The URL can be used to link to this page

11-25-14 BZA Agenda Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, November 25, 2014 7 pm 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers I. Approval of Minutes — September 23, 2014 Regular Meeting II. The Petition(s) are: 1309 Tyrol Trail Cvnthia Cattell and John Wyqant, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3)(b) Side Yard Setback Requirements • 2.5 ft. off of the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 10 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (southwest) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a screen porch addition. III. Other Business IV. Adjournment ; This tlacument is available in alternate formats upon a 7?_-hnur request. Please call � 763-593-800G (TfY: 763-593-3968)to make a request. Exan7ples of alternate formats ; � may include large print,electronic, Braille,audiocassette,�tc. �' ,� Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 23, 2014 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, September 23, 2014, at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Members Johnson, Maxwell, Nelson, Perich and Planning Commission Representative Segelbaum. Also present were Planning Manager Jason Zimmerrnan, Associate Planner Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes —August 26, 2014, Regular Meeting ` MOVED Nelson, seconded by Maxwell and motion carried unanimously to app'rove the August 26, 2014, minutes as submitted. II. The Petition(s) are: 116 Ottawa Avenue South Saw-Mehone Tebedqe, Applicant (Continued Item)' Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3)(b) Side Yard Setback Requirements • 6.45 ft. off of the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 6.05 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage addition. Request: Waiver fram Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements • 18.8 ft. off ofi the'required 35 ft. to a distance of 16.2 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage addition. Zimmerman reminded the Board that this item was tabled at their last meeting. At last month's meeting, the applicant was proposing to construct a detached garage in the rear yard. The applicant has since changed his proposal and is now proposing to expand his existing attached garage toward the front of the property. The proposed new garage, with the addition, would be 911 square feet in size, and would be located 16.2 feet from the front (east) property line and 6.05 feet from the side (south) property line. Maxwell asked about the setback requirements for a detached garage. Zimmerman stated that a detached garage could be located 5 feet away from a side or rear yard property line with 10 feet of separation between the garage and the principal structure. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 23, 2014 Page 2 He referred to a survey of the property and showed where the applicant could build additional garage space without variances. Johnson asked if the existing garage is located in a setback area. Zimmerman stated that the front corner of the existing garage is right at the 35 foot front setback line. Segelbaum asked about the distance from the existing garage to the side yard property line. Zimmerman said the existing garage is approximately 12 feet away from the side yard property line. Saw-Mehone Tebedge, Applicant, discussed the last time he drove his callector cars. He stated that his cars are not junk cars; they are collectible, important cars that need to be stored inside. He referred to the survey of his property and discussed the reasons he feels he can't build additional garage space in a conforming locatian: He referred to the location where he wants to build his garage addition and noted that a similar variance was approved at last month's BZA meeting. He stated that the neighbor most affected by his proposal won't be able to see it from their firsf floor"because there is a fence and trees blocking the view. He said most of the other neighborrs have signed a letter saying they are ok with what he is proposing. He referred to his existing garage and stated that it is only 18 feet wide and he can only put two cars in it without adequate room for anything else. Maxwell asked if the proposed new garage addition cou.ld be centered on the existing garage. Tebedge stated that centering the garage would block more of his house and he doesn't want to block the entryway. He'added that with the way he is proposing it, the new roof line would tie inta the existing roof line. Nelson stated that the variance approved last month, as referred to by Mr. Tebedge, was very different. That property was a corner lot and the applicant had a one stall garage. Maxwell said that he likes that the applicant likes to collect cars, and he understands that they ha�e great meaning to him. He asked the applicant if he could articulate any other unique circurnstances with his property that the Board could take into account. Tebedge said when the house was built, it was placed too close to the south property line. He reiterated that it does not make sense to add garage space anywhere else. He referred to a neighboring house with a detached garage in front that was on the market for a long time b'ecause people complained about the garage being in front. He stated that because of the way his garage was built, the space is restricted and not usable. He added that he doesn't want to make the same mistake by building an addition that is too narrow. Nelson explained that state statute has four criteria that the Board has to following when considering variance requests. Tebedge said he understands, and added that common sense also needs to be followed. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 23, 2014 Page 3 Johnson questioned if a variance would still be required if the proposed garage addition was shifted to the north, further away from the side yard property line. Tebedge said he would not need a variance from the side yard setback requirement, but he would still need one from the front yard requirement. Johnson opened the public hearing. John Heidinger, 124 Ottawa Avenue South, said that cars have been stored in Mr. Tebedge's driveway for 20 years. He stated that the reason he can't see the cars is because he spent a significant amount of money on trees and fencing. He said the building of the proposed garage addition would affect his property value He added that even with the new garage addition, four cars would still be parked on the driv�way. He said that the survey the applicant is using is not really a survey, it just shows the boundaries of the praperty and suggested that the applicant get a certified survey of his property. He added that part of the applicant's driveway is located on his property. He referred to the four criteria used by the Board when consid�ring variance;requests and stated that he doesn't think this proposal reasonable, +t.,is a situation created by the landowner, and the proposed variances if granted would, akt�r the locality. He respectfully requested that the Board deny the applicants praposal. Janet Heiginder, 124 Ottawa Avenue South, said she i�,tryirtg to figure out how the applicant could build his proposed garage addition without destroying what exists on her property. ' Tebedge said he has eight cars, but he is getting to the point when his three daughters will be taking their cars. He reiterated that he is trying to get the cars aff the driveway and into a garage. He added`that the side and rear yard setback requirements for a detached garage are 5 feet, so he eould build a garage 5 feet from the neighboring property owners without variances. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Johnson closed the public hearing. Nelson said she sympathizes with the applicant, but she agrees that the four criteria the Board has to consider are not being met. She stated that there are other places on the applicant's property where he can build additional garage space without requiring variances. She added that the City has historically been protective of front yard setback space. .Segelbaum agreed that the City has been protective of front yards and added that he also thinks the proposal would negatively impact the neighbor. Perich agreed that the criteria are not being met in this case. Maxwell said he is struggling with the uniqueness of this property as well. Johnson stated that the Board has been sympathetic in the past by allowing applicants to expand a one-stall garage into two, and in this case the applicanYs garage is 18 feet wide, which is smaller than a normal two-stall garage. However, he is inclined to agree that the issues in this case have been caused by the homeowner. Maxwell agreed, and added that going from a two-stall garage to a four-stall garage is unprecedented. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 23, 2014 Page 4 MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Perich and motion carried unanimously to deny the requested variances. Johnson explained to the applicant that he can appeal the Board's decision to the City Council. 407 Turners Crossroad James and Joan Peters, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements ' • 4 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 31 ft. at its closest poinnt to the front yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a sun porch addition. Zimmerman referred to a survey of the property and discussed the applicant's proposal to construct a parch addition to the rear of their existing home. He stated that a variance was obtained in 2003 to bring the existing garage, located'7'.5 feet from the north property line, into conformance with zoning code requirements. Maxwell asked why the proposed porch addition couldn't be moved further to the south. Zimmerman stated there would be no access available from inside of the house if the proposed addition were moved to the south. He added that the location of the proposed porch is the applicant's preferred Ic�eation and is based on where an existing brick patio and breezeway are located. Segelbaum questioned if the roof line is also a factor as to why the addition can't be moved further to the south. Segelbaum noted that the property line is angled and stated that is another reason why the applicant's require a variance in this case. Zimmerman agreed. He noted that only a corner of the proposed atldition would be located too close to the north property line. Nelson said this is a unique lot and a unique placement of the house on the lot. Joan Peters, Applicant, 5aid they were startled to find out they needed a variance to build their proposed addition because the existing garage is already less than 10 feet away from the north property line and the proposed porch would be much further away than the garage. Nelson asked if the proposed porch is similar in size to the existing patio/pergola area. John Peters, Applicant, said yes. Johnson asked how the proposal would change if the applicants met the 35-foot front setback requirement. Mrs. Peters said they couldn't build a porch on the other side of their home because the neighbor's driveway is on that side. She said they also couldn't build a front porch addition because that would be off of the living room. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 23, 2014 Page 5 Johnson asked if the width of the proposed addition is 11 feet. Mrs. Peters said it would be the standard breezeway width. Johnson asked what the size of the addition would be if it met the setback requirements. Mrs. Peters said they wouldn't do that because they wouldn't be able to fit the porch in the existing notched-out area. Johnson opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Johnson closed the public hearing. Johnson said he thinks there are other options such as moving the entire addition further south. Mrs. Peters said moving the porch further to the south would block existing windows. Segelbaum said he thinks the request is reasonable and the proposed parch wiil have less of an impact than the existing garage. He said if the propased porch were moved 4 feet to the south, it wouldn't look good, it would like an add-on. He added that the setback line is at an angle, which is not the applicant's fault, and fhat only.a small portion of the porch would be in the setback area. Nels�n agr�ed th�at the existing garage has a much larger impact than the proposed porch addition: She said she thinks the proposal meets all the criteria the Board has to consider. Perich also agreed and said it is interesting to hear about other options,, but that is not one of the criteria the Board has to consider when making decisions. Johnson said he is inclined to vote against the requested variance because he doesn't feel all of the applicant's options for building without a variance have been exhausted. MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Perich and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve the variance request for 4 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 31 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (north) property line to allow for the construction of a sun porch addition. Johnson voted no. 3114 Lee Avenue North Adam Hockert and Jennifer Schraut, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3j(b) Side Yard Setback Requirements • 9.73 ft. off of the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 2.77 ft. at its closest point to : the side yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage and house addition. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements • 9.66 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 25.34 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (west) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage and house addition. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 23, 2014 Page 6 Goellner referred to a survey of the property and explained the applicants' proposal to construct a garage and house addition. She stated that the proposed addition would be 2.77 ft. at its closest point to the side yard property line and 25.34 ft. at its closest point to the front yard property line. She noted that the applicants have stated that a one-stall garage is not large enough for cars and storage, the current floor plan lacks adequate living space, constructing the additional space in a conforming location may involve removing large trees, and the existing home is not paraltel with the property lines, therefore their buildable area is limited. She added that the City's Building Code requires structures to be fire rated if they are located within 5 ft. of a prop�rty line. Eaves and overhangs must be fire rated if they are within 4 ft. of a property line, and a garage door must be located at least 5 ft. from the property line. Johnson asked what fire rating means. Goellner said it is usually a spray applied to the building materials, making them more fire resistant. Perich referred to the proposed living space addition behind the garage and asked if that also requires variances. Goellner stated that wh�n considering;,uariances, the structure is measured at its closest point to the property line. Maxwell asked if the proposed 27-foot wide garage is wider than a standard two-stall garage. Goellner said yes. She stated that if the applicants build a 24 ft. wide garage it would be 5.5 ft. away from the side yard property line, rather than 2.77 as proposed. Segelbaum asked if the entire addition could be shifted back toward the rear of the property. Maxwell said trees might be lost if they'shift the addition back. Adam Hockert, Applicant, said he doesn't want to move and he loves this neighborhood and his neighbors. Jenny Schraut, Applicant, said they want to build a two-stall garage for two cars and for storage. She explained that the adtlition behind the proposed garage would be a living room addition on a cement slab'#oundation. Hockert stated that the garage variance is part of a bigger plan and that they tried to make their request reasonable. He said his truck barely fits in the �xisting garage and showed the Board a plan of how the new garage would#it with his truck and car. He referred to an interior floor plan and said he needs more space for his large family. Schraut stated that if they shifted the addition back as was suggested they would have to remove one of the original trees on the property. Hockert said he doesn't want to shift the addition back because that area is a gathering area and he doesn't want to lose any trees because they were part of the reason they bought this house. He said the difficulty in this case is the geometry of the lot and that fact that the house sits at an angle. He stated that even though they are proposing to be 3 ft. away from the side yard property line, the addition would still be 19 ft. away from the neighboring house. Schraut added that they have talked to the neighbors and they are in support of their proposal. Hockert said he doesn't think the neighbor's view will be harmed because of the way the road curves. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 23, 2014 Page 7 Nelson stated that the Board tries to allow applicants to construct two-stall garages and questioned if a 24 ft. x 24 ft. garage would work. Hockert said he wants something to get approved because he wants to start construction before the ground freezes. He said part of the reason he wants a 27 ft. wide garage is so they would have room for storage and enough space to open the doors, but he would agree to build a 24 ft. wide garage. Johnson opened the public hearing. John Cook, 3124 Lee Avenue North, said he has watched the neighborhood "turn over" He said Adam and Jenny have lived in their house for 10 years and it is nice to have' kids around. He said the houses in the area are small and he can see their proposed expansion being a great improvement. He said single family house� in Golden,Valley need to be improved and allowing people to expand and stay would be better fior Golden Valley. Jason Hockert, 3100 Lee Avenue North, said he is the applicant's brother. He said that Adam and Jenny aren't able to host family events! He said that he would be the neighbor most affected by the proposed addition and he is in favor of the requested variances because houses like theirs don't allow things;to be'put away where they belong. He stated that the proposed addition can't be pushed back because of the location of the existing trees and removing the trees would affect his property. He said that if the size of the proposed garage is reduced they would also have to reduce the size of the proposed living room addition. He said:the proposed addition will improve the look of the neighborhood. Schraut stated that they wouldn't be able to shift the proposed addition further to the north either because of existing egress windows. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Johnson closed the public hearing. Maxwell stated' that if the proposed garage was 24 ft. wide, the applicant could ask for a variance from 'the articula#ion requirements so that the house addition wouldn't have to be narrower as well. Hockert stated that he would like to keep the articulation in the proposed living room addition. Nelson said she would be comfortable allowing a 24 ft. wide garage, which would be less intrusive in the setback area. Segelbaum said he is in favor of allowing a two-stall garage, but he is mostly concerned about the front setback. He said the applicants clearly want to improve their property, but he doesn't want that done at the expense of the neighbors. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 23, 2014 Page 8 Maxwell said he thinks the unique circumstance in this case is the tree in the back yard. He said he is less concerned about the front yard variance, but he would be more in favor of allowing a 24 ft. wide garage instead of the proposed 27 ft. wide garage. Perich said this neighborhood is unique and not all of the houses are set back 35 feet, but he agrees that 27 ft. in width is too big. The Board discussed how the variance requests would change if the garage were 24 ft. x 24 ft., or 20 ft. x 20 ft. in size, or if the garage were pushed back and made narrower. Johnson stated that no matter what, variances would still be required to bu�ld a garage addition in its proposed location. Nelson agreed and stated that her first inclination was to require that the addition be built off the back of the house, bufi becaus� of the egress windows and other issues, the proposal the applicants have submitted is really the only thing they can do. Maxwell agreed and reiterated that the existing tree is a ur�ique circumstance that the Board can take into account when considering these variance requests. Goellner explained that a 24 ft. x 24 ft. garage would change;the variances requests as follows: • 6.73 ft. off of the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 5.77 ft: at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. • 7.16 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 27.84 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (west) property line. • Waiver of articulation requirements. Maxwell asked the applicant if he was ok with changing his variance requests. Hockert said yes. Nelson said she is not cornfortable with a blanket waiver of the articulation requiremenfis. Segelbaum`suggested allowing the walls to articulate 1 ft. instead of the required 2 ft. We also suggested separate motions for each request. MOYED by Maxwell, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to approve the request for 7.0 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 5.5 ft. at its closest poi,nt to the side yard (south) property line. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Nelson and motion carried unanimously to approve the request for 7.5 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 27.5 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (west) property line. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Perich and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve the request to build the south wall of the proposed addition 32 ft. in length, with an articulation of 1 ft. (instead the required 2 ft.) for at least 8 ft. in length. Nelson voted no. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 23, 2014 Page 9 III. Other Business Zimmerman discussed the recent moratorium approved by City Council regarding subdivisions. Johnson informed the Board that he has been appointed to the Planning Commission. Segelbaum asked the Board if rotating the Planning Commission representative to the BZA is working, or if they prefer one consistent representative. The consensus' af the Board was that they like the consistency of having the same Planning Commissioner attend their meetings. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 pm. Andrew Johnson, Chair Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant L:��1' i)� �. !;°r _ � � K ��5 la� � �� _ .., �r�� x �� ,.�� Planning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Date: November 25, 2014 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Subject: 1309 Tyrol Trail Cynthia Cattell and John Wygant, Applicants ��,�. F� Cynthia Cattell and John Wygant, owners of the property at 1309 Tyrol Trail, are seeking a variance from the City Code for the construction of a screen porch addition. The project requires a variance of 2.5 feet off the required side yard setback of 12.5 feet to a distance of 10 feet from the side yard (southwest) property line. The Applicant is proposing to construct an 11 ft. x 12.6 ft. screen porch addition on the rear of their home, adjacent ta their existing deck. The addition the Applicants would like to construct is located further from the property line than the existing patio/deck shown on the survey, but as it is within 12.5 feet of the side yard property line, a variance is needed. The proposal requires a variance from the following sections of City Code: • Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3)(b) Side Yard Setback Requirements The minimum side yard (southwest) setback for this property is 12.5 feet. The Applicant is requesting a variance of 2.5 feet off of the required 12.5 feet to a distance of 10 feet at its closest point to the side yard (southwest) property line. , _ � . ,. , i �_,..� . �_ .... � ...,, �r.� _ _�...�.-.�..�..-.._._...,_�.,...��,.�. . - ,,.. y�.,i.<<,,. ��_�—' ----,--_,--_,_, 1300 4121�. � ' .. ... ,r < 7 -�1 ,` �..... . ,. �� 1307 Subject Property: -- , ,�a, �3� l 7�04 � ," '"""' I 1309 Tyrol Trail „� ; . — � f l,r , 1315 1340 1312� 1307 - � 1 "' 1310 17� 4315 1323 ' 1316 ; 1370 ��', 1309 1407 �� `. � 1401 1311 �'� 1415� �: ° ; ' . . � �. � '1345 �. �, � �A < 1400 � 1315 .r: ;�, �;^,�;" 1117`� �1416 �% .e � r+� � 1407 __ �,7 r� 1 AAS�ti � Y 421 3 _ �p z 1319 1439 � .' ,^�� 1404 =a, A t� � .ax � , �� 1410 143 3� � � �t 325 �'�� 1415 ___�___� 1406 1411 1428��*;, � 1410 ti � � M�� 7423 � - _` ---�� ''�� ti s f--��_``. i )`- � � �`---.� � ' 1500 � 1410 � � � �� 1413 1�1 �7504 r. . : �>: 143t �.,. � �' 7507 �`� � Q, ,� �y�� 1416 1515 1474 � � � 1440`�.. y' „e ~ 4 ""��- �� - `-� �*vnT =� � � 1425 `---- � _ � 7 501 *�` — �'— 1 St 2��---�„� 1510 1515 ��/ �. _ - ) �a� � 1 Sf19 �v� 4312 / �� 1420 �� '-�-.� � �r��',1321 .E ; � '�..` �1439 � 1 SOB�•-�_ '�-' �,�„� i 4310 �°. �\ � •.� 1 `�, ' s�` 1523- i �' \ \ `4` i 1320 �'c� �., � ,.,�2:= i '=�Av t545, 1450 1300 � � � � ��at�th Tyr�of P'ark �_ �� ` t37S 4315 1�2 1523 �� 152 7 ,,,. � , i Page 1 of 4 Cl�"� O� ��t��'�'l � V�. �' Zoning Code Variance appfication 1. Street address: 1309 Tyrol Trail With the assistance of the Designer/Feneraf Corrtractor: 2. Applicant Information: (Homeowner) �pura L. Orfield-Skrivseth Neme: Cynthia Caf f�e�l and lohn Wygant Email:LauraOCa�OrfieldDesign.com Address: 1309 Tyrol Trai! Orfield Design& Construction, Inc. Golden Valley 55416 9805 Oak Ridge Trai! Minnetonka MN 55305 Email Address: c.cattellCa�comcast.net (g52)920-6543 Phone Number: 763-377-0966 WWWOrfietdUesign.com 3. Prov'rde a detaited cFescriptiorr of the variance(s)beirrg reqvested: We are requesting to exceed our property set back line by 2'6"for a new screen porch structure. Using the cities rule of the setback on our property for the "Side"being 12'S', this variance is for the distance of 2'6"over the "side setback"rule for our particular property. This additional 2'6" will allow us to build a square screen porch. 4. Provide a detailed description of need for a variance from the Zoning Code, including: • Description of building(sj • Description of proposed addition(s) • Description of proposed alteration(s)to property This is a 2 story brick home with attached garage. lt was built in 1938 and the current owners moved inro it in 1995. The propvsed addifion is a modestly smaller sized 11'x 12'&"evvered roof,sereen poreh struef�ure open on 2 'rf sides, using pressure treated, exterior grade cedar decking material with inrerior aluminum railings per code and built on frost footings to code. The new attached stairwell(which does not calculate as part of the setback encroachmentJ allows for safe passage on the steep hill from the upper main level deck down to the basement/garage level. A site visit was performed at the existing property and the proposed plans have been reviewed and approved by a structural engineer. This will allow owners access from the interior of the home/portico, to a safely screened in, pritrate,seasvna�{trse poreh. {t canno�be visib{e frvrrt arry street or in�ersectiorr. Fhe property wiEl noi be alrered or affecred structurally or visually in any way other than proposed structure described. Page2of4 5. Minnesota State Statute 462.357 requires that a property exhibit"practical difficulties" in order for a variance to be considered. Practical Difficulties: • �ewlt ia a use that is reasonable. • are based on a probiem that is unique to the prvperty. • are not caused by the landowner. • do not alter the essential character of the locality. To demonstrate how your request will comply with Minnesota State Statute 462.357, please respond to the foliowing questions: Answers to the foltowing 3 questions together to avoid redundancy Explain the need for your variance request and how it will result in a reasonable use of the property.AND What is unique about your property and how do you feei that it necessitates a variance? AND Explain how the need for a variance is based on circumstances that are not a result of a landowner action. The hause was built in 1938 at an angle to the back(north-west)property line. To have the new screened-in porch square rather anqled will require that rhe porch encroach on the prvperty line 12'S"setback only by the Structure of 2'6". There is already an existing deck, adjacent to the area where the porch would be built, which is much closer to the property line.Adding this porch does not change the character of the house or the neighborhood. The house was originally built in irs particular location and orientation very close to the lot line on the north-west rear side.Although it is a/arge lot, this location, off of the current interior kitchen &dining rooms as weI!as the exterior exisfing patio here, is the only reasonabte Iocotion for a screened-in porch addition. Everywhere else would be(a)visible from the street and(b)be in- accessible from a functional standpoint on any other side of the home. The!ot is not�ectangular and the house is at an angle set to the far back property line. In addition, this is a corner lot. The first and very farer�►ost reason we gene�ated the screen porch pro}ect is so that l(Cynthia} couid be able to enjoy the outdoors...safely. l have had 2 bone marrow transplants, which leave me wiih a suppressed immunological system. !can't travel on any public transportation, and when I go anywhere there are people�can't shake hands, and f wear a medicaf face mask. Therefore, I must be protected from any insect bites that can carry and pass along infections. The screened-in porch will allow me to sit outside with family and friends. The proposed construction is also on a side of the home that has a very large drop off in landscape and we have slipped down the earthen slope and siaggered stones to get from the patio level to the garage level ourside which is very dvngerous. We hope that by constructing this new screen porch and new steps with handrails from our existing kJtchen portic%xterior porch down to the garage fevef(recycf�ng cans/city waste pa1{s}it�rr11!be much safer fvr us to use, as�el{as iirat of famlly members and guests and any poteniial future homeowners AND much more functionat& attractive. Expiain how,if granted,the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of your neighborhood and Golden Valley as a whole. Page3of4 We have enjoyed living in our current home, and raising our now-grown children here, since 1995. Our particular home was built in 1938 and has retained that character we find so charming. The one reason we really like our home,and our entire neighborhood is that each of the homes are very wel!maintained, and each home remains personal in style to the original construction and/or owners. Typically our neigt►borhood character has induced long-term homeowners able to enjoy nature in the heart o}'t�e city. The screened in porch is a small addition, designed to march the character of the exisring house. It will not be visible from either street. Thus it maintains the character of the neighborhood. To have the screened in porch large enouqh to be useful and in a location that does not alter the look of the house from either street will require having the north side of the porch closer to the lot line. 6. The C1ty 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 tF�e pubtic I�earing. Please describe akernate ways to do your projed that do not require variances to the Zoning Code. As noted above, this construction location, of}'of the current interior kitchen & dining rooms as we1/as the exterior exisring patio here, is the only reasonabie location for a screened-in porch addition. We hvve actually explored the oi�her options!will describe herein:Eve►ywhere else would be(a) visible from the street and(b)be inaccessible from a functional standpoint on any other side of the home. Tf�e only other options considered are as follows: (af access througir the formal dining room bui/t OVER the existing flat roof garage. This would require adding 3 steps up on the INSIDE of the dining room just to reach floor level of the proposed screened porch, and obviously noting that— there is not any headroom to make this entry poinr. Plus it would decrease the usable space in the already tight dining room.And it would not be attractive whatsoever. (b}Add to�he sfde yard off the farr►ily roofn and bedrooms, which is an obviv�sly�nusable location from interior access points, would p�obably interfere with side setbacks, and would be very visible from the street intersections and therefore both lacking privacy and changing character of house. (c) The last remaining option was this same location proposed on the rear of the home off of our existing kitchen portico entry and exterior deck but in an angled shape. We invested in alternate plans with the Design/Contractor that created this porch within the angled property line serback. It made the porch be angled to follow the serback line. But it entirely changed the look, roof const«etion AND loses vatuable sqe�are footage on an already modest sized screened poreh. The porch would then not be square with the house, which would look odd. In addition, the city would require the new pian be approved by the Structural Engineer, generate even more costs for us. We`ve a�ready paid for and had tl�e Engineers p�ans approved by the Bfdg Dept.for the square porch. 7. Please submit a current survey of your property.You must indicate the proposed addition, inciuding new proposed building and structure setbacks, on the survey.A copy of Golden Page 4 of 4 Vailey's survey requirements is available upon request. Please note that this application is considered incomplete without the submittal of a current property survey. This has been submitted ro the City and both Building Department:Jerry Frevel and Planning Department:Lisa Wittman have it. 8. Please submit at least one current color photograph of the area affected by the proposed variance.You may attach a pr�nted photograph to this application, or you may email a di�ital image to planning@goldenvalleymn.gov.You may submit additional photographs as needed. Please see attachments. To the best of my knowledge the statements found in this appiication are true and correct. I also understand that unless construction of the action applicable to this variance request, if granted, is not taken within one year,the variance expires. i have considered all options afforded to me through the City's Zoning Code,and feel that there is no alternate way to achieve my objective except to seek a variance to zoning rules and regulations. 1 give permission for Golden Valley staff,as well as members of the Board of Zoning Appeals,to enter my property prior to the public hearing to inspect the area affected by this request. t,, � fi.� J , , � � , � '�� ---� ___ ,,., , �_-�"""'-..-„---,, r " � R ,. �`'� �--- �_'�'„�_�! C�-�"�� •� _ .i''�r%i � Si� ature of A licant 1�� g� pp ,( �n Y�Nygant) Signature of Appiicant(C�nthia Cattell) .TM�1 ��,,��: if the applicant is not the owner of all property invalved in this application, please name the owner of this property: Print Name of owner Signature of owner Q $200 Appiication Fee Attached (for Single Family Residential) $300 Appiication Fee Attached (for ali other Zoning Districts) Please note: The City of Golden Valley will send notice of your variance request to all adjoining property owners as well as owners of properties directly across streets or alleys. Your neighbors have the right to address the 8oard of Zoning Appeals ar your public hearing. You are advised ro personally contact your neighbors and explain your project to them prior to the pubiic hearing. .y: : �, .� . . ;,.�. ; - �. r-� - �r ;,_�� ' �.� �� *�,�;��' ' � .,:»�� . � �' � '�tt �m '�'��,k. �,*. w �+�� ' �., . .� � �+'�� . t�a�,,,. ��:�r '� ��. �T t * �g' ?�'-+� .�,'�,� '�'�g�p - �i,� , A s„�,�� _,��d � .. �yc = - � ;1;'. � ti, � �. iYs'�� ^'( '�`'�" �' �� ' � s �, ' '�' � _ � �;+'�`� .t:� ��``�ar .'``^" v�,,,, .. - ': � ,,�. va�".�' .�`� �c"= s - -s�'�'� ti� * � , ,,� �,. : i � .� .. #�. � <, . .,.. :y. ..e -4'itc . �,�. •, e �, �� '�i� .�� ; .,:'_ ti;-� �. - �' `F.` "�, '�"� �* a ,�- " . .,,�' ,r.. ;: y�` �+M+' ;;,+1 _ ` , . . , x- -. -�,: - . _ �,. .. _,�. . � o. ., . �-�a,� -- .�_ �� <.. 'v - .. ��..,•` . w. � , s:'3 k w> t ,.q�,Y. .� . :m . °'b�ti ,+ a�' , . � y : � �,f�� a� +�� ,� �, � � � , lz � y � r �`� ,�„�T`«Wrtxa � -F+f a '�"p.�,�,.''`� S. �� _ ��k� `�'�`� .� � � x�J� E '�"�'�, +rs �-. � a �� 'K�c � �r.�,.,s Zw �� *�i. ,�+ �J- 3� � � 's. da.�(iic�i.F.MY�Bc'W. ��X4m ,� "} `pr r� ta,. ,k G .�.r t .k`. �� • ' • '• . �• . . . . �� • � • p� '. ... . . i ..� w �' 4. . .� ' � �r '�' t,' �' � \ � �` �>�,i°` . �< �'' � � .� � ' s .� "`"' --„" "--�-� J � _.s. `. � � . �'' : - --`�- �. •� � b� + •t�- �e� 4• • ��r1 � "t r'r � Z,�: . . 1 ��[1v� . . � .� . . . . � t� ��y:.. . +'+: . . . �,�, • �L ,�� t, � ��.. � ..,d ,Iq+ �.t4i'. . . . ..'. �;�j. t � - , ` s � . .4 , - " es ` � F3er.a�;+3� � '�.k,'�J �.. 7• . ; .-. k .. , . . f,.-�; g <� ,� � i�!" , a � .?16 � . �'�• � .�1 ^'"� � ir'� .. , ... • s � , ;. _ �:. < , � �. , _.. a� ,�. <, � �, . . T g F r .• ii.ip`.. ' i � s•'A. . -. �. . {'� .. --- - -r'-�♦� ��'.�<.� ;.�:.x`vaet�vi� "4�z� ,<� :. � . .. , �� . . , ':�� k e.'_ ` s'.`' �:.t - . ,r '�` � ' ��_ " r _ ,. . . � §,� ,��$"..a'�.. � � �� ► 9 �� . �� "'_� �,.� ,�� _ ��.� _ �w.'. _ �. . E 3^s 9aAN'^ f. 8:� ^°x P c 1309 Tyrol Trail;Golden Valley � �� °"- �� ' Existing Rear of the home pictured -Area of Proposed Screen Porch Addition � �' � �'� � , �, , �� "!y��' �,',., � . � , � Yi x.l��.c `5 - . � .. .. �.48�. . . � � �t � ,� �:, , .� � �� a� �,� r .'�:, - �'�"�.:�t= �ti Y _ � � �� .. � ._ .. . , ��- ...�.v..w_.n.�w�-� k 3 c � j �.. . �-... ,.. _ _..�s i � � � � � ,'� � � . i �R"' s„ ,,,,,_:_. ..�+ �,�',,, ' ,�r �� ,�' s�:`.,� � y ��, � � . � �* � � • � �. - � ..� ' .. �� . � � �_ � �" ` � � - " _ � - � ., _� ...¢ ,. �'a, ..- �., v . `w � . r ""- ,. i -- . �R a J � .r- �" • l�.. ` � �� _ `'. �*, .. �- .4;� .�. �"��M�',. -� � / �� ,!� 2 �k � � � � . :��i�:: �'�� . �... .. > . ��i°� � .� - r� �v�� . � �. : � .'4 a;A�R i�+ � � � , .. . ,# f �I'• r" �� .'� . �*�x� a� ��y �"� y�� at� . �g �� e¢ . � � `,..c j r �� _� ..a � � � �� ' �k a � ' � f ;� } � ��Y . �, y,� � _ - . . y � "`� '�� : .j<, , -�� .;. ,, :'�,r r � _ = - ±�� "�- '� `ai� � �{'�=�`} ��+�''$'"`' - �. _ _ _ �� r �� s,�,:s.s��, ,:�.�i, � ' � � .... ._ . �.�- � .. ��^ � .�.. _ �' , � _�:�-� . . � �`_ ��- __ _ .�:'> � � � , '��..-----�� . �; �� , ._ � � . w _.�__ . >_ - ; ; _. �� . �� E �;� � � � � Y i� � -�� , �Y -_ _ , . �r.. . � � , � i � : _ �� .,�� _� . � -: . � z �. _� � �•�, '�:� �"�µ``'� _ - y; � _ a _ �.�*� �" '�� ;� ,i�`, � . . . . . jFY��.m. �`� l�� '� t�l �. ' S ' I �p = . . 7►! Y � r �,�' . .�'' � � �I �� .e. 4, �F- a". ��g/ � . . .. , .�.. -: .. , �. . 'S`.'�...� �' � �..� . . � . I � s� �,�`f'�� #R ��• �r,�M,� .. . �.�:.. .. , . `. :a ". ' a„y, .�- f. . r ,( � %� � I 1 ��,. �. . . . . �..� �. i ,�. _ . � �'y � ..� ,�fi,r � � ; �ay� ,. n -,� ,� �y I`: ;iy � �. � , , ,�, . : . . , � ' � .� ��— � . ,. .�, ,�; � , �., � � �. � +�`"`� �. � � �"'��"r� '' �� — -�a r ,��I�'i, `r ��e� te! � �� 4 1309 Tyrol Trail;Golden Valley Existing Rear of the home pictured-Area of Proposed Screen Porch Addition—Showing steep hill from existing patio to garage level .� � ��, r.� �.t � � �� , �� }. . �;� �.,�,: � � ` , *� � �� !�, ,;�- < �*� `�`^�,.,� ; � ►�.� .fi, �',�� ,�,��, , �; ��fi,,�v �� ,� *x ,�� t �' � ;� . �� a�� •l �'!�� a 4 �.� �4 �I `�/�, r'.! � t: ��. �„y' k R� �. `I � '� l t 'lJ� � • i . ' 4+ �. '' Y; �.� il �1�� 5 �� j ��',', }j^* � {jA��{��,� ;:..`t �4�� µ /" $'��f y�' �l.... ` �.� . .!. �'G. �. ` vz,y s '.�r � '.y ��Y„x � k �� , t,�"�1.1 � . �' � �� `� t �� yr a «, ... t' ' ��,,- n t `,'y a {� a �- • � ��'�j. ' �.,'�-`�% ��= � tT� � ��` � ��. `� :,� .y 'ro'�r� 3�: � � �yt�`��, , i, .� r ¢ .,'�� r � a^-'"' ,ti..r'"`. �t4 �� f �r1F�.,.'� i�,� ��,r ' � �� ' z�°,.## ��... ��Y� �.. � i s _ �... � . - , '� , . ` '� � ; �" ,.,* �' �� ,.s' ��..+ � �..�Ft . �Y��'��. $.: y �y .t�,��f�t'�� . , {< ` . � � ' '�� 6i1�� "' ;"� (��I , �� '� �;; ._i�` >°•�. ' . . � . ; � � . .. , �- ' � <�. . .: t.�- . . a �' It� ti 's + � ♦ F�� r 1.. . �., � 'y :�� • � , . s. � ^ � i*.`#., , 'h..,.. ,� ' .. . ' . . ,� i� � �'�j.4. ' . . � �� .f x�. �, �" n . � ��,.�'4air' �R �� . �".� i ' �� ` e '�;' � y � � , �� ; . --�"�"�� , t � � -- � '�� "� ` _ . ,� � . s �t ' : � t � . ,�� + � v� � ..�: `� M � +y � � �& *� ��4� � � i. �r � � � �^ � Ir `� • r' � 1309 Tyrol Trail;Golden Valley Existing Rear of the home pictured—Showing Kitchen Portico existing and Existing deck(gate exists to prevent falling down steep hill) r '�4"� �-`� �� '�' ►� : , �' 'r�, y� � -�� '` � � ' ,:<, :� �; ; . . , �,�� , , ,, . •., r ^43'�' A ' � � � x � �: � �`�" — �� '�`� � ~�'..' �,,,'' "\-:�� 8 � * •� � '''�;��!4, `'' ` , � . . � � s »�a�'��- , ,. ,� �y �'�:� �� fi..T �� .� ��1� .. . LrrK��. f . �sq'.. � � r . — j p ' /._ { '�... '' .. ._.......Y—'..' � )�1 I i � ' i f �+ t�r k x . � � � Y� f� +T . ' � ._ �`.I i� ,' _._....,...�.-.--^'^"""....s.- � s r�� "` ____ i� .+ � _.,. -._ � � : '� r „ � �� , - � x � ��.._ r�- _ , , ,... ; =.. - . �. ,� _ _ - �� .� � � ��_,, _ , , - .� ,, :,, . �� ,�.. . - �'�=,�►, ' ; , _ �� .. ..�- �. _ _ � r-. — Y , 1. - $ � � u� ��..�°..4 "w".'� ,.' ��a��''�:.. � �et. . .. ,:, _ ; _ � Y^ �y��' a� "� —'� 1309 Tyrol Trail;Golden Valley a a� W �'-�' � � ; -�� Existing Rear of the home pictured above-Area � �;�; �=+- � �.r��= of Proposed Screen Porch Addition–Showing . , �rvw��,. ;a �`', ,� � � steep hill from existing patio to garage level– �. � �` . � � :�t� , ;� . picture below shows view from side garage ` `�� "`��k ' � � ��'- entry level up to area of existing patio/kitchen .��' , portico �'' ,�-` �� » ,� e �" " .�� ,� � 'Y'� �� .��,� ;� ¢� JM � 1 #1 I „�' �:� ._ � ��.. � �JIWAi ' �f ,,.,�v7�""` ��'uu� �� :�' � �'ti=' 2 ..�. r ' . y�� —.s�_ ,. � �' . "��„�r, ' "�ir� �1� - .. : . _. '-'`� � ..�.�.•.--....�"' ,r� �� a- . ,;, � ..:,.r�� , .. - �:.... r- _ ...'.''- C_. ��.�.- �; ,. -.:� ,� >�. ��*.�..� .`� e _w'�" .. .. »..�' .�� - _ �- -. ��``, . .. �..m..� �� .-�.,.«.b�...�...�_,4.,_.� � " t ,��: '��r �.r ��r��i�� .�� 4 � � } ��l�� r Ps� + ^" �� ';�b° �i"�� ".6� `'`�," , � � ! d"a 4 V��`�"'�`r.��.i'r.m�,. .., a . :b sE x d G C W �� D�.�°�:..�.�.— _....�.�-�-�- -�-.,.�� a � _ �., ,,� ,- :�� `'� �.r� -'� � .�� 5G.6 � ��.� �� 0 ,• /f } �`'�-.�, --.\ ,� ; j �� } � f�� \� ,(`� {-' _..�-;,.-"' �� W Q � �,��, � ,� ^ �r�..� ` z � � ;}'�'J \,h( .- .1 t � ��i'y"- � � ' . �� - w �� ,{fl'�a� � :;,,V ,�' �c�o �` � �� -Q �}d i.� C1 ' \' J � �/' �,� -, r,7 �` �v C�7 ; � �`� �.. ��' ,.t� s�z.. ''�� o Z I � f- f� ,,- .��` ,ti� l;'% ��`� ��;, �� CALE lN FEET �� ,=�.,, �i�'�'� ~ -.� ., ;� _ �,r''' /�- �\ <`` '`' 71N P T VATIDN. �, w � �,' ' �, j � *� ,�•.:}� �,Q-`�'' j , `. r°��" - EXIS G S 0 ELE `�� , � `, :>"�"`� � � `'��,,, � � � � - X{998.0) = PR+�PtJSEQ SPflT E��'VATION � •� �� g. � '` �,;;.r' ,: r,��:� ��,`, , ,,,�,. • = DIRECTIQN SURFACE DRAINAGE i > � �,;� � \.: ��;�' 8� x�� °'cr „�� COH = CANT3LEVERED C7VEF�HANG � k � �, � ' � - 1 f � � �' �-'�� 4HL - 0�+'ERHE�D UTILI7Y LINE '�,� ` `\�� 4��'``�`'.�r' �-' GFE = GAf�AGE FLQflR ELEVA71�N � � � � . w. � � `J �� E�la�i� �;�u'` F�` "�' ` ~ `' �.. � ` f '',':��p TFE = TOP OF FaUNDATIO�J ELEVATION �„� Ly,� (� � 4; -� .�-' . �`� ` � _ .�.� � .. . � � � , �.�� LFE - �flW�ST ��OOF: ELFti'Al`i0N � �-._, �t n.�q' :.. v� - , , � ;.�.. �, ''�� \ � { j"� \\ Q�,��Q' �� '� �u / � ',� \ " ! � S ��. �' � :� � . � � ` � � �� , � � 6' � �� `�� :�`� `�-�� '� . _ _ . . �, �'`�V" HMH,(�K � � '�....� � . �' '� , - x��; 2 ' .��` �TI�NNYD � �y � � ,, c`�� ,1,.�';�� •>� R�' ` � /,.�`3�� s � . � ELE�,I = 9fl3.£ (/� `� %r ,. '`�°^�a 1 �,-, ��`71' ,� ,i �'� �r�1J.�.��1�L�� l'� R � ( � � ti,,a _.,r � ��. �:;� ,�, � �hr2�:�� .-�:. � � ::� `'�� -'" % - �,� ,. �' :,� } -,, �� .�.,,�� .�;� �t � �,, r � w JL� ' ,/ � � �� `�.�' �i 1 �` c,�"� ��i`�"' � � �j_ `' ' ^"-�``� ''y� _" �; r1,� �. `^��G - � ��. ,-~'' "� � f F� _ �r� - ��` . ��'\ '�. � �� `-d'1 �U£'at,.�ST �6 �tl1� ��' � �`��` ' � �� p ,� r y �X � .- �,�i l� ... . _. . .... J � �'" # �.'�v�� 'i��i � ; ��y� ' � �� `�. � � PR'�PiQSEC! �'r�E�EEN P{�R�Fi 6s _,�,,�s�. ,,:� �''' „ `��''f' �,`T�' ��`P ,,��:,`' � `� � `� � � �� - � ` -� �`��. . � �,�� - � LEGAL DESCRIPT1flN: �A�flf171t7►N $e 5"t`A1R5 C3�V'�1� �"c� �`� � , . ��a � f � ; *`"� . '' ��' 1..C7T 1, U � �`- C� s'... B�C}�'K 2, TYR�JL � � ' � �,�,f H1Lk�S, HENNEPI�! CO., MN. � cs. �. �� 'ti+� �. u ,� e h�i��'�C:.�u�v,�� . , a"' '`', �; �.;��_ �;;: �,-, .,.. �Xl�i'fiIJG .�� ` , ,� �' �k ,... _ \ �-" � � H�u��E _ ��8 �F � �\ � �-. � ; �.` �� !�� _� � � Ex�S7E�� AD�F�ESS— 130� TYR�L TRA{� �n�� J('��.�.r(I = L�' �� '. • V�' _ A.2�0 �, � :� 1 ��usw PID��4—G29-24-41--OQ08 ��n PA.i la = 3�� SF •Q �; � �H� , `J� �Q�� S `� �1 � '�" a�� .�R1VE = i45C �� r�' � � W�LK = "?� �= °� � CF' O �� O c� �w J co T{�'(,�L = 3�7�u:� '�;- ; �7. 1% - m a ��n � LOT AREA = 13950 SF/ 4,32 AC W` , �� „-�� .�. �;� M+-�:/�� . f—. � ,. (� Q W .. . �� { r� J � ` � �w tA q a i—p 3 i O � W�`� � = Z }p4Y 4 �W—� ' .� � � . Q � r-u: .L , . � a w = iz � a o a _c> +.-