Loading...
bza-agenda-aug-25-20         REGULAR MEETING AGENDA    This meeting will be held via Webex in accordance with the local emergency declaration made by the  City under Minn. Stat. § 12.37. The public may monitor this meeting by calling 1‐415‐655‐0001 and  entering the meeting code 133 749 1926. If you incur costs to call into the meeting, you may submit  the costs to the City for reimbursement consideration.  For technical assistance, please contact the  City at 763‐593‐8007 or webexsupport@goldenvalleymn.gov.       1. Call to Order    2. Approval of Agenda    3. Approval of Minutes  July 28, 2019, Regular Meeting    4. 2565 Byrd Ave   David Uhr, Applicant    Request: § 113‐152, Screening and Outdoor Storage, Subd. (c)(1)(a). 2 ft. over the allowed 4 ft.  in height for fences in a front yard to a total of 6 ft.      5. 500 Ardmore   James Kraschel, Applicant    Request: § 113‐88, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. (i)(2) .05 feet off of the required 3 ft. to a  distance of 2.95 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line.      6. 5505 Lindsay St  Vladimir Sivriver, Applicant    Request: § 113‐89, Moderate Density Residential (R‐2) 20 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of  15 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line.      7. Adjournment  August 25, 2020 – 7 pm             REGULAR MEETING MINUTES    This meeting was held via Webex in accordance with the local emergency declaration made by  the City under Minn. Stat. § 12.37. In accordance with that declaration, beginning on March 16,  2020, all Board of Zoning Appeals meetings held during the emergency were conducted  electronically. The City used Webex to conduct this meeting and members of the public were  able to monitor the meeting by calling 1‐415‐655‐0001 and entering the meeting code 133 743  2368.    Call To Order  The meeting was called to order at 7 pm by Chair Orenstein.    Roll Call  Members present: Chris Carlson, Sophia Ginis, Nancy Nelson, Richard Orenstein, Kade Arms‐ Regenold, Loren Pockl – Planning Commissioner   Members absent:     Staff present:    Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman and Planner Myles Campbell    Approval of Agenda  MOTION made by Nelson, seconded by Ginis to approve the agenda of July 27, 2020, as submitted. Staff  took a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously.    Approval of Minutes  MOTION made by Nelson, seconded by Carlson to approve the June 23, 2019, meeting minutes as  submitted. Staff took a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously.     1. 2301 Indiana Ave N  Tom Schirber, Applicant    Request: § Section 113‐88, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(a) 14.8 ft. off of the required  30 ft. to a distance of 15.2 ft. at its closest point to the Front yard (east) property line.    Myles Campbell, Planner, started by stating the applicant is requesting a variance from City  Code in order to construct a roof over a patio area in the rear yard of his property. Campbell  continued with a background of the property as well as its location in a cul‐de‐sac. The property  has a significant section of public right‐of‐way in the front yard and the existing home location  is approximately 24.2 feet from the front property line, less than the required 35 feet. There is  approximately 35.8 feet of right‐of‐way between the property line and the curb, effectively  creating a separation of 60 feet between the home and the cul‐de‐sac.    July 28, 2020 – 7 pm  City of Golden Valley    BZA Regular Meeting  July 28, 2020 – 7 pm       2  Staff reviewed the application and after analysis found the variance request to be in line with  both the purpose of the Zoning Code as well as the purpose of the Single‐Family Residential (R‐ 1) Zoning District.     Recommendation  Staff recommends approval of the variance request of 14.8 feet off the required 30 feet to a  distance of 15.2 feet at its closest point to the front yard property line.    Chair Orenstein stated he agreed with staff analysis and the three practicalities have been met.  Nelson echoed this statement. The Chair invited the applicant to speak.     Tom Schirber, Applicant stated the analysis is clear and he appreciates the analysis and  recommendation.     A MOTION was made by Ginis and seconded by Nelson to follow staff recommendation and  approve the variance request of 14.8 ft. off of the required 30 ft. to a distance of 15.2 ft. at its  closest point to the Front yard (east) property line.   Staff called a roll call vote and the motion passed unanimously.    2. 4310 Tyrol Crest  Alyson Frahm, Applicant    Request: § Section 113‐152, Screening and Outdoor Storage, Subd. (c)(1)(a) 4 ft. over the allowed 4  ft. in height for fences in a front yard to a total of 8 ft.    Myles Campbell, Planner, gave the Board a background on the lot and its location on a frontage  road and faces three roads total: Tyrol, June, and Wayzata. The applicant is hoping for an 8‐foot  privacy fence to provide privacy and noise mitigation from the highway. The property line is set  back from the curb and avoids a visibility triangle issue.     Staff provided an analysis to the Board and determined that the variance request was consistent  with both the Zoning Code and was consistent with the Comp. Plan. They also felt it met the  requirements for exhibiting “practical difficulties”. Staff added that a 6‐foot fence will provide  similar privacy and an 8‐foot fence would have little to no impact on mitigating noise as the home  sits above the grade of the intersection.     Recommendation  Staff recommends denial of the variance request of 4 ft. over the allowed 4 ft. in height to a  total of 8 ft. for the fence.  However, staff recommends approval of a modified variance request of 2 ft. over the allowed 4  ft. in height to a total of 6 ft. for the fence.    City of Golden Valley    BZA Regular Meeting  July 28, 2020 – 7 pm       3  Board asked for clarification from staff on approving a modified variance. Clarification was  provided on the on the property line in relation to the corner and ensuring traffic visibility at  the intersection.     Alyson Frahm, Applicant not present.    Chair Orenstein asked if there were any members of the public wishing to speak.     Doug Diedrich  4315 Tyrol Crest  Diedrich stated there is not mitigation at the top of the hill from I‐394 noise. He added that the  setback from the intersection is his concern but feels reassured that the fence will be inside the  current vegetation on that intersection. He added that the height of the fence is a good idea and he  stated that the owners want a fence to increase safety for their children. Diedrich added that  another neighbor has a fence about 8 feet off the property line and the fence is aesthetically  pleasing. It would be generous if the applicant made it a goal to have an equally pleasing fence.     The Board entered in to a discussion about the variance request. Their conversation revolved  around the 8‐foot request versus a 6‐foot fence, the traffic, and visibility on the frontage road.      Staff provided an analysis and determined that the variance request was consistent with both the  Zoning Code and was consistent with the Comp. Plan. They also felt it met the requirements for  exhibiting “practical difficulties”.     Recommendation  Staff recommends approval of a modified variance request of 6 feet off the required 30 feet to a  distance of 24 feet at its closest point to the front yard property line.    A MOTION was made by Chair Orenstein and seconded by Carlson to recommend approval of a  modified variance request of a fence 2 feet over the allowed 4 feet for a total of a 6‐foot fence,  with the condition that the fence be located in conformity with the site plan given to the city by the  applicant.   Staff called a roll call vote and the motion passed unanimously.    3. 1325 Castle Court  Andrew Schwanke, Applicant    Request: § Section 113‐88, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(a) 6 ft. off of the required  30 ft. to a distance of 24 ft. at its closest point to the Front yard (west) property line.     Myles Campbell, Planner, gave the Board a background on the home and the lot having a double  frontage on Castle Court (front of house) and Zealand Ave (rear of house). The applicant would like  to build a deck off the home’s rear but the rear is considered a front yard, under the zoning code.  City of Golden Valley    BZA Regular Meeting  July 28, 2020 – 7 pm       4  The home is 35 feet from the west property line and at a significantly lower grade than the road,  adding a deck reduces the setback to 24 feet. The front of the home is in a floodplain and placing  the deck to the rear and avoiding that is in line with the goal from the Comp Plan’s Water  Resources chapter. A patio would also work in this space and that wouldn’t require a variance,  however given the significant grade change, staff have concerns about the impact that the  necessary grading work would have on the flow of stormwater.    Recommendation  Staff recommends approval of the variance request of 6 feet off the required 30 feet to a  distance of 24 feet at its closest point to the front yard property line.    The Chair invited Andrew Schwanke, the applicant, to speak. Schwanke echoed staff’s concern  with a patio and water runoff, as well as that the deck isn’t visible from Zealand.     A MOTION was made by Ginis and seconded by Pockl to follow staff recommendation and approve  the variance of 6 feet off the required 30 feet to a distance of 24 feet at its closest point to the  front yard property line.  Staff called a roll call vote and the motion passed unanimously.        Adjournment  MOTION made by Pockl, seconded by Orenstein and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the  meeting at 7:57 pm.                                                                                                              ________________________________                                                                                               Richard Orenstein, Chair  _________________________________  Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant      Date:  August 25, 2020  To:  Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals  From:  Myles Campbell, Planner  Subject:  2565 Byrd Ave N  David Uhr, Applicant      Introduction  David Uhr, the property owner, is seeking a variance from the City Code to build a six‐foot tall fence  in the rear and side yard of his home, which both face public streets. The applicant is seeking the  following variances from City Code:   Variance Request City Code Requirement  The applicant is requesting a variance of 2  ft. over the allowed 4 ft. in height for  fences in a front yard to a total of 6 ft.  § 113‐152, Screening and Outdoor Storage, Subd.  (c)(1)(a) Height Requirements    Fences in all front yards shall not exceed four feet in  height. Fences in side and rear yards shall not  exceed six feet in height.  Background  The home at 2565 Byrd Ave N was  originally built in 1959 as part of the  Scherer Addition. The lot is located at the  northern terminus of Byrd Avenue but  also abuts 26th Ave N to the north and  Kewanee Way to the west. Because of  having three sides that face public streets,  the rear and side yards are considered  under code to be front yards in terms of  their allowance for structures such as  fences, decks, and sheds.   2    Many of these roadways also terminate in the area as dead ends. Both 26th Ave and Kewanee Way dead  end to the west of the property, and only service the handful of homes that access that section of  roadway. In addition to the public frontages, the lot also has a slight dip in grade from the home to the  rear yard, generally around 4‐6 feet in grade change. The applicant notes this change in grade would  allow for a greater degree of visibility from roadways such as France Ave to the north, which comes  downhill towards the home.     Summary of Requests  § 113‐152 Subd. (c)(1)(a) establishes the maximum height for fences on residential properties.  Typically, height is capped at 4 feet for front yards, and 6 feet for rear yards. This distinction helps to  prevent home facades from being blocked from public view, while still allowing additional privacy in  rear yards. As noted, while the area proposed to be screened in by the applicant functions as a back  yard, in City code it is still considered a front yard, and therefore fences would be limited to 4 feet in  height. The only section of the yard that could be built to 6‐feet by right would be to the south of  the home and between both the eastern and western planes of the home.    The applicant notes that they are seeking the additional height both for privacy and security. While  this section of France Ave doesn’t have exceptionally high traffic levels (650 annual average daily  traffic in 2017) it does come downhill to a stop sign across from the property. The applicant also has  a large dog and is expecting a child and so would appreciate the added security of a taller fence.     Analysis  In reviewing this application, staff has maintained the points of examination to the considerations  outlined in Minnesota State Statute 462.357 – that the requested variance is in harmony with the  general purposes and intent of the Zoning Chapter, that it is consistent with the City’s  Comprehensive Plan, and that a property exhibit “practical difficulties” in order for a variance to be  granted.     Staff finds that the variance is generally in line with both the purpose of the Zoning Code as well as  the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The fence height is atypical but not completely out of line with  the expectations for a residentially zoned property, and does not introduce other uses or greater  density.     In order to constitute practical difficulties:    1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner.  While fences are common and reasonable use of a residential property, six‐foot fences in  front yards are typically only allowed by the City in cases where a street is particularly busy  or active, such as in the cases of a frontage road. Given the low level of traffic, staff is not  convinced that the additional height is necessary for privacy reasons.     2. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that is not  caused by the landowner.  3    While corner lots are common throughout the city, lots with three sides facing a public  roadway are rare. With most corner lots, there is an ability to push a fence inward on a lot  and bring it behind the front planes of the home to build a six‐foot fence by right, however  this is not an option here.     3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality  By staff’s review, there are very few existing fences in this neighborhood. For this reason, a  six‐foot privacy fence would certainly be a noticeable change to the area.     Additionally, staff assesses whether other options are available to meet the applicant’s needs  without requiring a variance, or whether the proposal requests the smallest variance necessary to  meet the applicant’s needs. While the applicant would prefer a higher fence, a four‐foot fence could  be built by right and require no variance approvals.     Recommendation  Staff recommends denial of the variance request of 2 ft. over the allowed 4 ft. in height for fences in  a front yard to a total of 6 ft.    Property Legal Description Property ID number: 18-029-24-11-0039 Address: 2565 BYRD AVE N Municipality: GOLDEN VALLEY School district: 281 Watershed: 7 Sewer district: 01 Construction year: 1959 Owner name: DAVID UHR & SASKIA ROBERTSON Taxpayer name & address: DAVID UHR & SASKIA ROBERTSON 2565 BYRD AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY MN 55422 Tax parcel description The following is the County Auditor's description of this tax parcel. It may not be the legal description on the most recent conveyance document recording ownership. Please refer to the legal description of this property on the public record when preparing legal documents for recording Addition name: SCHERER ADDITION Lot: 001 Block: 002 Approximate parcel size: 72.6X130X69X107 Metes & Bounds: Common abbreviations Abstract or Torrens: BOTH Value and tax summary for taxes payable 2020 Values established by assessor as of January 2, 2019 Estimated market value: $227,000 Taxable market value: $210,190 Total improvement amount: Total net tax: $3,300.74 Total special assessments: Solid waste fee: Total Tax: $3,300.74 Expand for taxes due Property information detail for taxes payable 2020 Values established by assessor as of January 2, 2019 Values: Land market: $79,000 Building market: $148,000 Machinery market: Total market: $227,000 Qualifying improvements: Veterans exclusion: Homestead market value exclusion: $16,810 Classifications: Property type: RESIDENTIAL Homestead status: HOMESTEAD Relative homestead: Agricultural: Exempt status: Zoning Code Variance Application Page 1 of 3 Street address of property in this application: Applicant Information Name (individual, or corporate entity) Street address Zip Phone Email Authorized Representative (if other than applicant) Name Street address Zip Phone Email Property Owner (if other than applicant) Name Street address Zip Phone Email Site Information Provide a detailed description of the variance(s) being requested: 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: 5/1/20 ’continued Physical Development-Planning Department | 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 763-593-8055 | FAX: 763-593-8109 | TTY: 763-593-3968 | www.goldenvalleymn.gov 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. What is unique about your property and how do you feel that it necessitates a variance? Explain how the need for a variance is based on circumstances that are not a result of a landowner action. Explain how, if granted, the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of your neighborhood and Golden Valley as a whole. Zoning Code Variance Page 2 of 3 ’continued 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 a variance with you at the public hearing. Please describe alternate ways to do your project that do not require variances from the Zoning Code. Required Attachments ☐ ☐ 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 upon request; application is considered incomplete without a current property survey) ☐ ☐ One current color photograph of the area affected by the proposed variance (attach a printed photograph to this application or email a digital image to planning@goldenvalleymn.gov; submit additional photographs as needed) ☐ ☐ Application fee: $200 for Single-Family Residential, $300 for all other Zoning Districts ☐ ☐ Legal description: Exact legal description of the land involved in this application (attach a separate sheet if necessary) Signatures To the best of my knowledge, the statements found in this application are true and correct. I also understand that unless con-struction 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. Applicant Name (please print): __________________________________________________ Signature: X________________________________________________________ Date: ______________ Authorized Representative (if other than applicant) Name (please print): __________________________________________________ Signature: X________________________________________________________ Date: ______________ Property Owner (if other than applicant) Name (please print): __________________________________________________ Signature: X________________________________________________________ Date: ______________ Please note: The City of Golden Valley will send notice of your variance request to all adjoining property owners as well as owners of proper-ties 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. Zoning Code Variance Page 3 of 3 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. Sketch of proposed fence Corner of 26th Ave. and Kewanee. This landscaping would be outside of the fence line and help the fence blend nicely into the neighborhood Stop sign on 26th Ave. People stop directly in front of our yard and will be able to peer into our yard if a 6ft fence is not installed. Steep hill on France Ave. when heading south towards 26th Ave. This road dead-ends at our property. Due to the hill, drivers heading South on France can see into our yard from approximately 400 ft. away. There is also a stop sign at the bottom of this road so cars stop facing our yard. This is where France Ave. meets 26th Ave. There is a sign directing people to turn left on 26th Ave since turning right is a dead-end. If you turn right on 26th Ave. You see the dead-end sign in the right image. The landscaping in the left photo would be outside of the fence. Looking South down our lot on Kewanee Ave. The Wood stakes are where the fence would be placed. Looking North down Kewanee Ave. This is where the other dead-end sign is located.     Date:  August 25, 2020  To:  Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals  From:  Myles Campbell, Planner  Subject:  500 Ardmore Drive  James Kraschel, Applicant      Introduction  James Kraschel, the property owner, is seeking a variance from the City Code to bring an existing  home into conformity with the side setback requirements for structures built prior to 1982. The  applicant is seeking the following variances from City Code:   Variance Request City Code Requirement  The applicant is requesting a variance .05  feet off of the required 3 ft. to a distance  of 2.95 ft. at its closest point to the side  yard (north) property line.  § 113‐88, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. (i)(2)  Pre‐1982 Structures, Side Yard Requirement    The structure setback for principal structures shall  be no closer than three feet to the side lot line.  Background  The home at 500 Ardmore was originally built in 1941  as part of the Glenwood Addition. The current lot is a  combination of two 40 ft. parcels for an approximate  10,680 sq. ft. total. The home primarily faces Ardmore  Drive, with Woodstock Ave directly to its south.     The existing home is located on the southern portion of  the lot. If the two underlying parcels were separated as  part of a tax parcel division, there would not be any encroachment on the northern lot from the home.  However, a recent survey has shown the need for a variance regarding the home’s setback in order to  bring it into conformity.      2    Summary of Requests  As part of the process of undertaking a tax parcel division, the applicant needed to confirm that the  existing home’s location would be in conformity with the requirements of the zoning code. Given  that this structure was built in the 1940’s it is mostly subject to the City’s standards for principal  structures built prior to 1982, which allow for some extra leniency in order to account for a much  different zoning code at the time.     After producing a survey, the applicant found that the existing home was built just shy of the  required 3 feet from the shared property line with the proposed split lot. For Pre‐1982 structures,  the city requires that principal structures are setback no less than 3 feet from the side lot line. The  survey showed that the existing home is only 2.95 feet from the property line. This is equivalent to  .6 of an inch from meeting the required 3 foot setback.     Typically, a case like this is handled by the Zoning Code, which allows for a degree of rounding up to  meet setback requirements, from Section 113‐57 General Requirements (b)(3) Rounding:    In order to meet front yard, side yard, and rear yard setbacks of five feet or greater required by this  chapter, landowners may compute the distance between their structure and the lot line by rounding  up to the next whole foot (for example, a distance greater than 14.0 feet may be rounded to 15 feet).    While this would normally apply to these cases where a setback is short by a fraction of a foot,  because the Pre‐1982 side setback is less than 5 feet, the City Attorney felt the rounding rule should  not be applied, and that instead a variance should be sought. This would allow for review of the  nonconformity, even with it being very minor overall.     Analysis  In reviewing this application, staff has maintained the points of examination to the considerations  outlined in Minnesota State Statute 462.357 – that the requested variance is in harmony with the  general purposes and intent of the Zoning Chapter, that it is consistent with the City’s  Comprehensive Plan, and that a property exhibit “practical difficulties” in order for a variance to be  granted.     Staff finds that the variance is generally in line with both the purpose of the Zoning Code as well as  the purpose of the Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, which is “to provide for detached  single‐family dwelling units at a low density along with directly related and complementary uses.”  While a tax parcel division of the lots would create additional density through the allowance of a  new home on the northern parcel, this is a legal use of the property and is still a residential use. The  City recently adopted a number of zoning text amendments relating to narrow lot homes, and these  would all need to be satisfied by the design of the new home.     In the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, one of the stated objectives of the Land Use Chapter is to  protect existing residential neighborhoods (p. 2‐35). This has been a point of discussion throughout  the examination of narrow lots and tax parcel divisions. In this case, staff doesn’t feel this variance  represents any threat to the neighborhood. The variance would allow for the existing home to  3    remain in place, and the slightly reduced setback would most directly impact the existing property  owner who is hoping to stay in the existing home.     In order to constitute practical difficulties:    1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner.  Staff feels the request is reasonable given that the home is only a fraction of an inch from  meeting the zoning code requirement. With such a minor difference between the code and  the actual built distances, the lot otherwise functions as required by the code in regard to its  setbacks. And while only tangential to the variance request, the ability to divide these  parcels is a valid and legal one.      2. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that is not  caused by the landowner.  The discrepancy in the setback distance could be down to any number of factors dating back  to when the home was constructed in the 40’s. It’s likely that degree of precision in  measuring tools or practices has simply gotten better in the subsequent 70+ years.    3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality  Other than the ability to move forward with the tax parcel division, this variance would not  change or expand upon the existing home in any way, it would merely establish the 2.95 ft.  setback as conforming.     Additionally, staff assesses whether other options are available to meet the applicant’s needs  without requiring a variance, or whether the proposal requests the smallest variance necessary to  meet the applicant’s needs. Staff could think of no other alternatives as this is not a variance  relating to a yet‐to‐be‐acted‐upon design, but rather an existing structure.     Recommendation  Staff recommends approval of the variance request of .05 feet off of the required 3 ft. to a distance  of 2.95 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line.        Date:  August 25, 2020  To:  Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals  From:  Myles Campbell, Planner  Subject:  5509 Lindsay St.  Vladimir Sivriver, Applicant      Introduction  Vladimir Sivriver, the property owner, is seeking a variance from the City Code to build a new home  which would have a reduced secondary front setback on its eastern side. The applicant is seeking  the following variances from City Code:   Variance Request City Code Requirement  The applicant is requesting a variance of  20 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a  distance of 15 ft. at its closest point to the  front yard (east) property line.  § 113‐89, Moderate Density Residential (R‐2)  Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(a) Front Yard Setback  Requirements    The required minimum front setback shall be 35  feet from any front lot line along a street right‐of‐ way line.  Background  5509 Lindsay is a MnDOT controlled parcel of land that is  currently vacant. The lot itself is approximately 13,196 sq. ft. and  just under 83 ft. wide at the front property line and 104 ft. at the  rear. The lot was rezoned in 2017 while still owned by MnDOT,  from Right of Way to Medium Density Residential (R‐2). This  zoning matches that of the residential parcels to the west and  north of the site. While zoned R‐2, the site fails to meet the  minimum width requirements that would allow for a two‐family  home.     2    The applicant is hoping to build a single‐family home on the lot for personal use. The building would  have a footprint of approximately 2,995 sq. ft. which would be well below the limit for hard cover on the  lot, and the added pavement from the driveway would also meet the code standards for impervious  surface. The home would be two stories, with a partially finished basement.     Summary of Requests  Because this is a corner lot, fronting on Lindsay and Lilac, it is subject to the front yard setback  requirement of the R‐2 district on both street sides. § 113‐89, Subd. (f)(1)(a) establishes the  minimum front setback at 35 feet from the property line. This required setback would be reduced to  varying degrees along the eastern portion of the home due to the property line running at an angle  as opposed to parallel, but at its nearest the home would be 15 feet from the property line and 30  feet from Lilac Drive. The required setbacks on all sides as well as the proposed amounts are shown  below.     Front Side (street) Side (interior) Rear  Required 35’ 35’ 12.5’ 25’  Proposed 35’ 15’‐29’ 17’ 25’    The applicant has chosen to increase the interior side setback in order for the home’s design to  comply with the City’s building envelope requirements. From § 113‐89, Subd. (f)(1)(c)(2), lots having  a width greater than 65 feet but less than 100 feet can build to a height of no more than 15 feet at  the setback, and then must bring the structure further into the site to get more height, at a 2:1  ratio. By bringing the wall of the home in to 17 feet the applicant can build a wall to two stories  without the need to step back.     In examining this request, staff examined some of the other homes that had secondary frontages  along Lilac Drive. This was done via City mapping software rather than formal surveys, so the  following are estimates of the distance between the home and the property line, as well as the  roadway itself.     Address Distance to Property Line Distance to Curb (Lilac Dr)  5509 Lindsay St. 15’ 30’  5505 Phoenix St. 20’ 40’  5510 Phoenix St. 10’ 60’  1215 Lilac Dr. 40’ (primary frontage) 50’    While the distance to the property line varies, likely due to the expansion of Highway 100, staff  found that most of the properties maintained a distance of at least 40’ from the curb of Lilac Drive.     Analysis  In reviewing this application, staff has maintained the points of examination to the considerations  outlined in Minnesota State Statute 462.357 – that the requested variance is in harmony with the  general purposes and intent of the Zoning Chapter, that it is consistent with the City’s  3    Comprehensive Plan, and that a property exhibit “practical difficulties” in order for a variance to be  granted.     Staff finds that the variance is generally in line with both the purpose of the Zoning Code and the  regulations of the Moderate Density Residential Zoning District. It is in line with the purpose of the  R‐2 district, which is “to provide for single‐family and two‐family dwellings at a moderate density  (up to eight units per acre) along with directly related and complementary uses.”    In reviewing the request for consistency with the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, staff also found  that the plans mostly matched the intent and goals of the plan’s housing chapter. The construction  of a new home by the applicant represents a clear reinvestment in what is currently a disinvested‐in  and vacant property. Similarly, the home maintains a significant amount of open space and pervious  surfaces, in line with the City’s goals for environmentally sustainable housing.  Since this is an R‐2  property, we would normally wish to see this lot used for some type of moderate density workforce  or lifecycle housing, but since the lot fails to meet the buildability requirements for a duplex, this  priority is lessened.     In order to constitute practical difficulties:    1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner.  While the home overall is scaled and designed in a complementary fashion to the property,  the proposed plan shows a three‐car garage as the primary cause of the encroachment into  the setback. While a garage is a reasonable request given Minnesota winters, the third stall is  an extra affordance for lots that have the space to allow for them by‐right. Staff feels this  would be an unreasonable use for which to grant a variance.    2. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that is not  caused by the landowner.  Given that this is a new construction, the necessity for a variance is largely dependent on the  design put forward by the applicant. While a corner lot presents some limitations with its  setback requirements, the shape and grade of the lot do not present any other unique  circumstances that might impact the buildability.     3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality  Along Lilac there are more than a few homes with secondary front setbacks below the 35’  required by code. These insufficient setbacks largely stem from the expansion of highway  100, but they do mean that a short setback such as the one proposed by the applicant would  not be out of place. The applicant’s plans also maintain the required setback on the interior  side property line to the west, minimizing the impact on neighbors.     Additionally, staff assesses whether other options are available to meet the applicant’s needs  without requiring a variance, or whether the proposal requests the smallest variance necessary to  meet the applicant’s needs. Staff would feel more comfortable approving a less drastic variance  than the one currently proposed by the applicant. Since this is a new build project, there is likely  4    room for some adjustment and compromise that would require a less drastic encroachment  towards Lilac.     One option suggested by the applicant was that if the BZA was not in favor of reducing the street  side setback, an alternative would be to allow for the western side of the home to be built at the  12.5’ side setback instead of 17’ from the property line. The variance request in this case would be  to waive the requirements of the building envelope language in § 113‐89, Subd. (f)(1)(c)(2). This  would afford 4.5 extra feet of space, however it would also bring a two‐story wall that is  approximately 60 feet long very close to the adjoining neighbor. Staff would not support this type of  request, as it has a much greater impact on neighboring properties than the original request.     Recommendation  Staff recommends denial of the variance request of 20 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of  15 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line.    ScaleProject numberDateDrawn byAVASTUDIO.HOUZZ.COMAVA STUDIO6641 W 18TH STREET ST LOUIS PARK MN 55426PHONE 612 532 8159EMAIL PROHOMEEXTERIOR@YAHOO.COM12" = 1'-0"6/24/2020 8:07:36 PMA100Cover Page5509Golden Valley5509 Lindsay St6/10/2020Alexander BocharnikovALL PLANS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE GENERALCONTRACTOR AND THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.AVA STUDIO LLC. IS NOT RESPONSIBLEFOR ANY PROBLEM AS A RESULT OF AN ERROROMISSION ON THESE PLANS.FRAMING NOTES:-ALL EXTERIOR WALLS TO BE 2X6 @ 16" O.C. WITH A DOUBLE TOP PLATE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.-WALL FRAMING SHALL BE S.P.F. STUD GRADE OR BETTER UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE (U.N.O.)-ALL HEADERS SHALL BE (2) -2X10 U.N.O.-EXTERIOR SHEATHING SHALL BE 7/16" MATERIAL CONSISTING OF ORIENTED STRAND BOARD (OSB).-ALL FLOOR AND CEILING SYSTEMS TO CHECKED AND DESIGNED BY THE DESIGNATED MANUFACTURER. TRUSS PLANS TO BE ON SITE @ TIME OF FRAMING-PRESSURE TREATED WOOD IS TO BE USED WHERE WOOD IS IN CONTACT WITH CONCRETE AND AT 2X6 MUD SILL. TREATED MEMBERS TO BE S.Y.P. #2 OR BETTER.-FOR OPENINGS IN EXTERIOR WALLS (OR WALLS WITH LATERAL LOADING:a) 0'-0" -4'-0" = 1 JACK STUD b) 4'-0" -8'-0" = 2 JACK STUDSc) 8'-0" -12'-0" = 3 JACK STUDSd) GREATER THEN 12' = CONSULT ENGINEER.-POSTS CALLED OUT ARE NUMBER OF KING STUDS REQUIRED PER SIDE OF OPENING.CONCRETE NOTES:-ALL CONCRETE FOOTINGS AND FOUNDATION SYSTEMS ARE DESIGNED FOR A 2000 P.S.F. SOIL-FOUNDATION WALLS SHALL BE FULL HEIGHT AT UNBALANCED FILL GREATER THEN 3'-4"-1/2" ANCHOR BOLTS EMBEDDED 7" MINIMUM @ 4' O.C. MAX. 12" MIN. FROM EACH END. MINIMUM OF 2 BOLTS IN EACH SILL PLATE-PAD FOOTINGS REINFORCEMENT IS TO BE LOCATED 3" FROM BOTTOM OF FOOTING TYP. (WHEN REQUIRED)-CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL STEEL REBAR SIZING PER STATE AND LOCAL BUILDING CODES-MIN. 5000 PSI CONCRETE @ ALL FOOTINGSINSULATION:-ALL EXTERIOR WALLS TO HAVE A MINIMUM RATING OF R-20-ALL ATTIC SPACES ARE TO HAVE A MINIMUM RATING OF R-49-ALL FLOOR SPACES OVER UNCONDITIONED SPACE OR CANTILEVERED ARE TO HAVE A MINIMUM RATING OF R-30SHEETROCK:-ALL CEILINGS ARE TO HAVE 5/8" NON-SAG GYPSUM BOARD U.N.O.-ALL WALLS ARE TO HAVE 1/2" GYPSUM BOARD U.N.O.-GARAGE CEILING AND WALLS THAT ADJOIN HOUSE WALLS ARE TO BE 5/8" TYPE "X" GYPSUM BOARD U.N.O.-ALL EXTERIOR WALLS OF GARAGE AND HOUSE THAT ARE WITHIN 5' SETBACK TO HAVE 5/8" TYPE "X" EXTERIOR GRADE GYPSUM BOARD ON EXTERIOR SIDE OF WALL AND 5/8" TYPE "X" ON INTERNAL SIDE OF WALL.DOORS AND WINDOWS:ALL WINDOWS AND DOORS TO NE DOUBLE GLASS PANELS WITH LOW-E RATINGS.-ANY WINDOW WITHIN 24" OF A DOOR SWING MUST BE TEMPERED -ANY WINDOW ABOVE A TUB MUST BE TEMPERED -ANY WINDOW WITHIN A STAIRWAY MUST BE TEMPERED-WINDOW GLAZING MUST BE AT LEAST 18" ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR WHEN WINDOW IS ABOVE 6' FROM GRADE.-ALL BEDROOMS TO HAVE AT LEAST ONE WINDOW THAT HAS A CLEAR EGRESS OPENING OF 5.7 SQ. FT. WITH MIN. DIMENSIONS OF 24" IN HEIGHT AND 20" IN WIDTH, SILL HEIGHT NOT TO BE GREATER THEN 44" ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR.-WINDOWS WITH SILLS WITHIN 3' OF THE FLOOR THEY SERVE AND ARE 72" ABOVE GRADE MUST EITHER HAVE A FALL PREVENTION OR OPENING LIMITER DEVICE PER CODE.MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL:-ALL ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE VERIFIED AND INSTALLED PER CODE BY APPROVED TRADES AND INSTALLERS.PLAN INFORMATIONCODE INFORMATIONSINGLE FAMILY CONSTRUCTION2015 Minnesota Residential Building code2015 Minnesota Residential Energy code2017 National Electric Code 2015 Minnesota Mechanical and Fuel Gas Code2015 Minnesota Plumbing CodeSOIL TYPE:DESIGNED WITH 2000 PSF SOILS, ALL FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION MUST FACTOR IN THIS AT MINIMUMWIND EXPOSURE:DESIGNED WITH "EXPOSURE B" CLASSIFICATIONS AND WIND GUSTS OF 90 MPH PER 2015 MN IRC CODE REGULATIONS.GENERAL NOTES:-ALL FOUNDATION WALL STRUCTURAL INFORMATION USED TO CONSTRUCT THE FOUNDATION SYSTEM IS TO BE ON SITE WHEN POURING OR BUILDING WALLS.-ALL STRUCTURAL BEAMS, POSTS & TALL WALLS ARE TO BE BUILT PER I-LEVEL SPECIFICATIONS.-ALL MANUFACTURED FLOORS & ROOF TRUSSES ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS.-ALL MANUFACTURED FLOOR & ROOF TRUSS SPECIFICATIONS ARE TO BE ON SITE DURING INSTALLATION.WINDOW AND EXTERIOR DOOR U-FACTOR TO BE 0.30 OR BETTERGLASS SOLAR HEAT GAIN COEFFICIENT (SHGC) TO BE 0.28 OR BETTERSheet ListSheetNumberSheet NameA100 Cover PageA200 ElevationsA300 Foundation / BasementA400 Main LevelA500 Upper LevelA600 SectionA700 Detail PlanA800 Braced Wall NotesA900 Braced Wall PlansArea ScheduleArea Level NameNot Placed Not Placed Mech Room /StorageNot Placed Not Placed Front PorchNot Placed Not Placed Deck (optional)Not Placed Not Placed 3 Season Porch2272 SF Foundation /Basement LevelUnfinishedBasement2368 SF Main Level Main Level627 SF Main Level Garage1021 SF Upper Level Upper LevelREVISION DATE : SITE PLAN BY OTHERSWINDOW FALL PREVENTION DEVICES AND WINDOW GUARDS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM F 209012" = 1'-0"13D View 1 Main Level891' -2 1/4"T.O. Main Level901' -3 3/8"Upper Level902' -10 1/8"T.O. Upper Level910' -11 1/4"T.O. Foundation889' -6"8' - 1 1/8"1' - 6 3/4"10' - 1 1/8"1' - 6 3/4"21' - 3 15/32"0' - 6"Average Grade886' -2"24' - 1 15/32"17' - 4 3/8"30' - 6 1/16"ScaleProject numberDateDrawn byAVASTUDIO.HOUZZ.COMAVA STUDIO6641 W 18TH STREET ST LOUIS PARK MN 55426PHONE 612 532 8159EMAIL PROHOMEEXTERIOR@YAHOO.COMAs indicated6/24/2020 8:07:37 PMA200Elevations5509Golden Valley5509 Lindsay St6/10/2020Alexander Bocharnikov1/4" = 1'-0"1FrontALL PLANS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE GENERALCONTRACTOR AND THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.AVA STUDIO LLC. IS NOT RESPONSIBLEFOR ANY PROBLEM AS A RESULT OF AN ERROROMISSION ON THESE PLANS.1/8" = 1'-0"2Rear1/8" = 1'-0"3Right1/8" = 1'-0"4Left 22' - 0"32' - 0"12' - 0"28' - 6"9' - 6"7' - 3"14' - 9"7' - 6"7' - 10"9' - 4"6' - 0"2' - 0"Unfinished Basement Unexcavated1A60066' - 0"4' - 0"40' - 0"16' - 0"60' - 0"24' - 0"19' - 0"17' - 0"60' - 0"60' - 0"Future BedroomMech RoomFlex RoomFutureBath9' - 0"ScaleProject numberDateDrawn byAVASTUDIO.HOUZZ.COMAVA STUDIO6641 W 18TH STREET ST LOUIS PARK MN 55426PHONE 612 532 8159EMAIL PROHOMEEXTERIOR@YAHOO.COM1/4" = 1'-0"6/24/2020 8:07:38 PMA300Foundation /Basement5509Golden Valley5509 Lindsay St6/10/2020Alexander Bocharnikov1/4" = 1'-0"1Foundation / Basement LevelALL PLANS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE GENERALCONTRACTOR AND THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.AVA STUDIO LLC. IS NOT RESPONSIBLEFOR ANY PROBLEM AS A RESULT OF AN ERROROMISSION ON THESE PLANS. REF.UPOVEN32' - 0"22' - 0"54' - 0"28' - 6"9' - 6"7' - 3"14' - 9"10' - 0"7' - 11 3/4"8' - 4"11' - 7 3/4"5' - 6"6' - 6"5' - 6"60' - 0"24' - 0"19' - 0"17' - 0"15' - 4"9' - 4"Great RoomFoyerOffice1/2 BathClosetLaundryHis closetHer closetMaster Bath6' - 0"1A600Dining RoomPantryClosetMudoomMaster SuiteFuture porchDeck futureKitchenHEAT RISER4' - 0"40' - 0"16' - 0"60' - 0"1' - 8"8' - 0"1' - 2"16' - 0"1' - 8"FIREPLACE18' - 6"1' - 0"20' - 6"60' - 0"2' - 0"2' - 0"12' - 0"ScaleProject numberDateDrawn byAVASTUDIO.HOUZZ.COMAVA STUDIO6641 W 18TH STREET ST LOUIS PARK MN 55426PHONE 612 532 8159EMAIL PROHOMEEXTERIOR@YAHOO.COM1/4" = 1'-0"6/24/2020 8:07:39 PMA400Main Level5509Golden Valley5509 Lindsay St6/10/2020Alexander Bocharnikov1/4" = 1'-0"1Main LevelALL PLANS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE GENERALCONTRACTOR AND THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.AVA STUDIO LLC. IS NOT RESPONSIBLEFOR ANY PROBLEM AS A RESULT OF AN ERROROMISSION ON THESE PLANS. 13' - 3"5' - 0"5' - 9"3' - 11 1/2"3' - 5 1/4"7' - 0"24' - 0"8' - 0"28' - 0"9' - 4"5' - 0"10' - 0"7' - 3"14' - 9"Great RoombelowBedroom 1Bedroom 2Bedroom 3Hall7' - 10"14' - 0"21' - 0"16' - 0"37' - 0"12' - 0"32' - 6"37' - 0"2' - 0"13' - 1 3/4"2' - 6"12' - 4 1/4"12' - 0"ScaleProject numberDateDrawn byAVASTUDIO.HOUZZ.COMAVA STUDIO6641 W 18TH STREET ST LOUIS PARK MN 55426PHONE 612 532 8159EMAIL PROHOMEEXTERIOR@YAHOO.COM1/4" = 1'-0"6/24/2020 8:07:40 PMA500Upper Level5509Golden Valley5509 Lindsay St6/10/2020Alexander BocharnikovALL PLANS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE GENERALCONTRACTOR AND THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.AVA STUDIO LLC. IS NOT RESPONSIBLEFOR ANY PROBLEM AS A RESULT OF AN ERROROMISSION ON THESE PLANS.1/4" = 1'-0"1Upper Level Foundation /Basement Level881' -6"T.O. Basement889' -7 1/2"Main Level891' -2 1/4"T.O. Main Level901' -3 3/8"Upper Level902' -10 1/8"T.O. Upper Level910' -11 1/4"T.O. Foundation889' -6"Garage Foundation885' -6"8' - 1 1/8"1' - 6 3/4"10' - 1 1/8"1' - 6 3/4"8' - 1 1/2"12' - 1 3/8"7' - 8"19' - 1 7/32"Average Grade886' -2"ScaleProject numberDateDrawn byAVASTUDIO.HOUZZ.COMAVA STUDIO6641 W 18TH STREET ST LOUIS PARK MN 55426PHONE 612 532 8159EMAIL PROHOMEEXTERIOR@YAHOO.COM1/4" = 1'-0"6/24/2020 8:07:40 PMA600Section5509Golden Valley5509 Lindsay St6/10/2020Alexander BocharnikovROOF :VENT ROOF 1/300 TH. VALLEYS &ALL ROOF/WALL INTERSECTIONS30 YR ARCHITECTURAL ASPHALTIC SHINGLES15# ASPHALT FELTICE & WATER SHIELD (FIRST 6'-0" AND ALL VALLEYS AS PER CODE)ENG. ROOF TRUSSES @ 24" O.C.1/2" PLYWD. SHTG. W/ CLIPSAIR CHUTE (PROVIDE UNOBSTRUCTED AIR FLOW)(R-49) BLOW IN INSULATION4 MIL. POLY VAPOR BARRIER5/8" GYP. CEILING BD.FASCIA :2X6 SUB FASCIA6" ALUMINUM FASCIAALUMINUM VENTED SOFFIT @ FRONT ELEVATIONWALL :1/2" GYP. BD. TYP.4-MIL. POLY VAPOR BARRIER(R-20) FBGLS. BATT INSULATION2X6 STUDS @ 16" O.C.7/16" OSB SHEATHINGTYVAKE HOUSE WRAPSIDING PER ELEVATION7/16" OSB RIM SHEATHINGRIM BETWEEN MAIN AND UPPER LEVELS2X4 CONTINUOUS RIBBON BD.(R-20) CLOSED SELL FOAM INSUL. RIMDURASEAL OR SAME QLTY.20" X 8" CONC.FTG. W/ (2) #4 REBAR 5000 PSI MIN COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHRIM BETWEEN LOWER AND MAIN LEVELS7/16" OSB RIM SHEATHINGTREATED 2X6 SILL PLATE & SILL SEAL TYP.(R-20) CLOSED SELL FOAM INSUL. RIMDURASEAL OR SAME QLTY.FOUNDATION1/2" DIAMETER A.B. W/ 7" MIN. EMBEDDED & 2" SIDE X 1/8" THICK SQUARE OR ROUND COUNTERSINK WASHERS @ 48" AND WITHIN 12" FROM EACH CORNER & WINDOW WELL(R-10) 2" (XPS) FOAM INSULATION COMPLYING WITH ASTM C5786 MILL CONTINUOUS SLIP SHEET TO TOP OF CONCRETE WALLASPHALT EMULSION PAINT WATERPROOFINGWEATHER RESISTANT OPAQUE PROTECTIVE COATING TO 6" BELOW GRADE MIN.DRAIN TILE TO SUMP PUMP8" X 108" POURED IN PLACE CONCRETE WALLHORIZONTAL 3 ROWS OF #4VERTICAL #6 36" O.C.2X4 CONTINUOUS RIBBON BD.ALL PLANS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE GENERALCONTRACTOR AND THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.AVA STUDIO LLC. IS NOT RESPONSIBLEFOR ANY PROBLEM AS A RESULT OF AN ERROROMISSION ON THESE PLANS.1/4" = 1'-0"1Section 1         Zoning Code Variance Application Page 1 of 3 Street address of property in this application: Applicant Information Name (individual, or corporate entity) Street address Zip Phone Email Authorized Representative (if other than applicant) Name Street address Zip Phone Email Property Owner (if other than applicant) Name Street address Zip Phone Email Site Information Provide a detailed description of the variance(s) being requested: 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: 5/1/20 ’continued Physical Development-Planning Department | 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 763-593-8055 | FAX: 763-593-8109 | TTY: 763-593-3968 | www.goldenvalleymn.gov 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. What is unique about your property and how do you feel that it necessitates a variance? Explain how the need for a variance is based on circumstances that are not a result of a landowner action. Explain how, if granted, the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of your neighborhood and Golden Valley as a whole. Zoning Code Variance Page 2 of 3 ’continued 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 a variance with you at the public hearing. Please describe alternate ways to do your project that do not require variances from the Zoning Code. Required Attachments ☐ ☐ 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 upon request; application is considered incomplete without a current property survey) ☐ ☐ One current color photograph of the area affected by the proposed variance (attach a printed photograph to this application or email a digital image to planning@goldenvalleymn.gov; submit additional photographs as needed) ☐ ☐ Application fee: $200 for Single-Family Residential, $300 for all other Zoning Districts ☐ ☐ Legal description: Exact legal description of the land involved in this application (attach a separate sheet if necessary) Signatures To the best of my knowledge, the statements found in this application are true and correct. I also understand that unless con-struction 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. Applicant Name (please print): __________________________________________________ Signature: X________________________________________________________ Date: ______________ Authorized Representative (if other than applicant) Name (please print): __________________________________________________ Signature: X________________________________________________________ Date: ______________ Property Owner (if other than applicant) Name (please print): __________________________________________________ Signature: X________________________________________________________ Date: ______________ Please note: The City of Golden Valley will send notice of your variance request to all adjoining property owners as well as owners of proper-ties 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. Zoning Code Variance Page 3 of 3 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.