bza-agenda-dec-27-22
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Board of Zoning Appeals meetings are being conducted in a hybrid format with in‐person and remote
options for attending, participating, and commenting. The public can make statements in person at
this meeting during the public comment sections.
Remote Attendance/Comment Options: Members of the public may attend this meeting by streaming
via Webex, or by calling 1‐415‐655‐0001 and entering access code 2459 926 0303.
Members of the public wishing to address the Board remotely have two options:
• Via web stream ‐ Stream via Webex and use the ‘raise hand’ feature during public comment.
• Via phone ‐ Call 1‐415‐655‐0001 and enter meeting code 2459 926 0303. Press *3 to raise your
hand during public comment sections.
1. Call to Order & Land Acknowledgement
2. Approval of Agenda
3. Approval of Minutes
September 27, 2022
October 25, 2022
4. Address: 1508 Alpine Pass
Applicant: Mark and Melissa Noel
Requests:
A variance of 5 feet 2.25 inches off of the required 35 feet to a distance of 29 feet 9.75 inches
to allow the construction of an enclosed entry
A variance of 5 feet 2.25 inches off of the required 30 feet to a distance of 24 feet 9.75 inches
to allow the construction of an open porch
5. Adjournment
December 27, 2022 – 7 pm
Hybrid Meeting
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES [DRAFT]
This meeting was conducted in a hybrid format with in‐person and remote options for attending,
participating, and commenting. The City used Webex to conduct this meeting and members of the public
were able to monitor the meeting and provide comment by calling in.
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7 pm and the land acknowledgement was read by Chair Carlson.
Roll Call
Members present: Kade Arms‐Regenold, Chris Carlson, Richard Orenstein, Ellen Brenna –
Planning Commissioner
Members absent: Nancy Nelson
Staff present: Jason Zimmerman – Planning Manager, Myles Campbell – Planner
Approval of Agenda
MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Carlson to approve the agenda of September 27, 2022, as
submitted.
Motion carried
Approval of Minutes
MOTION made by Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Brenna to approve the August 23, 2022 meeting
minutes.
Motion carried
1. Address: 4501 Merribee Dr
Applicant: Nancy Lyons
Request: To locate a shed in a front yard – closer than the principal structure and 33 feet off of the
required 35 feet to a distance of 2 feet from a front property line.
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, reviewed the request, showed members its location in the
city, and elaborated on its corner location. Staff explained the lot’s current size and explained there’s
a proposal going before City Council in October for an adjacent vacated ROW to be added to the
property.
Zimmerman went on to review the property, the request, and how the ROW vacation and lot
consolidation would address the concrete slab crossing the current property line. The proposal is to
locate the new shed in the “front yard” closer than the principal structure and within the 35ft
setback. This portion of the yard acts as a side yard but due to zoning codes on corner lots, it’s
classified as having two front yards.
September 27, 2022 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
September 27, 2022 – 7 pm
2
Practical Difficulties
As proposed, the shed would be positioned in an area that both functions as a side yard and is
predominately screened from view by the existing fence. The intended size is not excessive
and it is a complementary use commonly found on single‐family lots. Staff believes the
proposed use is reasonable.
In light of the desire to construct a shed to hold bicycles, yard equipment, and other items,
the applicant notes that due to the topography of the lot there are few places where a shed
could be located while still practically fulfilling that purpose. The conforming portion of the lot
is far removed from the active areas. The dramatic changes in grade as well as the reduced
depth of the yard facing Lee Ave are unique circumstances that are not caused by the
landowner.
The proposed location for the shed is in an area that is shielded from view from the public
right‐of‐way by a fence. The portion of the property facing Lee Ave functions as a side yard,
and the current placement of the home is nonconforming in that it sits roughly 12 feet from
the (front) property line. While the introduction of the proposed shed would be a change to
the lot, it would be minor and staff believes granting the variance would not alter the
essential character.
Other Considerations
Staff assesses whether the request represents the smallest feasible variance or if there are other
options available:
Given the nature of the site as a corner lot, the only conforming alterative for the placement of
a shed would be at the bottom of the hill in the rear yard. While this would avoid the need for a
variance, its location would be ill‐served for the intended purpose of providing storage for
bicycles and other equipment typically associated with the garage (at the top of the hill).
Alternatively, no shed could be constructed and all items would need to fit within the garage.
Recommendations
Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow an accessory structure to be located closer to
the front setback than the principal structure.
Staff recommends approval for the variance of 33 feet off of the required 35 feet to a distance of 2
feet for an accessory structure from the front property line.
Further, staff recommends including the following condition:
1. The approvals shall be contingent on the final approval by the City Council and the recording of
a plat that combines the existing lot with the vacated right‐of‐way along Lee Avenue.
Staff and Board members reviewed the elevation on the lot, the vacated section details, the fence
height,
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
September 27, 2022 – 7 pm
3
Chair Carlson invited the applicant to speak.
Nancy Lyons, Applicant, thanked staff for their presentation and said they were available for questions
but didn’t have any details to add. Applicant added they love their house and want to maintain the
integrity of the home within the neighborhood.
Chair Carlson opened the open forum at 7:15pm.
Lauren Akin
2441 Lee Ave
I live the closest to the shed location and can see its location. I have a lot of confidence the shed will
only add value and I’m not opposed in any way.
Mathews
2420 Lee Ave
I have no objection and support both variances.
Staff received an email comment:
Judith Krause
4508 Meribee
I’m in support of the proposal and project.
There were no remote commenters.
Chair Carlson closed the open forum at 7:17pm.
Chair Carlson opened the Board Discussion.
Member Orenstein noted his agreement with staff analysis and all the requirements are met. Chair
Carlson echoed this statement. Commissioner Brenna added neighbor support of the project adds to
it’s approval.
A MOTION was made by Commissioner Brenna and seconded by Member Orenstein to approve the
variance to allow an accessory structure to be located closer to the front setback than the principal
structure
AND to approve the variance of 33 feet off of the required 35 feet to a distance of 2 feet for an
accessory structure from the front property line with the listed condition.
Motion carried.
2. Address: 309 Edgewood
Applicant: Roger Friedell
Request: To allow an increase in average grade over the existing elevation by 2.5 feet, 1.5 feet over
what is allowed by right.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
September 27, 2022 – 7 pm
4
Myles Campbell, Planner started be showing the location in the City and provided a background of
the zoning, the property, topography, and the stormwater concerns at the front of the lot. The
applicant would like to teardown the current home and repair the grading to the home. Raising the
grade at the front elevation triggers the zoning variance request, as the average is increasing from
910.5 elevation to 913 average elevation. Staff represented the contours to illustrate the specific
elevations discussed.
Staff collaborated with Engineering and Environmental staff and noted their recommendation is to
approve a variance relating to average grade but a half foot less than the requested amount.
Practical Difficulties
The increase in grade is correcting an existing site issue that should be corrected given the
opportunity provided by the new build, overall staff finds this request reasonable.
While all lots often have flat or sloped areas in their topography to be worked around, few in
the city have this issue of being at level with their associated street, which many issues in
regards to directing storm water flows. Staff believes the site exhibits unique circumstances.
While the new house will be slightly higher than what is existing in terms of finished floor
elevation, it will not have a second story above the main floor and this variance would not be a
major contributing factor in the change in the lot’s appearance with the new home. Staff
believes that the requested variances will not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood and city.
Other Considerations
Staff assesses whether the request represents the smallest feasible variance or if there are other
options available:
As Engineering staff noted in their review, a lesser variance for increase in average grade could
allow for the applicant to correct the front grading issue without running into issues with
driveway slope or without dropping the walkout level to the same elevation as the floodplain to
the southwest.
Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of a variance to allow an increase in average grade over the existing
elevation by 2.5 feet, 1.5 feet over what is allowed by right.
Staff recommends approval of a variance to allow an increase in average grade over the
existing elevation by 2 feet, 1 foot over what is allowed by right.
Staff and members reviewed the request as a whole and the potential new home plans.
Chair Carlson invited the applicant to speak.
The applicants weren’t present.
Chair Carlson opened the open forum at 7:35pm.
There were no in person commenters.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
September 27, 2022 – 7 pm
5
There were no callers.
Chair Carlson closed the open forum at 7:37pm.
Chair Carlson opened the Board Discussion.
Orenstein stated the request seemed reasonable and the grade change is to help the flow. Carlson
added as a homeowner, he would listen to the advisement of the engineering staff and thinks the
staff recommendation and condition is sound.
A MOTION was made by Orenstein and seconded by Carlson to deny the variance to allow an
increase in average grade over the existing elevation by 2.5 feet, 1.5 feet over what is allowed by
right.
Motion carried.
A MOTION was made by Orenstein and seconded by Commissioner Brenna to approve a variance
recommended by staff and allow an increase in average grade over the existing elevation by 2 feet, 1
foot over what is allowed by right.
Motion carried
3. Address: 6601 Plymouth Ave
Applicant: Paul Patton and Barbara Pierson
Request: To construct a three‐season porch within the shoreland setback – 13 feet off of the required 50
feet to a distance of 37 feet from the ordinary high‐water line.
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, started the presentation by giving the Board a background on
the home and lot as well as it’s location in the City. The rear of the property backs up to Bassett
Creek and a rear deck was constructed in 1999. Staff pointed out that at the time, the interpretation
of the Shoreland setback did not require a variance for the deck (though with today’s interpretation
it is shown to be approximately 12 feet inside the required 50 feet setback).
Staff noted the applicant’s details to the proposal:
The porch would be limited to 18 feet wide by 12 feet deep
It would extend into the shoreland setback by no more than 13 feet
It would be elevated with only supporting posts intruding at the ground level
A modified stairway would also be within the setback, but by no more than the amount caused
by the new porch
The porch would not extend into the side setback
110 square feet of patio paving could be removed and replaced with a permeable, planted area
Practical Difficulties
The use of a three‐season porch, especially in a rear yard, is reasonable and typically would not
trigger the kind of scrutiny generated by this application. If not for the proximity to Bassett
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
September 27, 2022 – 7 pm
6
Creek, staff would have no issue approving the use. Staff believes the proposed use is
reasonable.
While adjacency to Bassett Creek is a limiting factor in seeking approval for the proposed three‐
season porch, hundreds of other properties across the city face similar regulations and are
generally able to remodel or redevelop in ways that do not require a variance. Staff has offered
a compromise that takes advantage of the portion of the rear yard most accommodating of a
conversion of the nonconforming deck, but does not believe additional expansion is warranted.
Given this option and the preferences of the applicants, staff does not find that unique
circumstances are the cause of the landowner’s problem.
The targeted requirements of the shoreland setback are designed primarily to limit the
intrusion of structures or other uses that may detract from the experience of using the
protected waters (in this case, Bassett Creek). The addition of an elevated three‐season porch
visible from the creek would contradict these efforts. Therefore, due to the sensitive nature of
the Shoreland Overlay District and the importance placed on maintaining the “natural
character” of the protected waters, staff believes granting the variance would alter the
essential character.
Other Considerations
Staff assesses whether the request represents the smallest feasible variance or if there are other
options available:
As discussed above, staff believes a three‐season porch constructed in place of the existing
deck would provide the enclosed experience desired by the applicants while still respecting the
intent of the shoreland setback, though the layout or size may not be the preferred scenario.
Recommendation
Based on the factors above, staff recommends denial of the variance request for 13 feet off of the
required 50 feet to a distance of 37 feet to allow the construction of a three‐season porch.
Staff and members reviewed the plan, DNR oversight of the creek, the original variance in 1999,
current landscaping, and the expansion of height versus out towards the creek.
Chair Carlson invited the applicant to speak.
Paul Patton, Applicant, thanked staff for their help and guidance through the variance process.
Applicant added that he cares a lot about the ecology of the Creek and has created educational
programs and live streams about local birds and wildlife.
The applicant added that his property is hemmed in on all four sides by modern setbacks and
considers that to equal a unique situation. The applicant’s opinion is that staff’s suggestion to place
the new screened in porch over the deck is worse as it converts the current permeable area into
runoff. He provided reasons why the proposal is not impacting the sightlines, or negatively impacting
the character of the neighborhood, while adding the intrusion of deck posts is not in the floodplain.
The applicant pointed out that staff alternatives would leave a porch either off the bathroom or
require a walkway from the house to the screened in porch. Neither of these options match the
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
September 27, 2022 – 7 pm
7
character of the home nor do they create a welcoming living space that they desire. The applicant
stated a number of neighbors offered to attend and voice support, however he told them that was
not necessary.
Chair Carlson opened the open forum at 8:11pm.
There were no in person commenters.
No remote commenters.
Chair Carlson closed the open forum at 8:41pm.
Member Orenstein looked at the requirements for approving a variance, the request use is
reasonable, the impacts to the neighborhood could go either way, and points out the circumstances
surrounding the request are caused by the homeowner. The circumstance is not unique and
therefore approval fails 1/3. Orenstein added the homeowner seems environmentally conscious and
can understand the desire for a 3‐season porch but the group is bound by legalities of the three
requirements. Chair Carlson added he’s struggling with the shoreland district standards regarding the
impacts to the character of the area because the area is a suburban neighborhood. Commissioner
Brenna noted that the City may not have historically done the best job to protect water resources,
that doesn’t negate the need to protect them now and in the future. While this is a tough decision,
she sides with the importance of the shoreland overlay. Member Arms‐Regenold pointed out the
complexity of the shoreland overlay changing, that the home and deck were built in compliance to
the standards of that time. He added that the unique circumstance may not be the homeowner’s
doing as you’d have to hold them responsible for a house location they inherited when purchasing
the home.
Staff responded that when the deck was constructed it was intended to be out of the overlay and
staff recognizes that the current homeowner shouldn’t be penalized for a past event. Thus, the
compromise of the deck technically being in the overlay, but staff agreeing to an expansion without
adding width. Even though there are structures in the overlay currently, that doesn’t mean the City
needs to continue to impact the overlay and setback.
A MOTION was made by Orenstein and seconded by Carlson to deny of the variance request for 13
feet off of the required 50 feet to a distance of 37 feet to allow the construction of a three‐season
porch. Denial based on all three requirements not being met, the circumstances are caused by the
landowner.
Motion carried.
4. Address: 610 Ottawa Ave N
Applicant: Lori Bosclair
Request: To build a deck off an existing office building, 17 feet off the required 35 feet from the west
property line, and 4.5 feet off the required 20 feet from the north property line.
Myles Campbell, Planner, started the presentation by laying out the two variances the applicant is
requesting, the goal is to create an outdoor meeting area for the business. He continued by going
into detail on the lot, its zoning, access points, and parking.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
September 27, 2022 – 7 pm
8
Practical Difficulties
A space for employees to gather outdoors associated with a principal office use is not wholly
out of place. And while the deck could be reduced in size, overall staff finds this request
reasonable.
Staff does not believe the site exhibits unique circumstances. It is of a relatively standard size
and shape, and is not impeded by floodplains or wetlands. The only physical design challenge
not created by the applicant might be the north‐sloping topography to the front of the lot.
Rather than avoiding this area however, the proposed deck plans show the deck is located in
this area, and can be constructed despite the topography.
The deck would be visible from Ottawa Ave N and would be closer to that street than either of
the other buildings along the east side of Ottawa. That said, given the few properties along the
street to compare to, staff isn’t concerned about the impact on streetscape. An existing mature
tree to the front of the building would hopefully be preserved along with the deck project
although this point is not addressed by the applicant. Staff believes that the requested
variances will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood and city.
Other Considerations
The deck as shown is quite large, being just over 470 sq. ft. and seating 21. Reducing the size of
the deck could reduce the front setback request or potentially eliminate the needed side
setback request.
Just south of the building, in between it and the parking lot is a gravel area which could be used
to create a patio area for employees to use without needing a variance.
Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of a variance of 17 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 18 from the
west property line.
Staff recommends denial of a variance of 4.5 feet off the required 20 feet to a distance of 15.5 feet
from the north property line.
Members and staff discussed greenspace, setbacks, potential impacts to character, the building’s
proximity to the sidewalk, and a potential variance for a patio alternative and the need for regrading.
Chair Carlson invited the applicant to speak.
Lori Bosclair, Applicant, mentioned that the gravel area staff referred to as an alternative location is a
holding space for runoff water and has sump pumps installed there to pump water out. Prior to the
applicant’s ownership of the building, that area had water and mold issues, that area was created for
remediation. She added the unique circumstances aren’t due to the topography but rather the use of the
building; this building is a corporate headquarters. The applicant went on to discuss employee safety and
proper circulation with Covid concerns.
Chair Carlson opened the open forum at 8:44pm.
There were no in person commenters.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
September 27, 2022 – 7 pm
9
No remote commenters.
Chair Carlson closed the open forum at 8:46pm.
Orenstein commented that he’s struggling to understand the applicant’s definition of unique
circumstances as it’s not the building’s fault that it’s the size it is. Chair Carlson added that in the past
there has been some leniency with setbacks but this request extends beyond that reasonable amount.
Orenstein added he believes it changes the characteristic of the area, Arms‐Regenold echoed that and
added this request is the biggest percentage of setback variance the group has ever approved.
Chair Carlson asked the applicant if there were other options and they responded they’re amenable to
re‐submitting a more setback conducive plan. Chair Carlson suggested tabling the request to the
following meeting and reviewing a new plan. Staff requested the Board offer guidance to the applicant
for the next meeting. They discussed layout size changes, reduction in setback variance, and building
footprint.
A MOTION was made by Carlson and seconded by Arms‐Regenold to table the variance request of a
variance of 17 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 18 from the west property line and the
request of a variance of 4.5 feet off the required 20 feet to a distance of 15.5 feet from the north
property line to the following meeting in October 2022.
Motion carried.
Council Member Rosenquist was present and mentioned the following day will be a ribbon cutting
for the Franklin Center, formally known as the Academy of Whole Learning. Rosenquist added HRA
approved a levy for $241,000 and City Council approved a 11.3% tax levy 4‐1.
5. Adjournment
MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Carlson and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn
the meeting at 8:59 pm.
Motion carried.
________________________________
Chris Carlson, Chair
_________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES [DRAFT]
This meeting was conducted in a hybrid format with in‐person and remote options for attending,
participating, and commenting. The City used Webex to conduct this meeting and members of the public
were able to monitor the meeting and provide comment by calling in.
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7 pm and the land acknowledgement was read by Chair Carlson.
Roll Call
Members present: Kade Arms‐Regenold, Chris Carlson, Nancy Nelson, Richard Orenstein, Adam
Brookins – Planning Commissioner
Members absent:
Staff present: Myles Campbell – Planner
Approval of Agenda
MOTION made by Nelson, seconded by Orenstein to approve the agenda of October 25, 2022, as
submitted.
Motion carried
1. Address: 610 Ottawa Ave N
Applicant: Lori Bosclair
Request: To build a deck off an existing office building, 17 feet off the required 35 feet from the west
property line, and 4.5 feet off the required 20 feet from the north property line.
This item was tabled at the previous meeting. Since then, the applicant notified staff they will no longer
explore an exterior remodel but rather an interior remodel. The applicant was not present so staff
presented this information to the Board.
Myles Campbell, Planner, summarized the original request and that staff recommended denial.
Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of a variance of 17 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 18
from the west property line
Staff recommends denial of a variance of 4.5 feet off the required 20 feet to a distance of
15.5 feet from the north property line
Chair Carlson open the open forum at 7:03pm.
There were no in person comments.
There were no remote comments.
Chair Carlson closed the open forum at 7:05pm.
October 25, 2022 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
October 25, 2022 – 7 pm
2
A MOTION was made by Commissioner Brookins and seconded by Arms‐ Regenold to follow staff
recommendation and deny the variance request of 17 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of
18 from the west property line and deny the variance of 4.5 feet off the required 20 feet to a
distance of 15.5 feet from the north property line.
Motion carried.
2. Address: 1800 Independence
Applicant: Heidi and Chad Hollinbeck
Requests:
To allow a shed to be located closer to the front setback than the principal structure.
§ 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(a) Accessory Structures:
Location
To allow 5 feet off of the required 5 feet to a distance of 0 feet for a shed from the side property line.
§ 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(c) Accessory Structures:
Side Setback
Myles Campbell, Planner, presented the two requests made by the applicant. He displayed a map to
illustrate the home’s location in the City as well as noted the double frontage, Independence Ave and
Wheeler Blvd.
The extra ROW for Wheeler Blvd was vacated in 1981 when the plans for a longer road were
abandoned; however, this portion of the lot still has easements over pre‐existing sewer and water
mains. The applicant reached out to staff to replace an existing fence and shed and that’s when the
intricacies of the lot were brought to staff’s attention. The applicant was amenable to shifting their
fence site plan so it complies with the property lines and easement; they are now working with staff
on the shed. Engineering staff has guided the shed location out of the easement and the homeowner
would like the shed to be flush with the fence.
Practical Difficulties
As proposed, the shed would be positioned in an area that both functions as a rear yard and
which would predominately screened from view by the fence and existing trees from
Independence Ave and the neighbor to the south. It would only be visible from Wheeler Blvd,
which is a low intensity road serving a small number of homes. The intended size is not
excessive and it is a complementary use commonly found on single‐family lots. Staff believes
the proposed use is reasonable.
The double frontage is not the fault of the applicant but does severely restrict where an
accessory structure could be located due to eliminating any “rear yard”. The city utilities and
easements further reduce available land. Staff feels these are unique circumstances that are
not caused by the landowner.
The proposed location for the shed is in an area that is shielded from view from the public
right‐of‐way along Independence by a fence and existing mature trees. The new location
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
October 25, 2022 – 7 pm
3
corrects the incursion to the lot to the south and mitigates impacts on that neighbor with the
fence screening. Staff believes granting the variance would not alter the essential character.
Other Considerations
Staff assesses whether the request represents the smallest feasible variance or if there are other
options available:
Locating the shed north of the driveway creates a new front setback variance and reduces usable
greenspace for the family
Locating the shed to the side yard would require setback variances for distance between
structures
A viable option: shed could be moved slightly off the side yard property line without getting too
close to the driveway to be a collision risk.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow an accessory structure to be located closer to
the front setback than the principal structure.
Staff recommends approval for the variance of 5 feet off of the required 5 feet to a distance of 0 feet
for an accessory structure from the side property line.
Staff and board members reviewed the number of homes with double frontage roads as well the
shed’s proximity to the property line compared to the home.
Chair Carlson invited the applicant to speak.
Chad Hollinbeck, applicant, noted that his family was caught off guard to learn there were two front
yards. They purchased the home 15 years prior and had what they thought was a standard front and
rear yard as designated by the fence line in place when they bought the home. The family has a tuck
under garage and they prefer to keep the lawn mower, snow blower, and gasoline in a shed. They
would like the shed in what they perceive to be the rear yard, but the regulations for dual front yards
has made navigating a location challenging.
Chair Carlson opened the open forum at 7:22pm.
There were no in person commenters.
There were no callers.
Chair Carlson closed the open forum at 7:24pm.
Nelson stated agreement with staff that there don’t seem to be any good alternatives. Arms‐
Regenold echoed this statement and added that the request was straightforward. Chair Carlson
added the request met all the practical difficulties and added that cases like these are the reason the
BZA does its work.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
October 25, 2022 – 7 pm
4
A MOTION was made by Carlson and seconded by Nelson to approve both variances:
1. To allow a shed to be located closer to the front setback than the principal structure.
2. To allow 5 feet off of the required 5 feet to a distance of 0 feet for a shed from the side
property line.
Motion carried
Council Member Rosenquist attended the meeting and gave the Board a quick update on term
limits, budget planning, and the proposed levy.
Staff introduced Golden Valley Speaks to the group and discussed the new Home Ownership Program
for Equity.
3. Adjournment
MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Carlson and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the
meeting at 7:33 pm.
Motion carried.
________________________________
Chris Carlson, Chair
_________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant
Date: December 27, 2022
To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
From: Myles Campbell, Planner
Subject: 1508 Alpine Pass
Mark & Melissa Noel, Applicants
Introduction
Mark and Melissa Noel, the homeowners at 1508 Alpine Pass, are seeking variances from the City
Code in order to construct an enclosed entryway onto their home.
Variances Requested City Code Requirement
The applicant is requesting
a variance of 5 feet 2.25
inches off of the required
35 feet to a distance of 29
feet 9.75 inches to allow
the construction of an
enclosed entry
§ 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd.
(e)(1)(a) Front Yard Setback
The required minimum front setback shall be 35 feet from any
front lot line along a street right‐of‐way line. Decks and open front
porches, with no screens, may be built to within 30 feet of a front
lot line along a street right‐of‐way line. This requirement shall not
reduce the building envelope on any corner lot to less than 27 feet
in width.
The applicant is requesting
a variance of 5 feet 2.25
inches off of the required
30 feet to a distance of 24
feet 9.75 inches to allow
the construction of an open
porch
§ 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd.
(e)(1)(a) Front Yard Setback
The required minimum front setback shall be 35 feet from any
front lot line along a street right‐of‐way line. Decks and open front
porches, with no screens, may be built to within 30 feet of a front
lot line along a street right‐of‐way line. This requirement shall not
reduce the building envelope on any corner lot to less than 27 feet
in width.
2
Background
The subject property is zoned Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) is around 16,390 square feet. It is a lot with
street frontages to the west and South Tyrol Park to the east. The home was built in 1939, and later
received variances in order to add on to the home.
1995 – Variances to make the existing front setback and side (north) setback conforming, in order
to allow for a deck to be built on the rear of the home
2000 – Variance to add a tandem garage stall to the north attached garage, no increase in side
setback encroachment from 1995
2001 – Variance to add a covered entryway on the front of the home
The 1995 and 2000 variances have the most complete records in city archives. It appears the entryway
variance from 2001 was originally intended to be heard with the garage variance, but was not initially
flagged by staff as it was not shown on the survey submitted. Copies of staff memos and minutes if
available are included with this packet.
3
The homeowners are working with MN Fine Homes and Remodeling Inc on a number of renovations and
additions to improve the home and property. A second story addition, redesigned rear deck, and rear
addition can all be pursued by right, as the 1995 variance effectively brought the short west/north
setbacks into compliance. The proposed front entryway changes however require a variance to move
forward as this change would increase the encroachment of the home into what had previously been an
open porch/stoop.
Summary of Requests
The applicant is requesting two related variances in order to expand the home’s existing entryway.
Currently an open but roofed entry is located 29.9 feet from the front property line at its closest
point. The home itself is roughly 31.9 feet from the property line at its closest point.
With the new plans, a new fully
enclosed entryway would be
added along the front of the
home, being 29 feet, 9.75
inches at its closest point from
the property line, just slightly
closer than the previously
approved porch is today. In
front of this entryway a new
roofed front porch would be
built, being 24 feet, 9.75 inches
at its closest point.
Given that the request involves
both enclosed and open
elements, both distances called
out in § 113‐88, Subd. (e)(1)(a)
Front Yard Setback would apply, a reduction from the 35 feet required for the principal home, and
the 30 feet required for open front porches.
The application notes that the need for the variance request is to provide additional functionality for
the homeowners, as the exiting entry into a hallway provides limited space to transition from
indoors to outdoors and vice versa. This addition would provide space to rework the downstairs
floorplan enough to provide an area for storage and seating. The application also notes that the
addition would add to the curb appeal and give the entrance more presence along the streetscape.
4
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 the purpose statement in the Zoning Code (“to
provide for detached single‐family dwelling units at a low density along with directly related and
complementary uses”), as it does not impact or change the principal use of the lot as a single‐family
residence, nor does it allow for additional density of population. Staff also finds the request
reasonable in light of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which has the goal of rehabilitation and
reinvestment in older housing stock as it ages.
In order to constitute practical difficulties:
1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner. Both
requests seek to update the home’s entrance in order to provide more functional space to
transition between outdoors and indoors. The addition is reasonably scaled to achieve that
purpose, and is not changing the residential nature of the property’s use. Staff believes the
proposed use is reasonable.
2. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that are
not caused by the landowner. The application notes that the homeowner did not build the
home or control the footprint it was eventually built on, leading to substandard setbacks.
Staff questions if this is a unique circumstance in and of itself; many homes throughout the
city were built prior to the modern zoning code and with reduced setbacks. Beyond the
home’s entry location, staff sees no other typical examples of topography, floodplain,
vegetation, or physical circumstances otherwise that are driving the variance request. Staff
does not find any unique circumstances that are not caused by the landowner.
3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. Here
staff are split on the two requests. For the enclosed addition, it largely follows the footprint
of the existing roofed porch, and then requires a bump out of the dining room to the north
of the entry. Any additional encroachment over what is there today is a matter or inches,
5
and staff believes granting the variance would not alter the essential character. However,
the new roofed porch being added on would significantly increase the encroachment into
the front yard, by around five feet. This would be a highly visible change from the public
street, and bring the setback to a distance of around 25 feet from the property line. Staff
believes this variance would alter the essential character.
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.
It wouldn’t address the mudroom/entry addition, but a paved patio and unroofed stairs to
the entryway could be an option to avoid the variance for the new roofed deck.
o Patios less than 8” in height and uncovered stairs less than 25 sq.ft. in total area
could both encroach closer to the front setback by right.
Renovations to the home’s existing interior entry could allow for addition storage/functional
space without necessitating a variance to expand the home’s footprint, at the cost of some
existing living space.
Recommendations
Staff recommends denial of the variance for 5 feet 2.25 inches off of the required 35 feet to a
distance of 29 feet 9.75 inches to allow the construction of an enclosed entry
Staff recommends denial of the variance for 5 feet 2.25 inches off of the required 30 feet to a
distance of 24 feet 9.75 inches to allow the construction of an open porch
Setback ‐ Enclosed Entry Setback ‐ Roofed Porch
Points of Consideration for “Practical
Difficulty” Test
Met Not Met Met Not Met
Property proposed to be used in a
reasonable manner
X X
Problem due to circumstances unique to the
property and not caused by the landowner
X X
If granted, would not alter the essential
character of the locality
X X
Are other reasonable options available?
Replacing roofed porch with uncovered stairs; remodeling the home interior for entry space
instead of an addition
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
1508 Alpine Pass, Golden Valley, MN 55416
MN Fine Homes and Remodeling Inc
763-760-0250 amber@mnfinehome.com
5537413325 Commerce Blvd - suite 2, Rogers, MN
Amber Ellison
Mark & Melissa Noel
1508 Alpine Pass, Golden Valley, MN 55416
651-214-6328 mark.c.noel@gmail.com
Per Golden Valley City Code, Part II, Sec. 113-88(e)(1).a, "The required minimum front setback shall be 35 feet from any front lot line along a street right-of-way line. Decks and open front porches, with no screens, may be built to within 30 feet of a front lot line along a street right-of-way line."
The proposed front addition and front porch will require a variance from this front yard setback requirement.
The existing house currently has a front setback of 31' - 11". The proposed front addition will have roughly the same footprint as the existing covered front porch, and will still serve as the front entrance into the home. This proposed entry addition will have a setback of 29' - 9 3/4". The proposed front porch will have a front setback of 24' - 9 3/4", and will be roughly the same size as the existing covered front porch.
The remaining alterations to the property will not infringe on any of the required setbacks.
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 homeowner did not build the home, or plan the footprint or location on the property. They are not trying to relocate the entry location, however just enhancing functionality and updating curb appeal to make the front entry more present on the streetscape.
The enhancement of the entry of the home, and overall new aesthetic of the house is going to take this older 50's style house, to fit into the style of homes more in the neighborhood. This will be a full 2 story with a more grand entrance like the others surrounding.
This home is already built into the front setback of the lot, because of the property layout. There is a large grade to the back of the property, and we are trying to maximize the space by extending up,and the small addition to the front. There is not much of any space to extend in other areas of the home on coverage.
We are seeking the variance approval to increase the functionability of the home and entrance for a family. Currently there is no space inside the front entrance for function, and the small addition will greatly increasethe value of the home.
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.
The only other option to increase functionality of the entrance of the home would be to relocatethe entrance to the side of the home to get space for a proper / comfortable entrance. We do not findthis as appealing for their project, or future owners.
763-760-0250
build@mnfinehome.com 13325 Commerce Blvd, Suite 2, Rogers, MN 55374 – BC735056 mnfinehome.com
Date 11/18/2022
RE:
Variance request
1508 Alpine Pass
Golden Valley
Required documents included
- legal description of property
- color photograph of existing affected area
Property ID number:
30-029-24-41-0064
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:
"TYROL HILLS, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA"
Lot:
003
Block:
006
Approximate parcel size:
IRREGULAR
Metes & Bounds: Common abbreviations
INCL ADJ 1/2 OF VAC STREET
Abstract or Torrens:
ABSTRACT
763-760-0250
build@mnfinehome.com 13325 Commerce Blvd, Suite 2, Rogers, MN 55374 – BC735056 mnfinehome.com
763-760-0250
build@mnfinehome.com 13325 Commerce Blvd, Suite 2, Rogers, MN 55374 – BC735056 mnfinehome.com
ALPINE PASSEXISTING NORTH
DRIVEWAY TO REMAIN
673 SF
EXISTING HOUSE
FOOTRPINT TO REMAIN
2,472 SF
PROPOSED BACK
DECK
492 SF
EXISTING SOUTH
DRIVEWAY TO REMAIN
1,091 SF
EXISTING PATH TO REMAIN360 SFPROPERTY LINEPROPE
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PRO
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E PROPERTY LINEEXISTING WALLEXISTING WALLEXISTI
N
G
W
A
L
L
EXISTING WALLEXISTING WALLEXISTI
N
G
W
A
L
L
PROPOSED BACK
ADDITION
91 SF
PROPOSED
FRONT ADDITION
46 SF
PROPOSED
FRONT PORCH
42 SF
PAVER PATIO
TO REMAIN
326 SF89' - 10 1/4"4' - 11 1/4"12' - 2"35' FRONT SETBACK LINETO PROP
O
S
E
D
F
R
O
N
T
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
29' - 9 3/4"
5' - 0"
TO EXISTI
N
G
H
O
U
S
E
31' - 11"
66' -
2
1
/
2
"
82' -
0
3
/
4
"
EXISTI
N
G
SHED
26 SF35' REAR SETBACK LINEGARD
E
N
12'-6" SI
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
12'-6
"
S
I
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
PROPERTY AREA (SF)16,290 SF
STRUCTURE
EXISTING FOOTPRINT TO REMAINEXISTING SHEDPROPOSED FRONT ADDITIONPROPOSED BACK ADDITION
2,472 SF26 SF46 SF91 SF
TOTAL STRUCTURE2,635 SF
HARDCOVER
NORTH DRIVEWAY TO REMAIN
PATH TO REMAIN
SOUTH DRIVEWAY TO REMAINWALLS TO REMAINREAR PAVER PATIO TO REMAINPROPOSED FRONT PORCH
PROPOSED BACK DECK
673 SF
360 SF
1,091 SF356 SF326 SF42 SF
492 SF
TOTAL HARDCOVER3,340 SF
(16.2%)
TOTALS
STRUCTUREHARDCOVER2,635 SF3,340 SF
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS5,975 SF(36.7%)
MAX
4,887 SF (30%)
8,145 SF (50%)
PROPOSEDSITE AREA SUMMARY
LOT COVERAGE
(20.5%)
Scale
Date
Drawn By
Checked By
Project Number
TITLEMINNEAPOLIS MN 55409gutentag@ere.email
CLIENTPROJECTADDRESSNOT F
O
R
CONS
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
4306 BRYANT AVE S 612.460.7567
As indicated
A0.10
ARCHITECTURAL
SITE PLAN
MARK & MELISSA NOEL
NOEL RESIDENCE
Checker
Author
9.13.2022
12203
651.269.3720
1508 ALPINE PASS
GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55416
1508 ALPINE PASS
GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55416STRUCTURALGENERALCONTRACTORSAFE HAVEN SE
612.284.7033
4852 38TH AVE S
MINNEAPOLIS, MN
55417
MN FINE HOMES
612.251.1507
13325 COMMERCE
BLVD
ROGERS, MN 55374
3/32" = 1'-0"1Site Plan
#DESCRIPTION DATE
0'4' 8' 16'32'
Level 1100' - 0"
Level 2110' - 0"
Basement91' - 9"
B/O Eave117' - 4"
T/O Roof124' - 0"
EF.8
EF.1
EF.4
EF.8
EF.10
EF.10
EF.8
EF.2
New Roof Bearing118' - 1 1/8"
EF.5
Level 1100' - 0"
Level 2110' - 0"
B/O Eave117' - 4"
T/O Roof124' - 0"
EF.2
EF.10
EF.8
EF.1
EF.4
New Roof Bearing118' - 1 1/8"
EF.2
EF.9
EF.9
EF.8
EF.4
EF.3
EF.9
Scale
Date
Drawn By
Checked By
Project Number
TITLE4306 BRYANT AVE S
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55409
612.460.7567
gutentag@ere.email
CLIENTPROJECTADDRESSNOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the state of Minnesota.
Signature:
Typed Name:
Date:License #:
1/4" = 1'-0"
A2.00
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
MARK & MELISSA NOEL
NOEL RESIDENCE
Checker
Author
9.13.2022
12203
651.269.3720
1508 ALPINE PASS
GOLDEN VALLEY, MN
55416
1508 ALPINE PASS
GOLDEN VALLEY, MN55416STRUCTURALGENERALCONTRACTORCONSULTANT 3SAFE HAVEN SE
612.284.7033
4852 38TH AVE S
MINNEAPOLIS, MN55417
MN FINE HOMES
612.251.1507
13325 COMMERCE
BLVD
ROGERS, MN 55374
NAME
PHONE
ADDRESS
ADDRESSADDRESS
#DESCRIPTION DATE
1/4" = 1'-0"3SOUTH ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-0"4WEST ELEVATION
EXTERIOR FINISH KEYNOTES
Key ValueKeynote Text
EF.1EXTERIOR FINISH 1: HARDIE STRAIGHT EDGE SHINGLE, SMOOTH. PAINTED SHERWIN WILLIAMS REPOSE GRAY.
EF.2EXTERIOR FINISH 2: TONGUE AND GROOVE SIDING, PAINTED
EF.3EXTERIOR FINISH 3: STONE VENEER
EF.4EXTERIOR FINISH 4: EXISTING BRICK, PAINT WHITE
EF.5EXISTING CONCRETE, PAINT TO MATCH STONE VENEER TONE
EF.6EXISTING CMU, PAINT TO MATCH STONE VENEER TONE
EF.8ROOF 1: ARCHITECTURAL SHINGLE ROOF. OWENS CORNING DURATION, COLOR TBD
EF.9ROOF 2: COPPER STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
EF.10TRIM 1: TRIM BOARD, PAINTED WHITE
Level 1100' - 0"
Level 2110' - 0"
Basement91' - 9"
B/O Eave117' - 4"
T/O Roof124' - 0"
EF.8
EF.1
EF.8
EF.1
EF.10
EF.8
EF.1
EF.5
New Roof Bearing118' - 1 1/8"
EF.6
EF.3
EF.2
Level 1100' - 0"
Level 2110' - 0"
Basement91' - 9"
B/O Eave117' - 4"
T/O Roof124' - 0"
EF.10
EF.1
EF.4
EF.1
EF.10
EF.5
New Roof Bearing118' - 1 1/8"
EF.8EF.9EF.9
EF.3
EF.6
EF.2
EF.3
EF.1EF.8
Scale
Date
Drawn By
Checked By
Project Number
TITLE4306 BRYANT AVE S
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55409
612.460.7567
gutentag@ere.email
CLIENTPROJECTADDRESSNOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the state of Minnesota.
Signature:
Typed Name:
Date:License #:
1/4" = 1'-0"
A2.01
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
MARK & MELISSA NOEL
NOEL RESIDENCE
Checker
Author
9.13.2022
12203
651.269.3720
1508 ALPINE PASS
GOLDEN VALLEY, MN
55416
1508 ALPINE PASS
GOLDEN VALLEY, MN55416STRUCTURALGENERALCONTRACTORCONSULTANT 3SAFE HAVEN SE
612.284.7033
4852 38TH AVE S
MINNEAPOLIS, MN55417
MN FINE HOMES
612.251.1507
13325 COMMERCE
BLVD
ROGERS, MN 55374
NAME
PHONE
ADDRESS
ADDRESSADDRESS
#DESCRIPTION DATE
1/4" = 1'-0"1NORTH ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-0"2EAST ELEVATION
EXTERIOR FINISH KEYNOTES
Key ValueKeynote Text
EF.1EXTERIOR FINISH 1: HARDIE STRAIGHT EDGE SHINGLE, SMOOTH. PAINTED SHERWIN WILLIAMS REPOSE GRAY.
EF.2EXTERIOR FINISH 2: TONGUE AND GROOVE SIDING, PAINTED
EF.3EXTERIOR FINISH 3: STONE VENEER
EF.4EXTERIOR FINISH 4: EXISTING BRICK, PAINT WHITE
EF.5EXISTING CONCRETE, PAINT TO MATCH STONE VENEER TONE
EF.6EXISTING CMU, PAINT TO MATCH STONE VENEER TONE
EF.8ROOF 1: ARCHITECTURAL SHINGLE ROOF. OWENS CORNING DURATION, COLOR TBD
EF.9ROOF 2: COPPER STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
EF.10TRIM 1: TRIM BOARD, PAINTED WHITE
A2.003
A2.00
4
A2.011
A2.01
2
MUD
MUD EXTENSION
GARAGE
DEN
LIVING
ENTRY DININGHALL
STAIR
W/C
KITCHEN
FAMILY
STORAGE
21' - 4"37' - 11"
84' - 7 1/32"19' - 10"6' - 1"11' - 11"3' - 8"41' - 6"8' - 2"51' - 8"21' - 11 17/32"
39' - 4 1/2"23' - 3"24' - 1"105
104
108
111112
13
90 9189
4 3 2
107
106
102
109
103110
111A
14
FP.2
FP.1
FP.3
A6
A4
A4
C4
NEW WOOD
FLOOR
NEW TILE
FLOOR
NEW TILE
FLOOR
EXIST. WOOD
FLOOR
NEW WOOD
FLOOR
NEW WOOD
FLOOR
OVER SLEEPERS
EXIST. CONCFLOOR
NEW COMPOSITE
DECK
NEW COMPOSITE
DECK
12' - 3 1/32"12' - 3 1/32"7' - 0"4' - 1 3/4"0' - 9 1/4"1' - 7 3/4"11' - 6"13' - 11"8' - 1 3/4"
2' - 6 1/4"
A4.012
A4.013
A4.01 8
A4.01
4
A4.015
A4.01
7
6
A4.01 1
Scale
Date
Drawn By
Checked By
Project Number
TITLEMINNEAPOLIS MN 55409
gutentag@ere.email
CLIENTPROJECTADDRESSNOT F
O
R
CONS
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
4306 BRYANT AVE S
612.460.7567
1/4" = 1'-0"
A1.01
FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL
01
MARK & MELISSA NOEL
NOEL RESIDENCE
Checker
Author
9.13.2022
12203
651.269.3720
1508 ALPINE PASS
GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55416
1508 ALPINE PASS
GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55416STRUCTURALGENERALCONTRACTORSAFE HAVEN SE
612.284.7033
4852 38TH AVE S
MINNEAPOLIS, MN
55417
MN FINE HOMES
612.251.1507
13325 COMMERCE
BLVD
ROGERS, MN 55374
1/4" = 1'-0"1Level 1 - Proposed
FLOOR PLAN KEYNOTES
Key ValueKeynote Text
FP.1INFILL EXISTING STAIR OPENING WITH STRUCTURAL FRAMING -
MATCH FLOORING TO ADJACENT
FP.2ADD SLEEPER JOISTS ON TOP OF EXISTING CONCRETE SLAB TO
ALIGN FINISH FLOOR LEVEL WITH LEVEL 01
FP.3PATCH EXISTING FINISHES AS REQUIRED FOR NEW
CONSTRUCTION
#DESCRIPTION DATE