to purchase a unit with a balcony that will a41ow access ta emergency persannel. 19