The URL can be used to link to this page

07-23-19 BZA Agenda 7800 Golden Valley Road�Golden Valley,MN 55427 � ��.�� j 763-593-3992�TTY 763-593-3968�763-593-8109(fax)�www.goldenvalleymn.gov ,��den � � valle Board of Zon�ng Appeals � July 23,2019—7 pm Council Chambers REGULAR MEETING AGENDA GoldenValleyCityHall 7800 Golden Valley Road 1. Call To Order 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Approval of Minutes June 25, 2019, Regular Meeting 4. 470133rd Avenue North David Kopischke, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 113-152, Screening and Outdoor Storage, Subd. (c)(1)(a) Height Requirements • 2 ft. taller than the allowed 4 ft. in height for fences in a front yard Purpose: To allow for a 6-foot tall fence along a portion of Noble Avenue North. 5. Adjournment This tlocument is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call 763-593-8006(TTY: 763-593-3968)to make a request. Examples of alternate formats may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette,etc. 7800 Golden Valley Road�Golden Valley,MN 55427 ` �� il,� 763-593-3992�TTY 763-593-3968�763-593-8109(fax)�www.goldenvalleymn.gov ��j'�p�/// � ts!-�,s I 4 . �a11e Board of Zon�ng Appeals � June 25,2019—7 pm Councii Chambers Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road REGULAR MEETING MINUTES � Call to Order The meeting was calied to order at 7 pm by Chair Nelson. Roll Call Board Members present: Nancy Nelson, Richard Orenstein, David Perich, and Planning Commissioner AndyJohnson Board Members absent: Andy Snope Staff present: Senior Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, Planning Intern Emily Anderson and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman � Approval of Agenda MOTION made by Perich, seconded by Orenstein to approve the agenda of June 25, 2019, as submitted and the motion carried unanimously. ;� Approval of Minutes MOTION made by Perich, seconded by Orenstein to approve the minutes of May 28, 2019, as submitted and the motion carried unanimously. Agenda Items 7713 Knoll Street Andrey Lisoff, Applicant ' Request: Waiver from Section 113-88, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. (n)(2) Paved Area Setback Requirements • 1.5 ft. off of the required 3 ft. to a distance of 1.5 ft. at the driveways closest point to the side yard (west) property line to allow for the existing newly paved driveway. Request: Waiver from Section 113-88, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. (n)(3) Paved Area Coverage Requirements • 4.6% more than the allowed 40% of front yard pavement coverage. Anderson stated that the applicant hired a paving company to re-construct a gravel driveway. She referred to a photo of the property and explained that after the driveway was paved it was discovered that it was done without a permit and was too close to the west property line so the applicant is This tlocument is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call � 763-593-8006(TTY: 763-593-3968)to make a request. Examples of alternate formats may include large print, electronic, Braille,audiocassette, etc. City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting 2 June 25, 2019— 7 pm requesting a variance to amend the new driveway allowing it to be 1.5 ft. away from the side yard property line instead of the required 3 ft. She stated that the applicant is also requesting a variance to allow 4.6% more impervious surface than the allowed 40%of front yard paved area. Anderson referred to a survey of the property and noted that there is a second driveway that doesn't lead to a garage, but that there is an existing two-stall garage in the back yard which the new driveway leads to. She stated that staff feels that the new driveway leading to the garage in the back is a reasonable use, but the excessive amount of impervious surface is not and is therefore recommending approval of the variance to allow the new driveway to be located 1.5 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (west) property line and denial of the request to allow 4.6% more impervious surface. Nelson asked if gravel driveways are considered to be an impervious surface. Goellner said no. Nelson asked if new driveways need a permit. Goellner said yes, a right-of-way permit is required for new driveway construction. Johnson asked if the amount of impervious surface would be reduced enough by cutting back the driveway. Anderson noted that most of the cutting of the driveway would occur in the rear yard and the variance pertains to the amount of paved area allowed in the front yard. Johnson asked why the applicant can't remove part of the driveway without getting a variance. Anderson explained that the new driveway is supposed to be 3 ft. away from the side yard property line and that after the applicant cuts part of the driveway back it would still only be 1.5 ft. away from the side yard property line. Nelson asked staff what suggestions they have for reducing the amount of impervious surface. Goellner stated that approximately 4%of the pavement could be removed from the second driveway. Andrey Lisoff, Applicant, explained that the paving company called him one night before they came to do the work after they said they would call a week ahead and told him not to worry about permits. He said that it was his fault for not knowing about the permit. He stated that he and his neighbor to the west had an agreement that there would be a 4-foot buffer between their properties and when he got a survey he realized the new driveway was closer to the property line than he thought. He explained that when he bought the house he didn't realize there was a second driveway because it was covered in snow. He said he would really like to keep both driveways and when he cuts back the new driveway the amount of impervious surface will go down. He added that he is also planning to re-do some existing retaining walls by the second driveway so he can make that driveway narrower as well. Nelson asked Mr. Lisoff why he wanted to keep the second driveway. lisoff stated that there is an access door there. Orenstein asked what the applicant has to do if the variance regarding the amount of impervious surface is denied. Goellner said a violation would be issued because the property is not in conformance. Nelson opened the public hearing. City �f�olden Valley B�A Regular Meeting 3 lune 25, 2019—7 pm Michael Peters, 7721 Knoll Street, said he spoke with the applicant in June of 2018 and his ptans were much different. He said he had faith things were going to be done right and they weren't. He stated that the applicant's proposal was a 4-foot buffer, but he didn't agree to anything. He said that the little strip of land between the properties is very steep, he is worried about water, and would like to see a watershed and landscape plan. Nelson asked Mr. Peters what he would be comfortable with. Peters said a 4-foot buffer is fine, but he is worried about the watershed. Nelson asked staff what the City would require for watershed. Goellner stated that there would be no stormwater management plans required if the driveway was located 3 ft. from the property line and that it is typically a matter between private property owners. She said the Board could add a condition to their approval regarding water run-off. Orenstein asked how the water run-off has been so far. Peters said he can see a channel of water by the end of the driveways and that it hasn't affected his property yet, but he's scared it will. Goellner stated that the Engineering staff has recommended a swale or raingarden between the two driveways. Peters suggested a curb of some sort and said he and the applicant agreed that there'd be no swale. Lisoff said he can put pipe in between the properties to drain water to the street. Hearing and seeing no one else wishing to comment, Nelson closed the public hearing. Orenstein said in regard to the impervious surface variance it seems clear that it has to be brought into conformance and that he is not sure about the variance for the driveway setback. Johnson said the variance regarding the driveway setback seems reasonable and added that the driveway has be wide enough for a vehicle to get through. He said he agrees with Orenstein in regard to the impervious surface variance request. Perich said he thinks the driveway variance request is reasonable and the variance regarding the amount of impervious surface speaks to the character of the locality because no other properties in the area have two driveways. Orenstein said he gets the impression that the applicant can work things out in order to bring down the amount of impervious surface in the front yard. MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Perich to approve a variance for 1.5 ft. off the required 3 ft. to a distance of 1.5 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (west) property line to allow for the existing newly paved driveway and the motion carried unanimously. MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Perich to deny the variance request for 4.6% more than the allowed 40%of front yard pavement coverage and the motion carried unanimously. City of Golden Valiey BZA Regular Meeting q June 25, 2019—7 pm 1025 Ravine Trail Robbie Hyland, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 113-88, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. (f)(2) Height Restrictions • 2.5 ft. over the allowed one foot increase in average grade to an increase of 3.5 feet at the front building line to allow for the construction of a new home. Goellner noted that a second variance request has been added to this proposal. The second variance is for 6.5 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 28.5 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (west) property line. She stated that the applicant is proposing to construct a new home on this recently subdivided property. Goellner referred to a survey of the property and explained that in order to make sure newly constructed homes aren't too tall and that the grade doesn't greatly change from what previously existed, a 1-foot increase in grade is allowed is allowed. She stated that to calculate the grade a measurement is taken at three points along the front and the new grade is limited to 1 foot above that. Perich asked Goellner to explain the subdivision process. Goellner stated that the City has to approve a subdivision proposat if the survey submitted shows that building is possible on the property. Johnson noted that this is a corner lot and asked Goellner which front yard is used to calculate the grade. Goellner said she would calculate the numbers again to make sure both front yards are in compliance. Robbie Hyland, Applicant, said this lot is extremely challenging and he has played around with moving the location of the house. He said a two-story, tuck-under house would look even taller and that the house they are proposing will look similar to the neighbor's. He explained that dropping the grade would also make water from the neighbor's property come onto this property. Johnson referred to the survey and asked about tree preservation. Hyland said one large tree will have to be removed because it is located right where the house will be.Johnson asked if any other mature trees would be removed. Hyland said it is not his intention to remove mature trees, but he doesn't know the outcome. Perich asked Mr. Hyland if he had any drawings of a house that would be in conformance. Hyland said no. He stated that due to the nature of the site it is very challenging and they would need very tall retaining walls. He said in this instance he is trying to maintain the same grade as what the neighbor has. Nelson agreed that bigger and more retaining walls would be a worse problem. Nelson opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Nelson closed the public hearing. City of Golden Val�ey BZA Regular Meeting S lune 25, 2019—7 pm Johnson noted that the proposed house is right at the side yard (north) setback line and that the garage is 24 ft. x 24 ft. so he doesn't know if it would be worth it to build a new home with a smaller garage when this is an isolated and one of a kind property. He said he would recommend approval because they are make every exception to make the new house blend in and there is no impact to other property owners. i Nelson agreed that the lot is unique and unusuaL � � �.%., Perich said it was a subdivided lot which created problems and set the property up to need variances so he is not in favor of granting the requested variances. Hyland stated that they bought the property after it was subdivided so it was not this landowners fault. Perich said this landowner bought the property before looking at the Code requirements. Johnson stated that there is probably a way to build a house without variances but he thinks huge retaining walls would be more impactful. He noted that when the Planning Commission reviews subdivisions they tell the applicant at the time that the process would be to ask the Board of Zoning Appeals for variances if needed. Perich agreed that to build a house in conformance would require large retaining walls. Goellner noted that the applicant will need a third variance in regard to height. According to the plans submitted the house would be 1.5 ft. taller than the allowed 28 ft. MOTION made by Nelson, seconded Johnson to approve a variance for 2.5 ft. over the allowed 1 foot increase in average grade to an increase of 3.5 ft. at the front building line to allow for the construction of a new house and the motion carried unanimously. MOTION made by Nelson, seconded by Orenstein to approve a variance for 6.5 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 28.5 ft. at its closest point to the front yard property line to allow for the construction of a new house and the motion carried unanimously. MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Johnson to approve a variance to allow the proposed new house to be 1.5 ft. taller than the allowed 28 ft. of height as shown in the plans submitted and the motion carried unanimously. 4240 Bassett Creek Drive Paul and Dawn Speltz, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 113-88, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(a) Front Yard Setback Requirements • 5.85 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 29.15 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (west) property line to allow for the construction of a new garage addition on the west side of the home. City of Gc�lden �talley BZA Regular CVleeting 6 lune 25, 2019—7 pm Anderson reminded the Board that this applicant previously came before them on April 23, 2019, with a larger variance request which was denied. She referred to a survey of the property and explained that the applicant is now asking for a variance of 5.85 ft. off the required 35 ft.to a distance of 29.15 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (west) property line. Anderson stated that the applicant is proposing to convert the existing garage to living space and build a new 30 ft. x 24 ft. garage on the west side of the property. She stated that the applicants note that the presence of two front yards limits the buildable area and if the proposed new garage was in the buildable area they would lose three windows and two bedrooms because bedrooms cannot be legal bedrooms without windows. Anderson stated that staff feels the proposal is reasonable, however the essential character of the locality would be altered by the proposal for a garage larger than the standard 24 ft. x 24 ft. size so staff is recommending that the variance be granted with the condition that the proposed garage be reduced to 24 ft. x 24 ft. Nelson asked if the 30-foot dimension in the applicant's proposal is the width or the depth of the garage. Goellner said it is the width. Johnson asked if a 24 ft. x 24 ft. garage would need a variance. Anderson said that it would require the same variance it's just that 30 ft. x 24 ft. is not the size of a typical two-stall garage. Dawn Speltz, Applicant, noted that their request is smaller because they have decided to do away with the dining room and mudroom. She reiterated that a 24 ft. x 24 ft. garage would need the same variance and added that only 47 square feet of the proposed garage space would be located within the setback area. She stated that the purpose of the proposed garage is to have useable space for two cars and to make the garage smaller and remove the existing gazebo limits them. She said she thinks the proposed garage would look better than a garage and a shed and that there are at least three houses in their view with three-stall garages. Paul Speltz, Applicant, stated that the essential character of the neighborhood is already three-stall garages. Perich asked about the concerned neighbor from the last meeting. Ms. Speltz said they've talked to that neighbor about their concerns regarding the driveway. Mr. Speltz noted that the neighbor was also concerned about a tree. Nelson opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Nelson closed the public hearing. Anderson stated that staff's justification for recommending a 24 ft. x 24 ft. garage is that every person owning this property in the future would not have the same storage needs as the applicant. City af Golder� Valley BZA Regular Me�ting 7 June 25, 2019—7 pm Perich said this proposal is reasonable and the applicants have reduced their variance request. He said he is open to allowing a 30 ft. x 24 ft. garage because a three-stall garage is not unusual in this neighborhood. Johnson said the applicants are stuck because expanding on the other side of the house isn't an option and they will lose the gazebo for storage space. He said he understands staff wanting to hold the line at 24 ft. x 24 ft. but it is tough to put that space anywhere else. He said the applicants have looked at a lot of options and it seems good to maintain the design of the house. Orenstein agreed. MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Perich to approve a variance for 5.85 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 29.15 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line with the condition that the existing gazebo be removed and the motion carried unanimously. Adjournment MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Snope and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:18 pm. ,,;; � .; , , � Nancy Nelson, Chair .�:. Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant � �'�� , ;..� �� . ��. �� ;�� .�,�� //y� !i i § ..' � �-�� .:3 y �i 'r� y�.�"i/i- ,W �� '�� I�� 'ihr 3� . ' .�„ ��. �;_- ''� �� Phy�ic�1 ��elc�p�ner�t �l►+�p�aartme��t 7�i3-593-80951763-:�93-81 t39{fax) Date: July 23, 2019 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Emily Anderson, Planning Intern Subject: 4701 33rd Avenue North David Kopischke, Applicant Introduction David Kopischke, owner of the property at 4701 33rd Avenue North, is seeking two variances from the City Code to build a fence on their property facing Noble Avenue North that exceeds the maximum height allowed and to maintain the current nonconforming location of a shed. The applicant is seeking the following variances from City Code: ' Variance Request ' City Code Requirement ' _ An additional 2 feet in height in excess of ' Section 113-152 (c)(1): Fences in the front yard ' ' the maximum 4 feet in height permitted ' shall not exceed 4 feet in height. Fences in the ' ' for a fence in the front yard, totaling a ' side and rear yards shall not exceed 6 feet in ' proposed height of 6 feet. ' height. ' _ Section 113-87 (g)(1)(a): A detached accessory ' ' structure shall be located completely to the rear ' To allow a non-conforming accessory ' of the principal structure, unless it is built with structure to remain in place. frost footings. Section 113-87 (g)(1)(b): Accessory structures ' shall be located no less than 35 feet from the : ' ' front lot line. Background Fence Height Variance • City Code does not permit fences above 4 feet in front yards in residential zoning districts to preserve the aesthetics and character of local neighborhoods. • The lot is approximately 14,009 square feet in area and is zoned R-1 for Single-Family Residential use. • The lot is a corner lot and has two front yards, located along the north and east property lines abutting 33rd Avenue North and Noble Avenue North. • The applicant is proposing new 6-foot fencing to the north in line with the back of the house and on the east from the back of the house to the south property line. • The proposed fence would connect to existing fences built by the neighboring property owners to the west and to the south. • The portion of the fence that requires a variance is the eastern portion of the proposed fence. • The applicant has stated that they would like the security of a 6-foot fence to prevent their young children from accessing Noble Avenue North as they have concern that the children would be able to climb over a 4-foot fence. • The applicant notes that there are 3 mature trees on the east side of the property that could act as screening for the proposed 6-foot fence that will face Noble Avenue North. • Noble Avenue North is functionally classified as a major collector road. As of 2017, it has an average daily volume of around 2,500 cars. Non-conforming Accessory Structure Variance • There is a non-conforming shed in the southeast corner of the lot. It is about 15 feet from the front lot line on Noble Avenue North. Code requires accessory structures to be no less than 35 feet from the front lot line. • The shed is also not located completely to the rear of the principal structure. It is located in front of the house. • The buildable area for an accessory structure on this lot is limited to the southwest corner of the property where it would be completely behind the house. A visual representation of this area will be provided by staff during the public hearing to clarify. Analysis 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. To constitute practical difficulties: 1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner. The construction of a fence in the front yard to provide a security buffer does not constitute a reasonable use of the property. It is reasonable for a property owner to put in a fence on their property, but it is unreasonable to allow a 6-foot fence in the front yard for security or privacy purposes. There is sufficient space on the lot to build a private and secure area in the side and rear yards. A shed is a reasonable use of property. 2. The landowners' problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that is not caused by the landowner. Having 2 front yards due to the fact that this lot is a corner lot is not a unique circumstance. There are hundreds of corner lots across the City that are able to conform to the Zoning Code. The lot is over 14,000 square feet and the house is centrally located on the lot, which allows for adequate space in the side and rear yards for a fenced-in area. Staff is unable to determine if the current property owners caused this issue because the shed was built without any building permit or zoning permit. However, there are no unique circumstance that prevent the landowner from placing the accessory structure in the allowed buildable area. 3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. A 6-foot fence abutting a street is out of character with other properties in the area. There is a wood fence along Noble Avenue North just to the north of the property in question that appears to be 4 feet tall. A non-conforming shed is actually more common than usual in the immediate vicinity of 4701 33�d Avenue North (3260 Orchard Ave N, 3240 Orchard Ave N, 3210 Orchard Ave N, 4720 Lowry Terrace). However, these still differ from the essential character of the overall locality because of their non-conforming location. Additionally, staff assesses whether other options are available to meet the applicant's need and do not require a variance. The applicant could build a 4-foot fence that could still provide security and protection for their children. The 6-foot fence could also be set back 35 feet from the property line along Noble Avenue North, which would be the same distance that the house is located from the front property line. However, the applicant notes that this alternative would result in the loss of useful space in the backyard. The applicant could move the shed to the legal buildable area for an accessory structure on the property. The applicant could also remove the shed completely. Staff recognizes that neither is an ideal solution and supports a modified variance allowing the shed to be located at least 35 feet from the front lot line setback, even if it's not completely to the rear of the structure. Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the request for a variance of an additional 2 feet in height in excess of the maximum permitted 4 feet in height for a 6-foot fence in the front yard. Staff recommends denial of the request for a variance to allow a nonconforming accessory structure to remain in place. However, staff recommends approval of a modified variance to allow for the nonconforming accessory structure to not be located completely to the rear of the principal structure as long as it is moved to meet the 35-foot front setback requirement. This would require relocating the shed so that it is no closer to the front property lines than the existing home. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of a variance to relocate the detached accessory structure behind the front plane of the existing home, rather than completely to the rear of the structure as required in Section 113-87 (g)(1)(a). 3 321 332 4 33 23 �a� 4701 33rd Ave N 4�� 3316 3317 ;3��t� 1��,�� ' 3312 3313 � c�: 4721 4701 � # 3270 � ��7 33 08 33 b9 � > � � � -4 � c� � 3260 3249 p 33A1 � 4610 3 25Q 3�45 �'t�:��=!� ,�-'t'��'� 81U 3244 �� 3235 3��p 3241 t 3 228 3 225 3210 3235 321f ' ' 321G 3215 �': W N Q W O V V (pae�()a�ue�sia ,o�� N 'and a�qoN LL o W � = LL F Z �....__ _...... ..._... ...... .. ... . . ........ \ __.... ..... _..._._ .__._.. __._ _____, O � � W Q i � cr� V1 W ' H � W H _.__�,N � F i � ~ I I — i � N I �, -� �--------------------------------------------------------�-------------------------------------------------------------- — --� I ; �_ � � , ;, l -- ; � _ .y_ _ _ oC r---� •;s�a �Ob i i v ' � d � c I s I � �— v I 'n I � � I '� t__...._. � 'O 0 �--� � I � Q I N i r------_a____ ' ', I I Q '' I I ++ ! 1 I � 1 I � � � �----^---, � � 1 I ai I � � 1 I � I v —�'- � � � `L° � � - - I I � I �, '^ � I I v I Q � i a; I I I o �I o I i O 1 -a I I +_� I O � � I � � a � s ��i � 1 3 I I � � i = i--------- Z v I I T E I I � ..; 'C I I •� � � � � � s }, I I pq � I I � I o I I d O � I I Q- s � I I 3 +' ° � � a' � s I I � +r *' I I c,� +� � �n I I � O �I � � ' ; L------------- �°-�. � tip x i � � �H Z i, � � " ^, I O W = W Y � > � I Y /1 � pQ I VI � Q � (�- C y � +' � �, U N � M 'I � � � M � � , � a, , __ __ -�� /__ s H � � -- _ i� •;sip,SS Pldnning � 7800 Golden Vailey Road,Golden Valley,MN 55427-4588 city of 763-593-8095 � TTY:763-593-3968 � www.goldenvalleymn.gov � planning�agoidenvalleymn.gov �olden � ' � �'' �VING APPLICATION valle� • • • • - . . Street address of property in this application: . • • • • � Name(individual,or corporate entitiy): David Kopischke Add ress: 4701 33rd.Ave N. Phone number: Email address: Authorized Representative(if other than applicant): Name: Address: Phone number: Email address: Property Owner(if other than applicant): Name: Add ress: Phone number: Email address: • � • Provide a detailed description of the variance(s) being requested: Requesting a fence height variance along the Noble side of the the property. I would like to build a six foot tall fence along a 40 foot portion of the yard. See diagram of proposed fence.(attachment A) Provide a detailed description of need for a variance from the Zoning Code,including description of building(s),description of proposed addition(s),and description of proposed alteration(s)to property: The need for the variance is for safety. I have two young kids,and would like the security of a six foot fence to prevent them from accessing the street. I'm concerned they would be able to climb over a four foot fence. Planning � 7800 Golden Vailey Road,Golden Valley,MN 55427-4588 city of 763-593-8095 � TTY:763-593-3968 � www.goldenvalleymn.gov � planning@goldenvalleymn.gov golderi valley • � � • - . . . - . Minnesota State Statue 462.357 requires that a property exhibit"practical difficulties"in order for a variance to be considered. Practical difficulties: • result in a use that is reasonable • are based on a problem that is unique to the property • are not caused by the landowner • do not alter the essential character of the locality To demonstrate how your request 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. The siY foot tall fence will prevent my kids from accessing Noble Ave.when they play in the backyard. Noble is a busy street. Using a six foot fence(as opposed to a four foot fence)will provide greater security. What is unique about your property and how do you feel that it necessitates a variance? This is a corner lot. So the backyard that my kids play in,is abutting a busy Avenue(Noble). As a result,I would like to build a six foot fence to keep my kids from accessing Noble. Explain how the need for a variance is based on circumstances that are not a result of a landowner action. This is not the result of any landowner action. Explain how,if granted,the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of your neighborhood and Golden Valley as a whole. The deviation is a relatively small section of the fence. Also,the fence will be built behind three large trees making the deviation even less noticeable. The deviation is set back approximately 60 feet from the corner and 25 feet from the street. It will not impact any sight lines for drivers. Planning � 7800 Golden Valley Road,Golden Valley,MN 55427-4588 city of 763-593-8095 � TTY:763-593-3968 � www.goldenvalleymn.gov � planning@goldenvalleymn.gov golderi valley • • • • - . . . - . The City requests that you consider all available project options permitted by the Zoning Code before requesting a variance.The Board of Zoning Appeals will discuss alternative options to seeking variance with you at the public hearing. Please describe alternate ways to do your project that do not require variances from the Zoning Code. Alternatives considered: 1. Build a four foot tall fence. 2. Set the fence back an additiona135 feet on the Noble side. This will mean losing the use of a large portion of the backyard. e � � • ,�' Current survey of your property,including proposed addition and new proposed building and structure setbacks(a copy of Golden Valley's survey requirements is available u on rQquest,;a,p plication cpns�dered incomplete without a current property survey) �.. c E�<�. �� t t a.c l.,��-,�'r� [� One current color photograph of the area a�ected by the proposed variance(attach a printed photograph to this application or email a digital image to planning�a goldenvalleymn.gov;submit additional photographs as needed) O Fee:$20o application fee for Single-Family Residential,$30o application fee for al)other Zoning Districts ;� Legal description:Exact legal description of the land involved in this application(attach a separate sheet if necessary): . • To the best of my knowledge the statements found in this application are true and correct. I also understand that unless construction of the action applicable to this variance request,if granted, is not taken within one year,the variance expires. I have considered all options afForded to me through the City's Zoning Code and feel there is no alternate way to achieve my objective except to seek a variance to zoning rules and regulations. I give permission for Golden Valley staff,as well as members of the Board of Zoning Appeals,to enter my property before the public hearing to inspect the area affected by this request. Please include printed name,signature,and date for ap- plicant,authorized representative(if other than applicant),or property ower(if other than applicant). Name of Applicant(please print): David Kopischke ,.'�`� ! /- � t Signature of Applicant: 1—!L'.l-�� )'<-�~ • Date: � (`'��/ J j Authorized Representative(if other than applicant) Name(please print): Signature: Date: Property Owner(if other�han applicant) Name(please print): Signature: Date: Please nofe:The City of Golden 1/alley will send notice of your variance request to afl adjoining property owners as well as owners of properties directly across streets or alleys. Your neighbors have the right to address the Board of Zoning Appeals at your public hearing. You are advised to personally contact your neighbors and explain your project to them before the public hearing. �+ This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request.Please call 763-593-8006(TTY:763-593-3968)to � make a request. Examples of alternate formats may include large print,electronic,Braille,audiocassette,etc. N '� � ! 1 ^t .o�,.,�,,�, I;; a - ' ,i v 0 o +`�" I {� ,c � � a � �� r ,�. - � � ��'..`�*�� .,� , � , � . �� ,�,:,. f K 4 � � �gJ�� g �a� {� ax�.- � �;'�" �6`��"� � n, � 4 g � . � ��a,�,�.. �it ��,; ; . � ' .a ��a ' � I �x� a'°- x. :. �� _ � � �:,� �I ;a.��, --=` � �s�—-'- .�" ��.� ��^" ; � �y, � F{�, ,�+'� 3 � � . t ' `' ,:��.� "3 4".r, :�'m :: ��.. � '' ' C�s ,� �*Y' '�� - i i " , , ,- ; � � . : . { � � l.d�'. ,yy' , ' ss# .' % s�s� .� �C - :�'- �', �;. -�-� � �� _ � � , _ � ;� _ { ... , � � �. . � 4 �� j IO :� + � ; �t'�J`�j ip U .. at`s.�': =Y� N � ; � a tt � o ; i�' � �f '�$�� t T Q 7. ',,� } ..�. , Y n' °,�?a. � {. i I � �� O « ^�y€ � ; s � �� ' : �( _ ,� .� .:�� a�..��, x � � .. �'� � � � �� o r:� p ,� � �t a \ �'j � �{d � � �� ; � �' o E �:�. ,� � s �,. P �." �- . ��* ( � � r:,�' �` + � � +,. � E o O U : f � - � , w a� £�, � ^�•, � a, ' 3 0� =a,'�u t' �� .� ,.a.�� ' m o £� . . ��- � > o� , . �- ;j -.. : � �� t�"^-�e»-�-��""�'��--_:,..,_.� � o ' E" a' � j � ' . . � N } Jg � °o � � , �1 , . ! � I . a N �, � : i :`� ; ..: � � N � '�+ � � �a �� a r� b Q � *��! ��Y ' f;f-�� p�YS{��t. � �: ��E �� ff. fr$ � 6'� I � ��` � �� f c `��, � : k� g�.�r §�.,`. G d Z� # �.�: �'�E+��`��d �K� . ��"j' �a .. 3,�`t�' ! ; g� A x � � '�� 4` � } T ��t�.s. ��s '.. a � �� .��. _ ;�Nr �_ � , .�. �� _ �� . �t�x,y[ t `hC!f�W r ;��'� 9� '��`�, � - .i'r � �� I 'I� �� p 'i� A F • } •' p��•�� :� II .#. "6 O m U Y � U O m Q i,. - � �. 0 0 .c Q c > � Q o � � � i o m .�� Z E �� ,e '( �O V 3 � N � � p "^�p,..- �' p) � s� _ � O � N � � N N e• n � �