02-22-05 BZA Agenda
e
e
e
Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chambers
7pm
I.
Approval of Minutes - November 23, 2004
II.
The Petitions are:
7101 Madison Avenue West (04-02-04)
Ace Label Systems Inc., Applicant
Request: Extension of variance granted February 24, 2004
. 19 parking spaces off the required 59 parking spaces for a total of
40 parking spaces.
Purpose: To allow for a building expansion.
III. Other Business
IV. Adjournment
1
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
.
November 23, 2004
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday,
November 23, 2004 in the Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden
Valley, Minnesota. Chair Cera called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Chair Cera, members Duff, McCarty and Sell and Planning
Commission Representative Waldhauser. Also present were Director 0 . g and
Development Mark Grimes and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittma
I. Approval of Minutes - October 26,2004
Request:
MOVED by Sell, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carri
the minutes from October 26, 2004 as submitted.
II. The Petitions are:
.
.
5 ft. to a distance of 20.1 ft. at its closest
rope line along Louisiana Avenue North for
and for a second story addition.
Purpose:
ruction of an addition to the home.
ection 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setbacks
ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 11.3 ft. at its closest
t to the side yard property line for the existing house and
cond story addition
To allow for the construction of an addition to the home.
Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setbacks
· 8.6 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 3.9 ft. at its closest
point to the side yard property line.
Purpose: To bring the existing deck into conformance with setback
requirements.
.
Grimes explained that the applicants came before the Board last year with a similar
request to add a second story addition to their home. He stated that the variances being
sought are not for the proposed addition rather the existing conditions of the property.
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
November 23,2004
Page 2
. Cera asked if any of the recent changes to the R-1 zoning ordinance affected this
property. Grimes said there is a minor difference in side yard setback requirement of 12.5
feet instead of 15 feet.
McCarty recused himself from the discussion and vote because the applicants are his
neighbors.
Don Harris, Applicant, stated that this plan is slightly different than the one they proposed
last year. He explained that the way the house is situated on the lot ha them
hardship and that they have hired three different contractors becaus difficult
remodel.
.
Cera noted that in the applicant's proposal last year, they w
existing deck and questioned why it wasn't being removed i
that the previous design of the house was at an angle, but th
changed in this proposal.
eir
a ris stated
n has been
Cera asked the applicant when the deck was bu.
permit 10 years ago. Waldhau~er asked if the d
Sell stated that because of the way the
big of a backyard as some.
ilt the deck without a
footings. Harris said yes.
, they probably don't have as
Cera opened the public hearing
hearing.
ring no one, Cera closed the public
Waldhauser asked if it
not for the existing deck.
change before the . ca
Board could grant th
deck would be nsi
modify it at all.
to grant variances for the existing house, but
he ght that 50% of the value of the property has to
Id be.required to remove the deck. Grimes .said the
;Ii~rtaining to the house and not the deck, but that the
onforming structure and they couldn't rebuild it or
ption would be for the applicant to withdraw his variance
ion of his proposal.
ould like to withdraw his request for the variance regarding the existing
MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Sell and motion carried unanimously to approve
the following variance requests. FINDINGS OF HARDSHIP - The Board decided that the
way the existing house was originally placed on the lot could be considered the hardship.
.
14.9 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 20.1 ft. at its closest point to the front
property line along Louisiana Avenue North for the existing house and to allow for the
construction of a second story addition to the home.
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
November 23, 2004
Page 3
. 1.2 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 11.3 ft. at its closest point to the side yard
property line for the existing house and to allow for the construction of a second story
addition to the home. v
300 Louisiana Avenue North, 55427 (04-11-28)
Riva & Craia Kupritz, Applicants
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10 (A)(3)(a), Side Yard
Setbacks
.
· 10ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance
to the side (north) yard property line.
Purpose:
To allow for the construction of a ga
Grimes stated that this request is for a new garage to
the corner of Louisiana and Kentucky Avenues a
that this home does have an existing three-car
the applicant is that getting in and out of their g
close it is to the north side property line. T
existing garage for parking, turn the ot
car garage.
erty located on
om Lions Park. He said
at nderstanding from
ven difficult because of how
ep one stall from the
g space and add a new two-
Grimes explained that the issu
property went to the Plannin
variances for homes in thi
should have been able t
is that when the subdivision for this
n teas discussion about not allowing
ecause it was new construction, so houses
without the need for variances.
Waldhauser asked'
Grimes said he thoug
from a pUblic s y
ires a minimum turning radius for side access garages.
obably between the homeowner and the builder but
e radius is OK.
;'if' ation change between the applicant's driveway and the
asked if there weren't a difference in elevation if the applicant
driveway to make it wider. Grimes stated that the ordinance requires
riveways and property lines.
converting the existing garage space to living space should be made a
approval.
.
Craig Kupritz, Applicant, stated that the hardship is how the driveway and garage are
situated is hazardous because the back tire of their car starts to go over the edge of the
retaining wall. He said that they would end up with the same square footage of garage
space if they build the proposed two-car garage because they are planning to convert
some of their existing garage space to living space. He explained that when the driveway
was originally built there was not supposed to be a retaining wall and that it was a
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
November 23,2004
Page 4
. surprise to them when it was built. He added that another hardship is that they are
located on a corner lot with two 35-foot setbacks. He said they ran into a similar situation
when they applied for a building permit for a deck on the south side of their house so they
ended up building a patio instead so they wouldn't have to ask for a variance.
Cera asked the applicant if there was ever any thought of having the garage on the
Kentucky Avenue side of the property. Kupritz said no and that the house was designed
to take advantage of the western and southern daylight and it is forested heavily on the
north side and that is why the garage ended up where it is. He added t as a
Zoning Permit to construct a 10ft. x 12 ft. storage shed in the back y ,ut t if this
proposed garage addition is approved they will not build that she
Kupritz said he has alre
feet between the garage
Cera opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one
hearing.
Waldhauser said that there is an issue with being abl
which is unfortunate but the whole design was ina
large house for the lot and it is tight.
n 0 the garage,
lot. She said it is a
.
Grimes said he realized at this meeting th
foot easement along the north property .
have to request the vacation of one a
garage will have to be one foot les
stated that variances can not b
he could make the proposed g
y was platted there is a six
er the applicant is going to
of t easement or the proposed
ed if that is negotiable. Grimes
ement areas. He asked the applicant if
e proposed garage to 19' 6" in order to keep five
ide y~::'(f property line.
Cera asked if the B
approve vacati
contingent on w
it to make their decision to find out if the Council would
"hi'" asement. Grimes said they could make their vote
ncil decides.
nee request would change to 10ft. off the required 15 ft. to a
e Council approves the vacation of 1 foot from the easement or 9 ft.
. to a distance of 6 ft. if the Council does not approve the easement
condition that two of the existing garage stalls be converted into living
.
McCarty asked if the applicant could build a wider driveway. Kupritz said that would not
be a permanent solution because the back end of their vehicles would still go over the
property line into the neighbor's yard and if the neighbor Were to put up a fence that
would be a problem.
Waldhauser asked if the difficulty is just with their mini-van. Kupritz said it is difficult with
their other car also, but that he is not asking for a variance because it is a difficult turn, he
is asking for a variance because he sees his wife's car hanging over the edge of the
retaining wall.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
November 23, 2004
Page 5
Waldhauser suggested building a new one stall garage. Kupritz showed the Board some
of the different options he has considered, but said he would still like to build the two-stall
garage.
Sell said he thinks the most sensible option would be to allow the variance for 9 ft. off the
required 15 ft. to a distance of 6 ft. because then they are staying out of the easement
area.
MOVED by Cera seconded by Sell and motion carried 3 to 2 to approv
FINDINGS OF HARDSHIP - The Board decided that the existing dri
a hazardous situation.
10ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 5 ft. to the north si
construct a garage if the City Council approves the vacation
with the condition that two of the existing garage stalls must
space.
'e to
easement,
to living
Or;
9 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of
construct a garage if the City Council d
condition that two of the existing garag
e yard property line to
asement vacation, with the
e converted into living space.
Cera, Duff and Sell voted yes r
voted no.
e motion. McCarty and Waldhauser
ection 11.21, Subd. 10(8), Height Limitations
story more than the allowed 2 1/2 stories for a total of 3
ries.
To allow for the construction of an addition above the existing
garage.
Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10 (A)(1), Front Yard Setbacks
· 4.3 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 30.7 ft. at its closest
point to the front yard property line along Turnpike Road.
Purpose:
To allow for the construction of an addition above the existing
garage.
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
November 23, 2004
Page 6
.
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21 ,Subd. 10 (A)(3)(a), Side Yard
Setbacks
· 2.9 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 12.1 ft. at its closest
point to the side (east) yard property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage addition.
.
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(1), Ac
Structures
· 1 ft. off the required 10ft. to a distanc
to the side (north) yard property line
point
Purpose:
To bring the existing swimmin
accessory structure requirem
Grimes stated that the applicant is proposing to
build a full two stories above the garage. He poi
sheds located on the property and that th
one shed and move it into a conformin
xis garage slightly and
there are currently two
ed to combine them into
Mark Szajner, Applicant, stated t
year. He said they have a dilem
originally bought the house t
the two driveways, but wh
referred to his plans an
house so the only 10 ical
to the back of the h
feet behind the ara
c d this property in August of this
red driveway and that when they
hat th property line went between the middle of
was surveyed they realized it was not. He
t was difficult to add anything to the existing
uild wa up. He added that it would be hard to build on
there is an existing 30-inch oak tree approximately 15
rooms are in the home now. Szajner said there is currently
nother small bedroom. Cera asked how many square feet
r said there is approximately 1,800 to 2,000 square feet. Cera
uare feet they are proposing to add. Szanjer said 800 to 900 square
Cera as applicant what he thinks the hardship is and if he has thought about
building toward the back yard. Szanjer said there would be a potential problem with some
large oak trees in the back yard and that there is a 10-foot drop in the elevation on the
property. Cera explained that there are still other options. Szanjer said they are trying to
make the least amount of impact to the property.
.
Waldhauser agreed that there are a number of other options, even though they all have
some drawbacks from the homeowner's point of view. Grimes added that trees haven't
been considered to be a hardship in the past.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
November 23, 2004
Page 7
Waldhauser referred to the agenda and clarified that the variance request for the pool
was written incorrectly. It should read 5.5 feet off the required 10 feet to a distance of 4.5
feet from the principal structure.
Sell said he also agrees there are other options and unfortunately the oak tree in the
south east corner may have to go.
Cera suggested that they vote on the first two variances and have the applicant come
back with other options regarding the other variance requests. He aske plicant if
he would like the Board to vote on what has been requested, or if he come
back with different plans. Szanjer said to go ahead and vote on t a
requested.
MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Duff and motion carried
following variance requests. FINDINGS OF HARDSHIP - Th
2.9 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 12.1
yard property line to allow for the construction 0
5.5 ft. off the required 10ft. to a distance
structure to bring the existing swimmin
requirements.
st point to the principal
ce with accessory structure
MOVED by McCarty, seconded
the following requests:
nd motion carried unanimously to deny
1/2 story more than the
construction of an additio
4.3 ft. off the require
property line al
existing garag
. tance of 30.7 ft. at its closest point to the front yard
to allow for the construction of an addition above the
(.~~ix Avenue (04-11-30)
~im Kane A licant
Waiver from Section 11.72, Subd. 3(A)(1), Height Limitations
· 2 ft. higher than the 4 ft. maximum height limit for a 6 ft. high
fence in the front yard.
Purpose:
To allow for the construction of a 6 ft. high fence for a length of
40 ft. in the front yard.
Grimes stated that the City Council recently adopted a fence ordinance and that the
applicant is requesting a variance from this new ordinance. He said this is a unique
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
November 23, 2004
Page 8
. property because it is very deep and there is a difference in elevation with their property
and the neighboring property to the west.
Grimes explained that the applicant is proposing to build a fence from the front of the
house toward the street and that they want the first 40 feet to be 6 feet high instead of the
allowed four feet and the next 72 feet would be four feet high which is compliant with the
code.
.
Patrick Kane, Applicant said they have a patio in their front yard that th
said the house to the west is elevated about 12 feet above theirs and
the bottoms of the neighbor's cars and their trash cans and that t
this proposed fence for a visual and noise barrier.
Waldhauser asked if a 6-foot high fence would really help
would buy them time until some trees can grow higher and it
their yard.
Cera asked if the neighbor is OK with this propo
the applicant what he thinks the hardship is. Ka
his lot and the neighbor's lot and the effec s
that their front yard is really used as a b
on the lot.
a id yes. Cera asked
levation difference between
f their patio. Grimes added
house is placed so far back
Waldhauser said that the best s
the patio rather than along the
patio would be to put a fence right next to
Cera opened the public
hearing.
nd hearing no one, Cera closed the public
Sell said he sees no
process of buil
this request and added that the applicant was in the
n the ordinance was adopted.
has no problem with the fence itself because the property
e neighboring property and that the proposed fence won't
he neighborhood, but she is having trouble identifying the hardship.
sn't think there is a risk of opening up a lot of potential variance requests
ts this variance.
MOVED by Sell, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to approve the
request to allow for the construction of a 6 ft. high fence for a length of 40 ft. in the front
yard. FINDINGS OF HARDSHIP - The topography of the lot and the fact that the
applicant was in the process of building the fence when the ordinance went in to effect.
. III. Other Business
A. Discuss changes to the Variance Application Form (Dave Cera)
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
November 23, 2004
Page 9
. Cera referred to the current Variance Application Form and discussed some changes he
would like to see made regarding the hardship definition.
B. Discuss rescheduling the December 28, 2004 BZA Meeting.
The Board decided that if there were agenda items for the December 28 meeting they
could hold it on that night.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 pm.
.
.
Wittman, Lisa
From:
.ent:
0:
Cc:
Subject:
Marcee Shaughnessy Imarcee@acelabel.com]
Wednesday, January 12, 20052:24 PM
Wittman, Lisa
Sam
extension for variance
Dear Lisa,
The City of Golden Valley granted a variance for us on 2/24/04, related to building
expansion. We did not get our building expansion started as planned last spring.
However, we are planning to complete the expansion this year and we would like a one year
extension on the waiver of this city zoning code. Please consider this extension for
expiration in February 2006. Thank you for your time and assistance with this matter.
Sincerely,
Marcee Shaughnessy
Executive Administrator
Ace Label Systems, Inc.
763-277-7700 x20S
763-277-4000 fax
.
.
1
(It""/,1)
. .., I ,
"If
'<J
e
'l~
~
'{'\J~
~ , ..
\~""",,"'P' "".
City fLI!
780n Colden V;dlev RO;lU
Goldl.~n Valk'y r\.'1 f'J 5;';:.1-27 -.'i '::):;~i
76.3- 5<JJ-800(J
76~'1-')93..:g109 (f:lX)
763-593-,'\%8 (TUD)
Mayor and Council
763-595-8006
City Ivlallager
763-595-8002
Public Satery
Police: 76.:)-.'/)3..:.8079
Fire: 7(,3-5<)3-r;o55
76.3-59.3-8098 Ui,x)
PleXlork:;
763-5')3-8050
763- 5')3-YltW (lax)
Inspections
763-593-80')0
763-593-3~)~)7 (bx)
Mowr Vehicle Licensing
76.3-59,)-810 I
Planning and Zoning
763-593-t)(j()5
Finance
7().~1..Y)j-Htll :")
Assessi ng
763-5<}}-S02IJ
Ttark and Rccre:1r:uc:
200 Brl.lOkvit'\v ParLvv:l)
C;oldc:n V;lIky, [\-H-~~I '-)::j .':.tln; ':j(."-I
763-'::' 1.:_2;}{ff:,
-/'{:.;i-S I ~..2.'!,4li- (b.'.:)
763-5Qj-.1I,l(lH ('-1'1)[:,)
e
T 11
<,l 00
fl. ~l ~ 1~ e'''''''' ')1
1M I'~II
ItA tv\.l~,'
~ ,. ~J"/' ,-.; ..r~.l.-/,~,,;,:, '" .'''' fin"'.! <,.,..,'1 ." {"
tDh 'A~. (,.. h(:<.UU.....t~F(.-du.h{..)'~ JJJi,l~ ll., ij;
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
Board of Zoning Appeals
Notice of Final Order
March 16, 2004
Number:
04-02 -04
Petitioner(s): Ace Label Systems, Inc. - Kirsten Tappe
Address:
7101 Madison Avenue West
Golden Vallev. MN 55427
At a regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
meeting held on February 24, 2004 your petition for the following
waiver(s) of the City Zoning Code were approved:
· 19 parking spaces off the required 59 parking spaces for a total of 40
parking spaces"
Attached you will find an unofficial copy of the minutes of the Board.
Staff Liaison
Board of Zoning Appeals
If waiver(s) are not acted upon within one year from the date of this
Order in accordance with statutes, the waiver(s) have expired.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
February 24, 2004
Page 3
,supported by pilings underground Witl straps holding them in place so they will n
~~e. '
" '
Hughe~sked how much the new bunding would be elevated on the erty. Kosmas
said that . new building will be on]e/ oot out of the floodplain as r Ired and that it
would be ap imately l' 4" higher t(an the existing building. es asked if the
pump area wou e raised as well. fsmas said yes and e. ined that there will be a
gradual rise to the . perty, not the ulswing there is no .
Grimes asked how th~ IJ system viII work. Kos" said his understanding is that
the berm being built on the' st side; the pro will be used to retard water from
overflowing the banks of the ek an' that t ow of the water on Boone Avenue
would go into a storm water pon 0 of den Valley Road. When that pond was
full, the water would be pumped ov. arm back into the creek. He said he knows
the building will stay dry because it i of the floodplain but that he is not sure about
the first couple rows of pump island . id the intent is that the water will now have
someplace to go with this relief s e
Keysser said that the Planni ommi
Use Permit for BP and did ,animousl
the Board of Zoning APR s.
d the request for the Conditional
, roval to the City Council and to
MOVED by Cera, se nded by Keysser nd motion carried u. imously to approve the
following variance; 'quests:
· 27 ft. off th equired 35 ft. to a distane of 8 ft. at its closest point
property r e along Boone Ave. N.
· 10ft. the required 35 ft. to a distance of 25 ft. at its closest point to the
prOA H:y line along Golden Valley Road
· 1 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 18 ft. at its closest point to the south
operty line along TH 55.
7101 Madison Avenue W. 55427 (04-02-04)
Ace label Systems, Inc.. Applicant
Request: Waiver from Section 11.36, Subd. 7(A) Parking Requirements
· 19 parking spaces off the required 59 parking spaces for a total of
40 parking spaces.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a proposed new 6,700 sq. ft.
building expansion.
Grimes explained that it was brought to his attention that the site plan given to the
Board was not on a survey. He said that there was an as-built survey for the property
.
.
.
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
February 24, 2004
Page 4
on file and that he verified the setbacks on both documents and found that what they
submitted is an accurate representation of the existing conditions on the site and that
they do not require any further variances other than the one being requested for the
number of parking spaces to go from the required 59 spaces to 40 spaces.
Grimes stated that the applicants would like to expand their existing building by adding
a 6,700 square foot addition to be used as a storage area for raw materials. He said
that the Public Safety Department has reviewed the proposed plans and have
suggested that the curb on the east side of the site be moved to make it easier for
trucks to access the site.
Grimes discussed the parking on the site and said that the current parking requirements
for this site are one space per 500 square feet of warehouse space and one space for
every 250 square feet of office space. He added that the City Council has asked that
staff study the City's current parking requirements and that consultants have suggested
the requirement be changed to one space per every 1,000 to1 ,500 square feet of
warehouse space, which he feels is reasonable. He stated that the applicant is not
proposing to add any additional employees and that the caveat is that they can't convert
any of the newly proposed warehouse space into office space in the future.
Keysser asked .if there was on-street parking allowed in that area. Grimes said there is
some on-street parking in the area.
Hughes asked why the curb isn't being replaced on the west side of the site like it is on
the east side. Grimes said he wasn't sure but that the Inspections Department has only
recommended the curb on the east be changed.
Kirsten Tappe, representing Ace Label, stated that all of the proposed new space will
be used for storage of raw materials. She explained that trucks come in .on the east
side of the site and exit on the west side and that the curb will be replaced on the east
side because trucks have damaged it when entering the site.
Grimes asked what size trucks typically enter the site. Tappe said large semi-trucks
come once or twice a week but that it is mostly smaller vans and trucks coming to the
site.
MOVED by Keysser, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to approve the
request for 19 parking spaces off the required 59 parking spaces for a total of 40
parking spaces.
Request:
1.21, Subd. 7(C) Side Yard Setbacks