The URL can be used to link to this page

02-24-15 BZA Agenda Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 24, 2015 7 pm 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers I. Approval of Minutes — January 27, 2015 Regular Meeting II. The Petition(s) are: 13XX Flag Avenue Richard Schneider� Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements • 22.4 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 12.6 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of new house. 1300 Toledo Avenue North Beth Trautman (Cottaqe Home Desiqns), Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3) Side Yard Setback Requirements • 5.5 ft. off of the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 6 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage addition. III. Other Business IV. Adjournment � This dc�cun�ent is available in altern�te fnrmats upon a 7?-Y7our request. Please call � '' 7&3-5R3-80Q6(TTY: 7b3-593-3968}to make a request. Examples of alternate farm�ts � may include large print, electronic, �raille,�udiocassette,etc. Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 27, 2015 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, January 27, 2015, at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Maxwell called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Members Maxwell, Nelson, Orenstein, Perich and Planning' Commission Representative Baker. Also present were Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes — November 25, 2014 Regular Meeting MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Orenstein and motion carried unanimously ta approve the November 25, 2014, minutes as submitted. II. The Petition(s) are: 221 Westwood Drive North Curt Olson, A�plicant Request: Waiver from Section '11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(1) FrontYard Setback Requirements • 4.67 ft. off of the required 3� ft. to a distance of 30.33 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (north) praperty f'ine. Purpose: To allow for the construction of additional living space. Goellner referred to a site plan af the praperty and explained the Applicant's proposal to build a 2-story addition o'n the north end of the existing house. Maxwell asked about#he plans for the existing garage. Goellner stated that the Applicant is proposing to convert the existing garage into living space and build a new two-stall garage in front of that. Maxwell'asked if it is just the northwest corner of the proposed new garage that would be in the setback area. Goellner said yes. Curt Olson, Applicant, showed the Board plans of his proposed addition. He stated that the lower level of the addition will be garage space and that the existing garage will be used for a new stairway, mechanical room, and laundry/mudroom. Maxwell asked about the depth of the proposed new garage. Bill Brugerman, representing the Applicant, said the dimensions of the garage will be 24 ft. deep x 36 ft. wide. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 27, 2015 Page 2 Olson handed out renderings of the proposed new additions and said his trying to preserve the neighborhood character. He said he doesn't want someone to tear the house down and build something else. Orenstein asked Olson if he intends to sell the house. Olson said yes. He said this is the second house in the area that he's renovated and that the neighbors call him a preservationist, not a flipper. Nelson said she has sympathy for corner lots and asked Olson if he has thought of ways to build the proposed addition without variances. Olson said he could build on the back of the house, but the backyard is already shallow and the neighbors #o the west wouldn't be happy if he did that. He added that building on the back of the house would change the look of the block because the houses are linear so making an "L" shaped house wouldn't fit in, and would look bigger than the other houses; Nelsan asked if the proposed addition could be smaller so the setback requirements could be met. Olson said he would still need a variance even if he made the addition smaller. Brugerman, stated that all the other properties along Loring Lane are closer to the street and that this this house would still be the furthest away from the street. Olson added that the block doesn't have a consistent line. Maxwell stated that the Board tries to give the minimum amount needed in order to build a normal sized garage. He questioned if the extra four feet is necessary or if something smaller could be built. Brugerman stated that the length of a Suburban is 21 ft. so if the garage is only 23 ft. deep, people won't'be able to walk behind the cars without opening the garage door. He added that 24 ft. in depth is not excessive because space is needed for garbage cans, storage, etc. Nelson stated the Board is sensitive to front yard setback areas. She discussed the criteria that must be met when considering variances. She said she thinks the proposal is in harmony with the intent of the ordinances, it's consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and it's reasonable, she just wonders if the addition could be built without variances. Maxwell asked Olson to address any other unique circumstances. Olson said the shape of the property and the location of the house on the property are unique. He added that the front of the house faces the large part of the yard which he thinks is backwards. He would like to have the living spaces at the front of the house and the bedrooms at the back of the house. Nelson asked' how many bedrooms and bathrooms are in the house. Olson said there are 3 bedrooms and 1 bathroom and he wants to put another bedroom in the basement. He said his intent is to bring the house into the modern era. Maxwell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Maxwell closed the public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 27, 2015 Page 3 Nelson said she is sympathetic with corner lots. She noted that if this weren't a corner lot the setback would be 15 ft. and that other houses along Loring Lane are closer to the front property line than this one would be. Baker said he is sympathetic to avoiding teardowns and preserving and re-building instead. Nelson agreed and added that construction of the proposed addition on the back of the house would have a bigger impact on the neighborhood. Perich said he agrees that the corner in this case is unique, however he struggles with this request not being caused by the landowner since there are other options. Maxwell stated that the landowner didn't position the existing house where it is. Nelson said that shartening one corner of the proposed new garage by 4 ft, in order to meefi setback requirements won't make much of a difference. Perich agreed that a 20 foot deep garage isn't a good idea. MOVED by Nelson seconded by Baker and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve the variance request for 4.67 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 30.33 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (north) property line ta allow for fhe construction of additional living space. Perich voted no. 6461 Westchester Circle Daniel Rvbeck and Kathleen Searls, AppJicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements • 4.8 ft. off of the required '35 ft.' to a distance of 30.2 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of additional living space. Goellner referred to a site plan and explained the Applicants' proposal to construct a screened p4rch addition and a deck. The proposed deck meets the setback requirements, however the screened porch would require a variance from the front yard setback requirements. Maxwell asked about the size of the proposed porch addition without the deck. Nelson nated tha#the plans submitted say the porch is 15 ft. x 29 ft. Goellner showed the Board a plan'submitted by the Applicant showing a porch addition built within the setback area. Baker noted that those plans are really a different design, and didn't just propose a smaller porch. Maxwell asked if the existing trees would remain. Kate Searls, Applicant, said the trees would remain. Nelson asked about the setback requirements regarding stairs. Goellner stated that stairs can be located in a setback area. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 27, 2015 Page 4 Maxwell asked if the parch were re-oriented to meet the setback requirements, how close it would be to the tree shown in the photos. Goellner said the tree wasn't shown on the survey, so she is not sure. John Drucker, Architect for the proposal, stated that the screened porch would be approximately 6 ft. from the tree. Maxwell asked how close to the tree the proposed porch would be if a variance were granted for the porch addition. Drucker said approximately 12 ft. Maxwell asked what kind of tree it is. Searls said it is an oak tree. Drucker stated that rotating the proposed screened porch to meet the setback requirements would place the porch closer to the tree, however that is not the main reason for the way they are proposing the porch. He stated that the main reason they would like to build the screened porch the way they've proposed is to create a garden area, and ta create a balanced gable with the other gables on the house. Nelson asked if the screened porch could be made smaller. Drucker stated that the Applicant's want an eating area with a table and a sitting area in the porch so making it smaller would compromise that. Searls added that they are a family of seven so they want a space to gather. Drucker stated that the house will look better with the porch built the way they are proposing it. He added that if they build the porch within the setback area it will be more impactful and visible to the neighboring property. Maxwell stated that the size and shape of the lot are unique, fhere are two front yard setback areas, and the potential alternative mighf endang�r an existing oak tree. Drucker reiterated that a conforming structure uwon't fit in as well with the neighborhood and that he doesn't think the oak tree will be in danger with either configuration. He added that the property was platted in an odd shape and the buildable area is restricted because of that. Maxwell opened the public hearing, Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Maxwell closed the public hearing. Orenstein stated that the orientation of the screened porch and the symmetry of the design make sense and he has no objection to the proposed screened porch. Baker said'he understands.the applicant's vision of a sitting area and an eating area in the porch, but questioned if'that vision is what is driving the need for a variance. He said the Board Fs supposed to help solve a problem, not accommodate a vision. Perich agrEed and referred to the previous agenda item. He said in that case, the Applicant had other options, in this case he doesn't think there are other options. Maxwell said the Board is allowed to take into account the endangering of significant trees. He said he is sympathetic because the Applicants have two front yards, but the area in question is really more of a side yard than a front yard. Baker asked if the tendency of the Board is to be more careful with front yards than with side yards. Maxwell said yes. Orenstein noted that the proposed screened porch will be consistent with the front plane of the existing garage and that it won't be intrusive. Maxwell added that there is 49 ft. fram the house to the street and that this property has 14 ft. of right-of-way. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 27, 2015 Page 5 MOVED by Orenstein, seconded by Perich and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request for 4.8 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 30.2 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (north) property line to allow for the construction of screened porch. III. Other Business Nelson asked the Board if they would like Staff to make a recommendation for approval or denial in their staff reports. The Board discussed whether or not they would like recommendations made and the consensus was that they would like recommendations. MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Orenstein and motion carried 4 to 1 to haWe staff provide a recommendation when writing a staff report for variance requests. Perich voted no. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:13 pm. George Maxwell, Chair ' tisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant city of ;g;, , olden � � � � � �v t� � � Va. �.'� Planning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Date: February 24, 2015 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Subject: 13xx Flag Avenue Richard Schneider, Applicant Richard Schneider, owner of the property at the southern end of Flag Avenue near Plymouth Avenue and General Mills James Ford Bell Technical Center, is seeking a variance from the City Code for the new construction of a single-family home. The applicant is seeking a variance of 22.4 feet off the required front yard setback of 35 feet to a distance of 12.6 feet from the front yard (north) property line. The Applicant is proposing to construct a 2-story home with a walkout basement and 3-car garage. The proposed home is 1,920 square feet. The lot has not been assigned an address because the property owner has not yet requested an address assignment, which typically accompanies a building permit application. An address will be assigned upon completion of the site plan review by the Inspection Division. Since the plans submitted do not meet setback requirements, plan review will not begin unless a variance is granted or new plans are submitted that meet the setback requirements. In 2002, this property was granted subdivision approval for the creation of two new lots out of three existing lots, which included 9120 Plymouth Avenue and two lots along the southern portion of Flag Avenue, which was previously vacated. A duplex with a detached garage is located at 9120 Plymouth Avenue. Since only one principal structure can be built on a lot, the owner applied for a subdivision to split the lot at 9120 Plymouth Avenue along the slope so that a principal structure could be built at the top of the slope, where the home in this application is proposed. The lot at the top of the slope was combined with another lot to the north to supply adequate buildable area and to provide access to the Flag Avenue cul-de-sac. The lot (13xx Flag Avenue) was deemed buildable during the subdivision process in 2002. This property has unique topography, which reduces the buildable area. A steep slope exists on the west side of the property. The duplex at 9120 Plymouth Avenue is located at the bottom of the slope, which is roughly 24 feet lower than the proposed home at the top of the slope. There is a 30-foot drainage and utility easement on the east side of the property that also limits the buildable area. The owner is permitted to build up to the boundary of this easement, which is reflected in the proposed site plan. The property has a unique front yard because the lot is not located directly on Flag Avenue. Rather,the property is located down a long driveway. The distance between the home and the street is much larger on this property than compared to typical residential lots in the city. A survey representing the home's footprint without any variances was provided in the application. However, construction of a home in this area would be much more difficult and expensive for the property owner due to the steep slope. The home would also be closer to the existing home at 9120 Plymouth Avenue. The applicant also points to the long distance of the driveway to Flag Avenue. Because of this long distance, the applicant would like the home situated closer to Flag Avenue than the distance that is currently permitted. The proposal requires variances from the following sections of City Code: Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements:The minimum front yard (north) setback requirement is 35 feet. The Applicant is requesting a variance of 22.4 feet off of the required 35 feet to a distance of 12.6 feet at its closest point to the front yard (north) property line. Staff Recommendation: In reviewing this application, staff has maintained the points of examination to the considerations outlined in Minnesota State Statute 462.357, requiring that a property exhibit "practical difficulties" in order for a variance to be granted. Practical difficulties result in a use that is unreasonable, are based on a problem that is unique to the property, are not caused by the landowner, and do not alter the essential character of the locality. Staff recommends approval of the request for a variance of 22.4 feet off of the required 35 feet to a distance of 12.6 feet at its closest point to the front yard (north) property line. -1s�3 ys12- �s�� 1508 ' 1513 151G 15171513 1 1505 1508 � � 1 504 1 50-0 L �view Pc�/k 1514 —1509� 1512--�505 i } 1� q450 1501 1500-1501 y I'� �� ,_ 1 500 1 501' 1 - I `, I -9305 " �:��n�d:itFSt 1412�— 1412-1413 1412 1413 � -1409 {= 1408 1409 ; 1405 `� �1 y0y- —1405 �1408 1409 � 1408 1409 � _ 140a .1 1404 I ��5 1405 —1401 =y' �400 -1401 � 1325 = 1328 14p� _ 1400` —1401 � il 1325 Q 1324 1325 =� I � : 1324— 9000 � = 1324 1321 < 1320- ' 1325 1317 - 1321 ' 1320 1317 � �3�6 1317 ' + Subject Property � 1316 �316 � —1313 -1313 `- 1317� 13�1 1312- - 1312 � j-1301 1308 13� 1309 1312 1�13 � � — 1308 1308- ,, .; � 1304 j { 5, 1300, 1305 1300__921013� 1304 ' • ' ti�� 9122 ' � 1�00 1300 g�ZQ ` ` I �--`�.,,' � 1'15�n ; �, . . . I ___ �1_ �"`...--�,�.,, � 108?10 930� '�-�---.._ j 1 i104 209 ` - .:.;,i,��" � �iin�207' i Jv":r. aJ� I 101 �06 200 t� % v(u ulr,.= ' 1 Sv�i 9211 ,�, ..,. �d�i , � 1200 '�- fi .. ' '�i.c' � �i. � � " � � � .. � ` � ..�.- �--..•_.^-.,_� -� iWi .-�- '�: _� . � j � ... v6v '�lu 1 '+Uvl.i�-: �.� --.:r..-:_.-�'_�-�+-_+--s-_� v�v �., � � .._iJ, �'``----` 1 - ' . _ _ -' � - �--t---� +- - a,• p . , . ; --+ . r__. ..�� ` 9950 _,: . _ :r r '. . ....,�. . � � �__ .. I ,� � .. ._� . � 9400 � � ; �' �. vki :'� i. � �--r-_� � �: - � *� � `�* :_.-- �, ,-- -- :+ � � - '_ . � 9300 ulv�-...•.:vlu 'il�`iutr � '�iUu .. `�i.�" y i = - r �.r::.. vL�..:_..• ✓y,, .. � t�� ....,�r:.:°... �it.i. �J�tl-: ... _ - „ _ � '4( �/:: � �.��ltr � � vVi�: � �'. � � I , . 9400� ''. -vVi �,'. UI/i�:i: � �' '.i; � � ; , � �, : _ � i _ vlu •e � - � i •� ..i,.: � � _ vL ._ .. 1 .. � „ .�: i . � i SAN 1�H ��J ^^" EXIS7ING TR=93�4.2 �� NOUSE� r�� :9 � � U 0 20 40 50� � � ; � �� '� � � n- � SC` ALE– IN FEET � } �j � i o' , � I rn�� '`.`�� \�CATrH ��: O �a eti' = E X I S T l N G S P O T E L E V F 1 T I O N. I f 4 SIN-C�' ;T� �, �� BENCHMAP,K X(998.0) � PROPOSED SPOT ELEV,4TION I � ;��'� TNNYD i cLEV = 936.7 m ' = DIRECTION SURFAC� DRAIN�GEI --L93�;TM � GFE = GARAGE t=L00R ELEVATION` � �f I ,'� T�L = TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEV.ATION � I �; LFE = LOWEST FLOOR ELEVi>.71��N � �, �� O v; ; PROf'OSE'D ELEVATIONS %�ARDCO�'�R - PROPOSED �� ,�s;o� I GARAGE FLOOR.- 925.5 NOUSE = 14&.� SF '� , + TOP OF FOUNDA TION = 925.8 DR/VE _ ��3�,SF I (��N LOWEST FLDOR=917.0 TOTAL\\ 25�'3`,SF/�5q i � �I C�1 \ � � ; � � � � � -—` _ -—— ° � �s'14' � � ' I I r 9z81 � I �� .�.` _!� �` �5„ E �9�9� �Q2,'41 ' I � ; s�`' �� , 1� � r "<- __ � � � � �b� -�.. _ ��2 � ,-i . � \ � ��:. t�-, . � i � � � ' `o � � � � � � � � � �" �� 0 3�.0 _..i � -�w 9 __ —_ �� C � 1 r O�� G \n� � i�,� � � �,� � � �'� -'"'o-a , �. �� 1 ��J � I ( ' � � �' � � � �, �\ � ` i "�' �� '` �1� �'�� , �� , , , , I I' � a� „ , �o � � \ � �, , � � I �� '�g� __ � ��t-, ' I �; � � '� y�; � s ��) � C ��o �' � � �, a � �'�� '¢.��r'—T ,� � � U ��a i M �'.� �9 � , �,� � o; ,�� ; ; i, �� ;j � �� ;s� � ,��a� � � � c �� 1�� "� �oz � �t� . � � vF��=9�5.a � �I I m d-w c>> �� ,� ��,V� � ° P1,'C?P�JSfL��, � ""� �'o �o�� V� \ ; W: SCN!°lEI�EY? �'"f�� lo _F I�1G ', �F'�� '� q� 1'TESI��iUCE,� � � �9`��' �� l,B �.�R4GE �, � ;k p , `- � � iu i � � I I � A � � J � � ��9 _ �;D�� 2,�3G��,, � �_ � � � � � F'� 9�5 c. -' I U � � o � �� : � '`� �� (f'= ,9Ji:fI '. . k3)i �ii � � � 1 � � , �� i� � , � � i ��9� � o?i � a � '� ��, � ° �'� , � ` �� W � � , �' ' ', � '�� ' w°� � W �. T.. � � �`, t972��24 0 � 30 ��, -��r�� (" . _A� '��nF\ . �� L I�; �S�� 'l � `tN \ ` I''� � � � �� V' 4a � J qa�,i � � � � , I �q� �-^ "� � �i �..J � I — F 1 \ \ � U' I �' T � Q Z � 1 /' � �� ,� � � ;^ �� Q� � I� ,� � � 1 i �� -, �o� � � � J �asT�r��i, � �; A � �� .,! �..� �-iou�� ' + � �' I � ,� ' � � � � � � I �s�zr � �, � � !`� � � �� I ` �g(1�c�cV � � � (J � � �. f- � � N LEGAL DESCRIPTION: � �� _ �� I �'� o LUT 2, SLOCK 1, FLAG �ND�� 1;— � � ADDITION, HENNEPIN CO., MN.`. � �,0 6�,� ; � �o�� :, � �p a ADDP.ESS — TBD \ �` � � I `� �9,� v,�QQ�� PID�301 1831330132 � � � �. `�, � � � ��. �„ „� LOT AREA = 12960 SF/ 0.29 AC �. �J � �o �'\� � - � ��o� � � �� I � '�� < �ERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND !^ '� I 0. oa=�w ELEVATIONS WITH HOUSE PLANS ��r��o �-�� N, o�� . ,a- •��o� 9kf�' 7� '�� M s�d� '� . SURVEY lS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PEP, �,"�'��— �> T�ni9M7� _�„-oQ3± ,J TITLE OR EASEMENT INFORMATION `'ad 9�� oT COP g � "��aF � N 85 59' (�y oni srnFi ¢ � - ° - - - �'1� ii SAN MH ��!J ,`?;. � EXISTING � TR=934.2 �,��4�� HCUSE � _� � m � ?� '-!-� �Q� ^�R � U � � U V � � � ' sca�E �ra ��T i %��;` 1 O°' � V� CAi�H � �9�� = E;ClSTING SPOT ELE�lATION. � �z �� I ��aAs�_��'.N�o #r�= �hi � BENCHMARK X(998•0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION � � +"`' � 9� TNHYD � I ELEV = 936J o = DIRECTION SUP.FACE DRAINAGEi "� � �032 � GFE = GARAGE FLOOR ELEV?,I ION ��f I�i I FE = TGP OF FOUNDATION ELE�/ATi�N ( � LFE = LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION `' � � ,a�; � � � ��, I � ��..� PROPOSED ELEVATIONS HARDCOV'cFe., - PROPOScO �, � �9 a� I GARAGE FLOOR= 926.0 HOUSE _ �489 SF � � ' TOP ur FOUNGA TION = 926 DRl✓E = t 134.SF. '� LOWEST FLOOR=976.G TOTAL\= 26?3 SF/20��q � "�g�'0�-'I'i \ �p � �` �'I � _____ �o��- ,�� \ �� 'Sza3 I �_ �. __ � �. S 86 1 A 45", E �,e�� 102.''�1 '��' I - /�.�� :. - �� . �'�� ' ,�`' `'�`� ——_�"� ' c�� I �9 ��I ---� ,_�� >r�� `—-�� , � � ' 0 1 � -- -_..�-�_ '� � � �e i�' i' , \�� \o . , - � — '' � ��'�O- _ � I �>j I �, Z - - a� _ �'� \� O �2-�.O � f `� -'`n��t �� '�.o � �. . . k ; 2"g'�!N � �� ti�rr�i � � '-�. ` N��n `� � �� °„'�, �-r=,�as� ,,9� I �1 � �1� �o� � � a � �_� i �` �� I �' ��- ___ �w�, � � f'l?OF�';�SED � � i � w�, ,.o �� Sf',r! �I�ER� ; i _ � " r- �c�_o � , I� =� i a �� I E tu �� r�j� ce� ` �\ 4; �S/l�cl�lCE J�5j;<, ��n`� � 1 , --��z c , \ ��`°-a� �1 � � ' 20! I �� / „ � � Q. ;,� � , �,F�=�z�a �� "� a o z i � � �`^ � � w ; i� �.�i �Ia ��o� yo2' o �\I � ' ^ , b �- , !=� q� �,co w c � � � �� `o � e . h�0 �,-� �n � , �. i I .�El. '�' i �� J � `�1 E�i�,nr�; '/ �� , � i ` ° � cnP,a�a� 1 j'�, �� r,�E=;sra'o�. �� 1 r� � � o` 1\ zo\�� <�a � �sz��o.� � ",� � � � '� , � � � _� �> o ,,� - � �9.r�5, '� , ��N i � 1 � � W � �� a � �,�, �,� �� iF � , � o�, � � � �- 1� ' � � ' � < � �i o o� � �� U �` G � ' � �� ,�ti � � � C?__ �j 1 �, I �� l ; ' � ,'1'' I � � �, �C � � � � ��. �f� � ,' s�Q� � , � , 'p� I �� ' "c�W, � _ u��l�� `�� I,� ^o� i � � �� z � W � � � � , \ � I � . �o� \ ` Q J �;ir,�a�� \� `' I � � � ` .� Q � H ��,E � � p � � ' �, � W � � � �\ r � W � � � � � I, I s'�r,� \ " ` � � �� r F�'F\ � ' �� 1 I � ' �� ' '�� 1 �.� ° � , LEGAL DESCRIPTION: � \; �i d � ��.�� o LOI 2, BLOCK 1, FLAG 2ND' ` � t--�' c '� ADDITION, HENNEPIN CO., MN.'; ��° 6'V � �`:, �� ,a""�� ' � � �� o�K� � ADDRESS - TBD V � i � I �� I V��s?o ��=w� PID#30 1 183 1330132 � �,�I '�`� '�`._� � � � w"� `� ��30Ns LOT AREA = 12960 SF/ 0.29 AC < ro\ � ` o � . �j��w l/ERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND �� oa ` � _FLEVA rIONS WITH HOU.SE PLANS �' � �'�� o a< � ' w __ — — � �,�� / ,� sani MF� N ��,�LL ,� SURV'EY lS SUBJECI" TG GHANGE PER 9�h�� 3 8.0 ;ii�� TR=9��.a =�`o° TITLE OR EASEMENT INFORMATIOP! �oi co� � ��_��' a N 85°5.9' y(/ oN ��nN - a> >a< � , SAN MH 'A'�%�\ EXISTING TR=934.?. I �� t � HOUSE rf('E�� r�'�E't�- � m p � CIraY` �.,{�y�g� ��{ �� 0 20 40 60 i '�Y� � � �� l�,Q 9�, �j SCALE W FEET ,m� �AT�FH + 1� �e9''s = EXISTING SP07 ELEVATION. I �_ �SN a� hy BENCHMARK � g3'S' q}'�' r� TNHYD X(998.0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION � �{;j��-}� ELrEV = 936J = DIRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGEi 932 I' �'��"t,�-� ; ��" I , �Dw, GFE = GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION � � I � �� ✓^,l TFE = 70P OF FOUNDATION ELEVATION '�� I LFE = LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION \� rvh � I � ��_'-`��_ � PROPOSED ELEVATIONS NARDCOVER — PROPOSED (930J I �� GARAGE FLODR= 926.0 HOUSE = 14 9 5� � ' �� TOP OF FOUNDA TION = 926 ORlVE = 13 SF1 I �� , � LOWEST FLOOR=916.0 TOTAL\=��62 SFY20.2% � \ 1, � � ' ,� \� �� 1 � �� so � �\ � � \ � �i �'1 � � 9 8 � _- --_- 90 � S �6�14�,45��E .,9� � 2�y.� 7; � I ` �- ��- N�:.-.��m:� .. �oh� ' � =�—�\ �_-�-M _, � I I I � o \ "' I' �r '� � �. � \ o � \---`--I �4 ! �� ' 3�0_ 3� I 1,' J�j --�;\ � \� ` .,\ �e �1 � 1 ' ? .� �� a�o� . i 1 ti \\� � ��, \\ \� �h �£�92�.5 h} ��\ , � '1 �� O"� I� ��ti95� b i 'b��;� -----_____— _._�� 9�' Pl,s 0 E --' _., T �z�� \o \ � � I W 3/ El�C6 � ry6 . _�—tu �� I 9 z, � t�d� �\ � ��\{�� I �TFE�9�.8�.o i —� �' �'1 � ��w N _ , +9otiS \\ �' p' ��` ` I � f�.ajI] � � I�' �� k (�N �(0�a1 \ �1 � '� '1 I I �9� P `'f' N EXISTING �` �� N� 1 � �� "'�p� � � I.,v �� ` GARAGE I � ' � LkE�91�490\ � S � \� � � �� '' o� �ao. � .\ v � � 9 7. � � W � 1�11 � ,'1 ,/ . \, `� �\`'m I 0 ti� �., � ` 1 '�, �� ` \ �\ � , ��N i� ; ��' �� u � W , , , ��\�� ,�,` ,, 1 � � ; �� i , eo � � � ,` '�, , "a,� � � ` �� \�� ` ; �w�� c�� (� 2 �� r^ � �9 Z 1 1 � � o , 1 ` ��\ � \ o1i �`\ I � � p2Z v V (-- I � \`1 \ ,�\� �1 �\I �1\ I .I '� �0 3 O \ O � �`, � � �. �l EHOUSE � � + w ' � ` 11 � I t — i W � 1 j i �_ . \ �,� �� J W � ! � � ��Tk � �., Ql � � �• � �� .�1 �� U(,, N LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ' � -�f _�'_. �:. � . . �\\I -. ,� v, LOT 2, BLOCK 1, FLAG �ND � __,_____,_ ti- ADDITION, HENNEPIN CO., N.� '\ ��a �,\ � I, �� ;�9�°� � ADDRESS — TBD \ r \ � �I �� \ I �� \� ��4��g PID#301 1831330132 ` � �� {� �� _��" LOT AREA = 12960 SF/ 0.29 AC � ��a I `��o �`� � t� ��s� � � A � VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND ` ��I \\ I \` N o��" � ELEVATIONS WITN HOUSE PLANS __ ' � 9t6�� zo � c�v �� —' SAN MH SURVEY 1S SUBJECr TO CNANGE PER e�5� s TR=917.8 � TITLE OR EASEMENT INFORMATION N 85'S9' 9� ONTSM�R g c !� tJ � � �Y� � C�� ()�, �anir�� +�ad� V�rianc� Applic�tic�r� a.. Streetaddress: i3xx Flag Avenue; exact address shall be determined later. 2. Applicant Infarmation: Name: Richard L. Schneider Address: 9936 Kell Avenue South Bloomington, Minnesota 55437 Em811 AddYess: rschneider@lifetimefitness.com Phone Number: 952-913-7531 3. Provide a detailed description of the variance(s) being requested: This Variance Request seeks to relax the technical front setback requirement so as to accommodate a reasonable and practical placement of the proposed new home on the subject lot. 4. Provide a detailed descriptian af r��cd for a vari��nc� from the Zanin� Code, i��cludin�;: � Description of builclin�(s) � Descriptian af�raposed addition(s) � Descriptian af propased alteratian(sj to prap�rty New home to be constructed on the subject Lot in accordance with the attached Survey. Given the unique elements and shape of the aubject Lot, the approval of a Variance Request will be necessary. Note that the proposed location of the residential structure on the Lot exceeds the diatance from house to street in a typical front setback scenario. In the case of 13XX Flag Avenue, the subject Lot, strict compliance with the front setback requirements as written in the Zoning Code will place the property in an unreasonable position. Such a location for the house will push the structure even farther from an already long distance from Flag Avenue and it will put the construction of the property into an area which is severely sloping terrain of the subject lot, and, thus, making physical construction of the house entirely more difficult and tremendously increasing associated costs of the project. CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE: Meeting the Setback Code in this instance will not allow placement of the house in an optimal position. Accordingly, this Variance Request seeks the City's perspective from a "Common Sense" point of view. 5. Minnesota State Statute 462.357 requires that � property exhibit "practical difficulties" in arder for a variance to be considered. Practical Difficulties: « result in a use that is reasonable. • are based on a problem that is unique tn the property. • are not caused by the landowner. • do not alter the essential character nf the Incality. To demonstrate how your request will comply with Minnesota State Statute 462.357, ple�se respond to the fallowing questions: Explain the need for your variance request and how it will result in a reasonable use of the property. The proposed placement of the new house pursuant to the Survey is the optimal placement of the structure and maximizes the usable portion of the lot all the while maintaining a more than adequate distance from Flag Avenue. This optimal location for the house DOES NOT in any way negatively impact any existing contiguous properties. However, such placement economically and physically facilitates the proposed project. What is uriique about yaur property and haw do you feel that ifi nec�ssitates a variance7 The Lot is irregularly shaped. The property has access to Flag Avenue but the basis of the Lot does not entirely front on said street. The lot also has sloping terrain in the rear which should be avoided for construction purposes. The shape of the Lot and the nature of the grades and terrain should dictate proper placement of the proposed structure on the property. Please note that the spirit of the Zoning Code relative to Front Setbacks is being met with the proposed Survey and at the same time the plan facilitates an altogether functional positioning of the house. Explain haw th� r��d for a variance is based on circumstances ti�at arE� not �� res�al� c�� landnwr�er action. The subject Lot is deemed to be a "buildable" lot as is from the City's perspective. An application for a building permit has already been filed with the City. The City's perspective as being a viable property was held prior to my acquisition of the site. The grades and terrain are natural terrains and were not engineered or designed as such. Expiain haw, if�r�nted, �he �rc�}�c�� v�rgar�c� �,�il{ r�at ti�lt�r��r� es�er�€i�l c:ri<�r,,rct��r�caf yaur� r��i�h�.�orV�aod �nc3 C�e>Iden V�II�y ��s �a whol�. The proposed plan completely avoids the creation of an oddity or an irregular dynamic which might cause or result in an eyesore or devaluation of surrounding properties. Instead, the proposed plan facilitates an optimal placement of the house structure in a location which is feasible for the owner and a positive addition to the neighborhood and surrounding properties. The Proposal also facilitates a self-imposed TREE PRESERVATION PLAN by saving a number of young and healthy trees which preserve and provide for years to come a natural setting which will foster the visual aesthet'cs of the gene al area. 6. The City requests that yo�r consider all avai{able prnject options t�iat are permitted by the Zanin�; Cade prior to requesting a variance. The Board af Zoning Appeal5 will discuss alternative options to seeking variance with you at the public hearing. Please describe alternate ways to dn your project that do not require variances to the Zoning Code. It is the strong opinion of the owner that this proposal represents the only logical placement of the property under all of the given circumstances of the site. 7. Please submit a current survey of yaur property. You must indicate the proposed addition, including new proposcd building and structure setbacks, on the survey. A copy of Golden Valley's survey requirem�nts is available upon request. Please nate that this applicatinn is considered incomplete without the submittal of a current prnperty survey. 8. Please submit at least one current color photograph of the area affected by the proposed variance. You may attach a printed photograpt7 to this application, nr you may email a digital image to lanning oldenvallevmn•�;ov. You may submit additional photographs as needed. To the best of my knowledge the st�tements fnund in this application are true and corr�ct. I also understand that unless constructi�an af th� actian applicable to this variance ra�qu�s�, if granted, is nat taken within one ye�r, the varianee expires. I have cansidered all c�ptions �ffarded tc� m�thrau�h the City's Zr�ning Cc�de, and fe�l that there is r�o alternate way to achieve my obj�ctive except to�eek a variance ta xerning rules�nd r�egulations. I give permission f�r Gafden Valley st�ff, as well as members caf the Board af Zoning App�als,te� enter my property prior to the publie hearing to insp�ct the are� affected by this request. _ ,� � /<��----� . _______ __ ____ ____________._ ___ __ Sign�t�r� +af Appliean� !f the applicant is not the owner of�II praperty invoivecl in this applic�tior�, please name the owr�er of this prop�rty: �-_� � Richard L. Schneider Print Name of owner Signature of owner � ✓ $200 Application Fee Attached (for Single Family Residential) $300 Application Fee Attached (for all other Zoning Districts) Please note: The City of Golden Valley will send notice of your variance request to all adjoining property owners as well as owners of praperties directly across streets or alleys. Your neighbors have the right to address the Board of Zoning Appea/s at your public hearing. You are advised to personally contact your neighbors and explain your project to them prior to the public hearing. �:`�a�° ��X �� ' � � �� =;,� � � �_. � � � � �� "� � �. �� =� .�'� �.._ �� - Planning Deparfiment 763-593-8Q95/763-593-8109(fax) Date: February 24, 2015 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Subject: 1300 Toledo Avenue North Beth Trautman (Cottage Home Designs), Applicant .,t��l�l�ll�( �.� ., .?�'Jx4��'�:c,.^ . , a.i�'��WN��0h��-„^�.;. ... -. �.�dn'}�� , , �"rk�.�,'a�C^at4�� . . . .. : 1 �4 I i� . . Beth Trautman, owner of the property at 1300 Toledo Avenue North, is seeking a variance from the City Code to replace the existing 1-car garage with a 2-car garage and improved breezeway. The applicant is seeking a variance of 5.5 feet off the required side yard setback of 12.5 feet to a distance of 6 feet from the side yard (north) property line. The praperty currently has a 1-car garage that is approximately 240 square feet. The proposed addition would increase the size of the garage to approximately 484 square feet. The proposed garage would be 22 feet long and 22 feet wide. If a variance to the side yard setback is granted, the distance between the home at 1300 Toledo Avenue and the neighboring home to the north, 1310 Toledo Avenue, would be appraximately 22 feet at the closest point. The neighboring home is located 15 feet from the property line. The applicant plans to build another addition to the rear of the home for additional living space. It is approximately 584 square feet in size. This building addition complies with Zoning code requirements and does not require a variance to the rear yard setback or side yard setback requirements. However, the eastern wall of the home must meet articulation requirements. Building permits will be required for all proposed additions. The applicant notes that the property is unique in that the home was built in the 1940s when most families owned one car instead of two. The applicant also notes that the lot is long and deep but not very wide. Placing the garage farther back on the lot to build within the setback area would increase the amount of impervious surface and may impact the neighbor to the north more than the proposed option. The proposal requires variances from the following sections of City Code: Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3) Side Yard Setback Requirements: The minimum side yard (north) setback requirement is 12.5 feet. The Applicant is requesting a variance of 5.5 feet off of the required 12.5 feet to a distance of 6 feet at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line. Staff Recommendation: In reviewing this application, staff has maintained the points of examination to the considerations outlined in Minnesota State Statute 462.357, requiring that a property exhibit "practical difficulties" in order for a variance to be granted. Practical difficulties result in a use that is unreasonable, are based on a problem that is unique to the property, are not caused by the landowner, and do not alter the essential character of the locality. Staff recommends approval of the request for a variance of 5.5 feet off the required side yard setback of 12.5 feet to a distance of 6 feet from the side yard (north) property line. SSdO 1438 1 1450 l 7445 1448,5755' 1441 14A0~q9q5 4937 —1455 ��r,; 14�5 1446 (`��`�e`` iJ15 1437 Z 1444 1430 1439 j' � 1433 • � 1428 1435 1436 5545 � 1435 S 1422 1445 � 1420 1425 1426 � 1425 142 5 _ ��$ - 1416 1431 11 1415 1416 1415 ' '�Z Z 1415 1410 1415� �°re,,<: � Z 5350 5330 5300 1400 �;��"' IO o � 1401 44r1405� o � 13 35 1400 1401 7i 12 �J T � �u�rel Rd 1380 �= ` *� = 5355 5335 5305 1335 13A& � `�� 1335 1325 ` 5 11 a 1336 1360 19 -�� i � � 1355 1325 1340 =' Subject Property � \� 1 �? � � 1340 1317 1320 � f �,` 1326 1215 1335 � " 1305 � 1311 1310 ` 1320� j 1300 1315 1�0 1300 � � 1301 �� 1301 1318 • 1305 1300 1241 fi 5110 1245 1250 � � , ,„ < ,� -�. i _ � j 1231 � 1240 1230 7231 Alhecik�i 1242 � � :1220 � ' 1230 1237 1230 5045' 1231 "' ��' � 1221 1220 1221 1230 i� 600 5510 -�� .�R's � 1200 12� 7200 1201 1200 1201 1200 1201 1200 , , � 1140 1141 1140 1141 5525 5505� { 1140 11A1 1140 1141 p_ t140 l 7130 1131 = 1130 7131 Th ^ 1130 1131 Z 1130 1131 2 , � 1130 � c , �� d � d �. " 1120 1121 1120 T 1720 1121 Q 1720 1121 p ��,, 1127 1120 � i "� z. � � ,� � 5340 5320 •5300 � 1100 5200 - 1100 1101 1100 5104 • � . �.,� 1100 i � � � L '� .�,i.sud Rd Liti�i { 5341 5321 �01 5221 1041 1040 5131 5111 5051 1041 1040 SS17�525 � , . . . . ,, 1 J, � M 1030 1031 1Q20 102� 1030 � 1030 1025 � - � * �"'"y 1420 1001 — ri _. _ , , r � � � � �� ' � ;Sf��. � � r � � �� i � �� f� � f _ .._ _ _. � �_. ' _.__ . t�tF J�` '`_.�'%'�"61';r7r J � I r /.f i � .p �^ � !��' y.-�w., ..�� Y�� r��.� : � _ - � i -� �,.-y_ _� 0 i ,,, C � € i ± � � � � n1 �, .,_ �-- i ,� �i: ��` ^ � � � ; � ► � �d�.1Ti��l�t�t� �. _� I �,, �j,;., �-,�,(�i"'�P,1t,,,^ y t . � ;�_� }�y,E ` 1 . --� � �� I �� i � �€Ls�� ---�� - � ��r..�:.. :.«n�G �nr��i�ci� y � � . �; � � ( �. � _ i � e � ��w� ' G � �� . . � ¢ � � . ; , , ; � � . � m � . ��s,—,�r�� ' � No�S�� ^ ; ; j . y � G , — ._ �.,�� `�� ' —�"'"r �a ..Y, � N �" �, � 3/�c� � �, r�,,....;=.��.,..y , /� . �rrr��lll�� - _ i _�_ .�..� -- ....._ -,,� � I' — 2t� 5c�c� � �__.. �� .r; ,T �, �+.�.. t"� �� 'i �,.�, :� ,,� +�$ � � � ��"�`� �y � �^ � �.�-�--- �--�- -�-�-.--r��- �� ,� ��. L� � `�� I�' � � �°� ��J �4..�.r....� ..�.r�M..r. � .�;;a 7�i � r.� �r� �,�_� � �,� �_ � �'� � � � � � � � � �� # � �� - ,�, �-� ,�,� ,�. . . n � � �r o�, �rv � , ,� �,,r � ��.� � � t � � � �,, �� , � u� ,�.�� . � � �o � � '� � ;;�!"` ` �' � �' � � � �:�'�� _�l..L p��' � -� t �� e..�,�Mt9 �� . � � � � � � � �� ,�� 4 ' !e'1 ,� 1� '�'''. "c' x }�'�' _ '�' � � " """"" � � �€ t�'f � � � � � � � � i� � . � �- ' .. � �`" � s x �� «» `� , ��,s,.� � ;� « .. � � � ,� � �,� � ,i. �; � �� c� +� ♦ � M q � � � � � —_ Wy � �� 'V ��'�'! c�►.' �" �'�",'�#�'� �� 'X�°4 ,� � c� . � cta� „�,,�,•,�, � � '� ��,.�� - . ,�"�'f "�' � t� _.,� x � � o g`1L�5 =w,r„ �'� .,,,, �3� , 9� � �+��-- � � �..,�.._ �,��"" �? ._; •;I°�'�. ` �� L� . � „t��" �� . � � t„'� � i �C6 �' � � � �°'�'`l � �� p :.s «°� +i � � �,4 ,�, �� ,,,, .s . ..�� ct� � x •c'" e+s � �'�� +,� . "" � e � � . ! �S _ t ,p� �,"�•� �► x ° �� ,s.; � �. � vs r�,� � "�� ' �_ �. � �, � �:� "'') � � � t.� � � " � # ,� ��- � � � . ��;� � � � � � �� 3 � � � � �. s�� M- ea� � +��,� _� �� . ,,,� I rvvirx l.)Exis[ing ulilitiez shown are shown in an approximatc way oniy.i'he contractor shatl � de[crmine the exect location of any and all cxisting utilities before commencing work. - Hc agmes to be fully responsible for eny ond all demages ansing ou[of his failure m o EXISTING�OUSE& I ezectly locate and prtserve any and all ezisdng utilities. ^ �h ,�c4'� cot 2.)Must maintain a minimum 2%slope gredient to accommodete positive dreinage. r x 900.5 B99.4 898.1 �. �'� N89°53�J�8��E x 199.�49 %893�m g�r� 3.)All offset irons are meesured to hundredths of e Poot and can be used as benchmurks. 900.} Q,� x901.9 x90V 90L2x SHEOn' � 8¢ 9o�z (zoo.o' PIAT) �� a = x 888.6 4Z� 4.)The proposeJ itriveway shuwn is concephial only and does not purport tn show o�g 901.4 901.3 SET POL 900.3 W n m 900.0 -� ezac;Ny how�he drivewey shall be built. x 901.4�i i9022 %N�.9 SE7 POl 899'� FtNC�E.4 894�,8 891.4 � �� O 8988 9013 x 902 i,�ZS�5�p�_y + e�a O 5.)A[itle opinion was not fumished[o the wrveyor. � � 898.9 900.7 90�.6 901.9 OU � x 898J 896.5 � � 0 - � 4_�4__% �'�'' 899'9 89 5 r �j I-- 6.)Pmposed grades shown adjecent W building foundation refers to[op of black dirt. ^ 899.0 900.8 9 i.8 902.0 x 898.6 895. (892.6 � ��8 �0 ^ 7.)Flood Zone Informa[ion:This property is contained in Zone X(nreas outside�he �^ �T 902� w 90L - W o, �'_ � w �� 1-percen[annual chance Floodplain,nrcm of I%annual chance sheet flow Flooding � 02.2 *895.1 9�� J � � whero average dep[hs are less then I foot,areas of I°h ennual chancc strcmn flooding � � 9.7 35.4 "��a � 903.0 -"�� g � v '+� � �� where ihe contributing druinnge area is less Nan 1 squwe mile,or ureas prorected from Ox FFE= x 900.2 `,� N % M <` Ihe I%annual chence flood by levees.No Base Flood Hlevations or dep[hs are shoxm /�1 O m m¢o EXISTING � . �888 8 ' 0�A - �+'�th�n this zone.Insurance pivchase is no[required in theve zunes.)per Flood Insurance ��,�� m o N � x gpi.i � � Map.Community Pwiel No.27053W351E,etFective date of 09-02-2004. � a x g01.4 m 1300 TOLEDO ,� 895.6,�" a .0 � W O � _- J 893.8" !�889 4" I 8e� � p 899.3 x i't ✓ �� O tn �m G - _ _ `,�I�oN�- - -'c' 0g 2� O 901x1 -1 b 901. y � � 90D.9 m 901 i��%900.7 r_ � i" 6 $98}�`� ,�r°�' Existing Elevations u?898.Sx � x8990 ' � 899.4 ENCE � gg3,p I ��0 ExistingGarogeFloorEleva[ion =902.1 � �/� 899.2 �2��.0' PLAT) 8982 �8. # �� ProposedFirstFWor Eleva[ion =903D � 898.7x 899.2" (�J ` "899.0'�`899.4 899.3NB9°53 38 E I99.�2 8962x � "890.3 8gB3 �7 $ElbeCk3R-1 ,� � SHED W 9083 I �- Mia Front Yurd Setback=35' � � o, EXISTING HOUSE ,� L I j Min.Side Yard Setback=I2.5'%us 0.5'ibr every foot the strucnxe is above IS' n � . N �� Min.Rear Yard Setback=20%of lot depih J I � Existin¢Hardcover �J ��) � Lot Area _ I5.000 S.F. r ^ r House Area _ L206 SF. �. I �1 I \� Driveway Area _ 703 S.P. /,,, -r StcwpArca 47S.F. � �� -� ShedArea - SJSF. ['J ( C�tal a��era63.4%�(M�-30°/n)10 S.F. I � rJ I A, !i ^ ` 'Y O R'�� - � _ I hereby certify dtat rhis is a We and correct represe�tation oFa survcy of the _ _ �FNfi_IP� - _ y - _ - - - - - boundariwoF. 899.2 S U RVEY LEGEN D The North 75 Feet of the South I75 Feet of Lo[23,AUDITOR'S SUBDI VISION NO. 330,Hennepin Counly.Minneso[a, � STORM ORAIN .sn e GROUND ELEVATION m EIECTRiC MEiER CONCRETE CURB nnd[he loua[ion of all buildings,i(eny,ihereon,and ell visible encroaehmen[s,if any, � CATCH BASIN (snL PftOPOSED ELEVATION m GAS METER ->-$ANIiARY SEWER from Of oI ai land,as surveyed by me e� d day of lanunry,2015. Da GATE VALVE �EXIS�TNC TREE � A/C UNIT -r>-STORM SEWER ^J HY�RANT Q PROPOSED TREE `0� POWER POLE -I-WAiERMAIN O IRON PIPE SET '�,' PROPOSED TREE � SEWER SERNCE ELEVATION --- PROPOSED SII.T FENCE • IRON PIPE FOUND m TELEPHONE PEDESTAL �'�-- CONTOUR PROPOSED -�- DIRECTION Of SURFACE DRAINAGE � SANITARY MANHOLE � UTiLItt PEDESTAL *e- CONTOIki EXISTING � BITUMINWS COUCRE7E D �el L.SchmidL PLS Minncsota Liccrec No.261A7 � schmidt�aJsathraoom �osn:sos�aoos REVISIONS CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY ��as s�q� FIELD CREW:CL �� ., . PREPAftED FOR DRAWNBY�.EMW ' � SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. so �s o �s so so f,.,`z 15050UTMBROAGVAV WAYZA7A.MN.33381(9S2)�788000 BETH TRAUTMAN CHECKED BY:OLS z� 1300 TOlEDO AVENUE DATE:01-20-15 nc�R�'s P`�� dTY OF GOLDEN VALLEY,MINNESOTA SCALE IN FEET *�f ;� i� � �� a °�`� ` �- ,a �.. �. ��'� �� d� � �r� �.�a- �� ' �.m, � "��, � � � ��'°� b� { n a t '� 'y� "k� ryy"'z . "d . �„ �n�'" ' ,�. „��+� �,,;. ,F,�,�� { ��` � � r -s;.. }� �"� ti� � �. , - �� ,��''� t �t ,i�"� � �� t w��•'. �, �� q' . . , � ��`�� . %� . . , �k�� ■ �� ,� °� ;�� u f��" �� i)A . . ,� �:Ty � �:: � ,.,'�;2' �' ,. ',., , '' . - , . , .� .. . . �� ! t % ` yG �e �; # ' � �`" �"� '' !y�� : � .� . 4 " � e �y�; p_�`'�, �d; 'k � t� ��,� �� '�� .; �, ��, ;`� " , � � � , � , � z � �.� s , ` , ; ! i ! a I i u � 1 I� � * i i ) S . � I'1� 7' ill ��. � _ +,s� � E � � � � i . I r .+se w� �, , �' . . - - . 4�p. �$syY_.r� � � b. � . �� `�� i .� �`�� I�'.. p `�.�'. j d ` ��'� �j;i. �I� ,#� ' . �� r ��,`�`�� r � �II�.. � � t �+ � � � � � � � � `: _ .�,_ a , ,� _ �� s % �"' � $� �� `��,,'! - £��:, �� Y; � �'; . . . � � � ,�� • # � �, , i �\ � 'r` ��x � � a'�P� 4•`�'�� . �� sa �� '�;a,° , , ,.,«�o��x.�,'}�'•� � a�� X�p�kpf'""��. �� .i`' � � � ' � � �`Y� �� 1 - kx�ie 9 �, � � ��: '�� 3�jkd�y�'t. y e `� ��.�� 4 �,q��, ��t� ' I �'� ',; �� '� � � • ' �:,Q 5 i � ` �� d . ., . � .:=}i � 1�� : . r ��,�� a �,��, � . . v`.' ' A � #a��&�q��. d� . . . b�.�, n �a', ��at � '�`�' �) � ' . . ,a`_ . � .� : � �� ,��`�s ` �,''�. � r�. .. ,.. , � l ' s � ,.,^ , .-�n _+ •,�„� ,�'.+ r��, ��`� �,: w' � �, f;�<,, ``".� .'t �.fF �� .� � � , � � , �ti.�'- �.a �r" �� €��t, s� �� . ,� �� ,�- '�"p . �! ' , �� 3��€ �� 's `� , .'�r�,�,� i. '3 4 . P � � "n � �� ' c � ; {� � ' } �' n�, . ",y �` �..._,....�.� _.. � �e � p� " i € '..� � ' .�' S ° j v �m j�....� � . . � � y � ��. �- ��` i � g . , f� �s�',v',� .� q °�p p*.6 - . .. ��°.��,�� ¢ �_��` r P � � � S, , : �� . p ��`"� k r� �` 3�' � � ,� _�o��' rr � � '�� . c i F�. i + `�na. ��e 4 .� . j� i'�� ';� . �� , s �° � .:k`: =i '�.$ � ,: �. �.� � �" � � �; � �"�� v� ��st�� '�� . � �',�a'' � �a a��'� �s'r :-.: � � , � .`� � � :P�;k�'��.�_ � ;�+�, ��,,..` ��I�t�'" 4§t � � � �j ►g ig � ,,!..: r r�• � �'�'i� Cp �� a q� � 4 s � ; � �'�i •k ��I�� 'a�' '.L� �� ,� ��b 9 s '� . 4 1 � �P �� "�. �,.� j� � * �;3 �1� � 3 "p` � 'r�„�+ + j � .' `� � y .. �� z �� . f �'. . f 1 �. , . �q � � '^�. � " �� A�� : � '� w-�� s e y #"�w . � ,.. x ( '� �. 's', � j � } � � , �(� "" � � �; � �. a�s ��. �' , _ ' �_ , ��"�t �p ��.r ( - �"� � .�,. � ° • �'�'� ��a, �"� ��:. ��. ��.,a� * �, ��;°� ;r+ � '� . �� .� � � n . � �• �.'".. '�v'��^'b_ . `� -:.y �` � �,��i`�' . . . . '"�:�i� ��.�. . city of olden � va e Zoning Code Variance Application 1. Street address: ��'� ��"� /`*p� /�, 2. Applicant Information: Name: �"'rfA�� - ��..5/��lS Address: �a�J� '�G'�/1�tb2�, �,�!Z� �Zv�t� �2.�! �'S�3.s� Emaii Address: ��'�'N"—'""f��u7"�Lq�(( X�. � �;-c,�tt. Phone Number: lt'CZ"3 �'�l l� — '�l' ��.-��'` �-��SZ�ff Au,1 � �{,� 3. Provide a detailed description of the variance{s) being requested: l�ff 0�.�$i2 T?� Q�C,�i-y �UCT'� /�� .1�77�K ?-tf�'r ,�t� i1/�� 2'¢�5 �� T� G'-�-�Q fh�.,t�� r�,6 �"� ��'�� A� 5�►Au-It�:f t>ill�.�.,�2 l�e�4-� <t�i-�s .�rr9�i�� /��P- ��.��✓/2-� T/� �`� � � - ✓-�-�-A�cri�� ro9�A-�� •r�-r,�z�,ris`r,�.cf6 ��rK�2� -��r ,�r�-�� Tk� ��u� �,��,� LL)1 T N � (o � �u'�'h L�, S�Y/,�A-�,+�G, 4. Provide a detailed description of need for a variance from the Zoning Code, including: • Description of building(s) • Description of proposed addition(s) • Description of proposed alteration(s)to property l 95�os ��i'`/.�� -r� ��.s ,� �•�-e��.cr P�� rk Qr�-��' ��1� G� ��-te,��.� .9.y� 8P�z��.f ��-7-��5 �o�-- �i��- ��-�.�.�_ _ �'�+�t t .�Z �'S, �' /Sri.�1� �' � �-cc l�-�-9�°l-�� _ _ �� Q- �' D ��-Lc. �l�2.�-� �'��,�:�.,t�, /,acT .J`"!Y� I.�S/`��S�}-�t� _ �d�-��"�j"�- �,�q��',� i�V G' 2.��v`2 �i o �iu� �- i'�v� �.A-cL ��'��-/%IC 7�i�� .SAa�c�;, �C��/�--T��tl. r.�J� /l(��j i e� t-�4 J� /� J1 i�. i, �i rl��!�I G�, �F �,��.j- 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 landowner. • do not alter the essential character of the lacality. To demonstrate how your request will comply with Minnesota State Statute 462.357, please respond to the following questions: Explain the need for your variance request and how it will result in a reasonable use of the - property. �'��. e�a�2� ��e��- �� ,�.��-�.i�r 7-rf� ��a's � /►��-r �i��.�s ��Pa u��u � r��.v�r� � �IS b�� —f%T—�.yr 7�f�- �iUS�i�I� 5��,,�l� ��;�r , ,T'r�,�A�S �i�4u/��'.5 t-f4c� /'� i�`fqsk �,(� �!v�- '� What is unique about your property and how do you feel that it necessitates a variance? �,� �_L fr ��=� js �Cn•�16 �t'1b �c((��,��=r�Js�,�,�( 1 s !�p�F�r�b, �71��tl b �� TNt rl4Zy ��<� Q� �r�.�� T`��o��d�/ ��i� ��-� •�E,�T 1.S No,r/a-L� o c.u--r�o�ct — �-� �� 5 /3 ' �aw b��F -Tt�� XlSrin/r �JT�1i�-��e� ��CIiS�??�� A�-��t /J�� 4 �� G�@4�� V N�2c ts C�n�•r ap�o rfs J rri J�. Explain how the need for a variance is based on circumstances that are not a result of a landowner action. �1'1�3z /-�� ,5/�-�1� ��-��, �� ,�?o.5r f=,9�Z�c--r�S �'�Rl�r�� 4-°f'i*�'Ea2. �A��6�, �Oc.�tl ��u�-Y '��r� �� i� �� - ,. �� (v��iQd� /�Sf b�.��2 `� ��'�'''71�I�fS 1.�� l,�$fl1�C� `T� /el�yT /�,/is � Explain how, if granted,the proposed variance wili not aiter the essential character of your neighborhood and Golden Valley as a whofe. ��V /I°'�.5�5 /� 7?�l� �31/ol�r�.P/�A /71�-11' '�d.3D � �-1]�1�'f+"� r (�2A-1�� 1,�.�i,t,��3f.� o� ,�p<�-s �-1��. (��4�-��s ��9�- .9,►z�.. 3 -SF��7- �� TN�. ��i'��, i �� 7'n�.� �s au�BF r�r� ��L.y,��y�j �.a-- ��,¢.� ��.�� 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 aiternate ways to do your project that do not require variances to the Zoning Code. 1110 �PcuTJ�� 1S J1�^,�Sq�t� e9� �7' u>�tc_ �f�.�(6� �t{� �f�°�-'�+�2 N c� �"t�� X�S r'�.c!b ��'�- �IC� /S Gvs� ��/8/'T�LI�. � /'�°� �`� 5i2�rLc-2� �l�/°��1�� G�-5� o,� �%� �,��- , �� 7. Please submit a current survey of your property. You must indicate the proposed addition, including new proposed building and structure setbacks, on the survey. A copy of Golden Valley's survey requirements is available upon request. Please note that this application is considered incomplete without the submittal of a current property survey. 8. Please submit at least one current color photograph of the area affected by the proposed variance. You may attach a printed photograph to this application, or you may emai! a digital image to plannin�@�oldenvallevmn.�ov. You may submit additional photographs as needed. To the best of my knowledge the statements faund in this application are true and correct. 1 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 a!I 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. !give permission for Goiden Valley staff, as well as members of the Board of Zoning Appeals,to enter my property prior to the public hearing to insped the area affected by this request. , -�—___.—� Sig ture of plicaM