08-27-19 BZA Agenda7800 Golden Valley Road I Golden Valley, MN 55427
763-593-3992 1 TTY 763-593-3968 763-593-8109 (fax) I www.goldenvalleymn.gov
Board of Zoning Appeals .
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
1. Call To Order
2. Approval of Agenda
3. Approval of Minutes
July 23, 2019, Regular Meeting
4. 1915 Glenwood Pkwy
Zachary Tamble, Applicant
city of
goldMOV.1111valey
August 27, 2019 — 7 pm
Council Chambers
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Request: Waiver from Section 113-152, Screening and Outdoor Storage, Subd. (c)(1)(a) Height
Requirements
2 ft. taller than the allowed 4 ft. in height for fences in a front yard
Purpose: To allow for a 6 -foot tall fence along a portion of Zenith Avenue North.
S. 8805 and 8905 Wayzata Blvd
Luther Auto, Applicant
Request: Waiver from Section 113-153, Outdoor Lighting Subd. (i)(2) Outdoor Lighting
• 11.5 footcandles more than the allowed 0.5 footcandles for a total of 12 footcandles
along the north property line.
Purpose: To allow for more than the maximum amount of illumination allowed.
6. 1700 Noble Drive — AP
pliCation Withdrawn
Urban Ecosystems — Michael Keenan, Applicant
Request: Waiver from Section 113-88 (n)(1) Paved Areas, Driveway Requirements
s Driveways built or reconstructed on or after January 1, 2005, shall be paved.
Purpose: To allow for only the first 90 feet of a new 312 foot driveway to be paved.
7. Adjournment
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.
7800 Golden Valley Road 1 Golden Valley, MN 55427
763-593-39921 TTY 763-593-39681763-593-8109 (fax)1 www.goldenvalleymn.gov
Board of Zoning Appeals
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7 pm by Chair Nelson.
Roll Call
(JO o
goldeno.,.evac
July 23, 2019 — 7 pm
Council Chambers
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Board Members present: Kade Arms-Regenold, Nancy Nelson, Richard Orenstein, David Perich, Andy
Snope, and Planning Commissioner Chuck Segelbaum
Board Members absent: None
Staff present: Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman and Administrative Assistant Lisa
Wittman
Approval of Agenda
Nelson stated that two variance requests regarding the location of the existing shed should also be listed
for 470133 rd Avenue North.
MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Snope to approve the agenda of July 23, 2019, with the above
noted change and the motion carried unanimously.
Approval of Minutes
Nelson referred to the last sentence in the first paragraph on page five and stated that it should be
amended to read "He said he would recommend approval because they are making every effort to make
the new house blend in..."
Snope noted that he did not second the adjournment of the meeting because he was absent from the
June 25 meeting. The Board agreed that Johnson, not Snope seconded the motion.
MOTION made by Snope, seconded by Orenstein to approve the minutes of June 25, 2019, with the
above noted correction and the motion carried unanimously.
470133rd Avenue North
David Kopischke, Applicant
Request: Waiver from Section 113-152, Screening and Outdoor Storage, Subd. (c)(1)(a) Height
Requirements
• To allow a fence along a portion of Noble Avenue North to be 2 ft. taller than the allowed 4 ft.
in height for fences in a front yard.
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.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting 2
July 23, 2019 — 7 pm
Request: Waiver from Section 113-88 (g)(1)(a), Accessory Structure Location Requirements
• To allow the existing shed to remain and not be located completely to the rear of the principal
structure.
Request: Waiver from Section 113-88 (g)(1)(b), Accessory Structure Front Setback Requirements
• To allow the existing shed to remain closer than 35 ft. to the front yard property line.
Zimmerman referred to a location map of the property and explained the applicant'sproposal to install a
new 6 ft. tall fence in a front yard rather than the allowed 4 ft. He stated that during the review process
staff also realized that the existing shed on the property is located in a non -conforming location. The
shed is not located completely to the rear of the house and it is not 35,ft. away from th`e4ront'property
line along Noble Ave as required by Code. f
4,
Zimmerman referred to an aerial photo of the property and showed'the Board the front yard setback
area and the conforming location for the shed.
Zimmerman discussed the staff analysis and alternatives and said the use of a 4 ft. tall, not a 6 ft. tall
security fence is reasonable and added that a 6 ft�`fence could be installed if it shifted to the side/rear
yard. He explained that the fact that this is a corner lot is nota unique circumstance because corner lots
are prevalent throughout the City, the placemenfof the l ouse"'leaves space for side and rear yards, and
a 6 ft. tall fence would alter the essential character of the locality because there are no other 6 ft. tall
fences is front yards nearby. He stated that the use hof a shed is reasonable, however there is space
available to relocate it to a conforming location in the southwest corner of the property, or it could be
removed. He noted that there are other sheds in the area that are located in conforming locations.
Zimmerman stated that staff is recommending denial of the variance request to allow for an additional 2
ft. of fence height for the portion of the'fence`in a front yard along Noble Ave. Staff is also
recommending denial of a variance to allow the existing shed to remain in its nonconforming location,
but is recommending approval of a modified variance request to relocate the shed to be at least 35 ft.
from the front yard (east) property line.
Nelson asked about the setback requirements for the shed. Zimmerman explained that accessory
structures are required to be located behind the front plane of the house so in this case that would be
the southwest corner of the property.
Orenstein asked if the applicant requested the variances for the shed. Zimmerman said no, staff
suggested they be added to the variance request for the fence height. Orenstein asked about the
consequences if the shed wasn't moved. Zimmerman said it would be in violation of the Zoning Code.
Segelbaum asked if part of a structure is nonconforming if there are limitations on what a person can do
with the rest of the property. Zimmerman explained that if something is built legally, in a conforming
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting 3
July 23, 2019 — 7 pm
location and if the codes change later it is considered to be legally nonconforming. However, sheds have
never been allowed in front yards.
Segelbaum said his recollection is that the Board seldom grants fence variances. Zimmerman said there
have been a few granted because there were unique circumstances.
Arms-Regenold asked if the City receives complaints about shed locations. Zimmerman said yes, but not
in this case.
,.r1 _.
Nelson asked if this were not a corner lot if the shed would still have to be moved'behiid the house.
Zimmerman said the shed would be conforming if this were not a corner lot.
David Kopischke, Applicant, said when he walks on Noble Avenue he sees 4 or 5 fences1hat are 6 ft. in
height. Zimmerman stated that variances are looked at on a case by case basis and that tle,other 6 ft.
tall fences may exist for other reasons or they may have been installed before the current rules applied.
Kopischke asked if Noble Ave. being a collector street affects him building,on'his property. Zimmerman
said no and explained that properties on arterial streets are allowed to have taller fences.
Orenstein asked Kopischke how he felt about moving his shed. Kopischke said he would like to avoid
moving it because it is old. He said he plans to rebuild£it in°a conforming location in the future.
Nelson asked Kopischke when he bought the property. Kopischke said he bought it in 2015.
Segelbaum asked Kopischke what the shed is made of and what it sits on. Kopischke said it is made of
cedar and sits on a wood platform.
Segelbaum asked if there`is.a way to allow a limited amount of time to keep the shed where is currently
located. Zimmerman,said no, variances run with the land.
Snope asked about the procedure if the Board refuses to consider the variance requests regarding the
shed. Zimmerman stated that the Board could vote on the requests, or table the requests.
Segelbaum questioned who the applicant is for the shed variances. Zimmerman said Mr. Kopischke is the
applicant, staff just noticed the nonconforming location of the shed when the variance application was
submitted so the necessary requests were added.
MOTION made Orenstein, seconded by Snope to deny the variance request to allow a fence along a
portion of Noble Avenue North to be 2 ft. taller than the allowed 4 ft. in height for fences in a front yard
and the motion carried unanimously. Segelbaum made the following findings: a 6 ft. tall fence alters the
essential character of the locality, the fence could be 6 ft. tall if it were 35 ft. from the front (east)
property line, or the applicant could build a 4 ft. tall fence is the proposed location.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting 4
July 23, 2019 — 7 pm
MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Nelson to table the two variance requests regarding the
location of the shed and the motion carried unanimously.
Adjournment
MOTION made by Nelson, seconded by Orenstein and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the
meeting at 7:30 pm.
Nancy Nelson, Chair` .`
Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant
city
olden MEMORANDUM
1valey Physical Development Department
763-593-8095 / 763 593 tai09 (fax)
Date: August 27, 2019
To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
From: Emily Anderson, Planning Intern
Subject: 1915 Glenwood Parkway
Zachary Tamble, Applicant
Introduction
Zachary Tamble, owner of the property at 1915 Glenwood Parkway, is seeking a variance from
the City Code to build a fence on their property facing Zenith Avenue North that exceeds the
maximum height allowed. The applicant is seeking the following variances from City Code:
Variance Request ' City Code Requirement
An additional 2 feet in height in excess of ! Section 113-152 (c)(1)(a): Fences in the front yard
the maximum 4 feet in height permitted shall not exceed 4 feet in height. Fences in the
for a fence in the front yard, totaling a side and rear yards shall not exceed 6 feet in
proposed height of 6 feet. 3 height.
..... ........... ..... .... ............ . ........ ......... ......... ....... . ........... .... _........... ..................
Background
1915 Glenwood Parkway is approximately 16,770 square feet in area and is zoned R-1 for Single -
Family Residential use. The lot is a corner lot and has two front yards, located along the west and
south property lines abutting Zenith Avenue North and Glenwood Parkway, respectively.
City Code Requirement
City Code does not permit fences above 4 feet in front yards in residential zoning districts in
order to preserve the aesthetics and character of local neighborhoods.
Summary of Variance Request
The applicant is proposing new 6 -foot fencing on the west property line along Zenith Avenue
North. The proposed fence would be 5 feet from the west property line. The applicant has stated
that they would like the 6 -foot fence as their dog can jump over a 4 -foot fence and because a
parking lot is across the street on Zenith Avenue North so there is no neighboring residential
properties that the fence would impact. The applicant also noted that there is a downward slope
on the west side of the yard so the fence would seem to appear lower than it actually is.
Zenith Avenue North is functionally classified as a minor collector road based on Minnesota
Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration guidelines. As of 2017, it has
an average daily volume of around 2,700 cars. If Zenith Avenue North was classified as a minor
arterial street, the 6 -foot fence would be allowed by right. An example of a minor arterial street
is Douglas Drive or Winnetka Avenue.
Analysis
In reviewing this application, staff has maintained the points of examination to the considerations
outlined in Minnesota State Statute 462.357, requiring that a property exhibit "practical
difficulties" in order for a variance to be granted. To constitute practical difficulties:
1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner.
The construction of a 6 -foot fence to prevent a dog from jumping over it does not
constitute a reasonable use of the property. It is reasonable for a property owner to put in
a fence on their property, but it is unreasonable to allow a 6 -foot fence in a front yard for
a personal preference and a unique circumstance caused by the property owner. Future
property owners may not have the same needs as the current property owners.
2. The landowners' problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that is
not caused by the landowner.
Having two front yards due to the fact that this lot is a corner lot is not a unique
circumstance. There are hundreds of corner lots across the City that are able to conform
to the Zoning Code. The lot is 16,770 square feet and the house is centrally located on the
lot, which allows for adequate space in the side and rear yard for a fenced -in area.
3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality.
A 6 -foot fence abutting a street is out of character with other properties in the area. Even
though the fence will be across from a parking lot, its presence will still affect the overall
locality, not just that one particular property. While the parking lot across the street could
potentially justify a fence for screening purposes, the lot is guided for future mixed use
given its proximity to the future Blue Line Extension and may be redeveloped.
Additionally, staff assesses whether other options are available to meet the applicant's need and
do not require a variance. The applicant could build a 4 -foot fence parallel to the west property
line on Zenith Avenue North without needing a variance. Additionally, a 6 -foot fence could be
built in line with the point of the house closest to the west property lot line as this would make
the fence fall in the rear yard. However, the applicant notes that this alternative would result in
the loss of space in the backyard.
Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the request for a variance of an additional 2 feet in height in excess
of the maximum permitted 4 feet in height for a 6 -foot fence in the front yard.
3431 - - --
Vrew
`'3115
3439 3312 ``
Park
3400 M�`�
�tL 3410
3401
3125 2343
3420
d)
34301
2330 2329
01`�
2321
502
3217
2320 x
G le b,S iv
3221 d,
2317
Terrace
3223 <
2318 2309
Park
3 231
N
2322 2315 F
2310 2303
2301
2318 2309
2310 2305��!�
2300
2323
2
2300 f7k 0
2225
Subject Property
C, 0�'i �;'3r 31213115
2215
3 2113 201
3221
2200
2230
19331937
19 251929
2225
1913
2225
1949
PyNAl 1938
191819281930 1935
" 1914 1933
31103100 1931
3 028
1844-111-1 3022 1917
r1mock
Wirth Ret
Parr
Planning 1 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427-4588
763-593-8095 1 TTY:763-593-3968 I www.goldenvalleymn.gov I planning@goidenvalleymn.gov
city of
gold a �h-' /
PLANNING APPLICATION---'
Zoning Code Variance
Street address of property in this application:
1915 Glenwood Pkwy
APPLICANT INFOPMATION
Name (individual, or corporate entitiy):
Zachary Tamble
Address:
1915 Glenwood Pkwy
Phone number:
Email address:
Authorized Representative (if other than applicant):
Name:
Address:
Phone number:
Email address:
Property Owner (if other than applicant):
Name:
Address:
Phone number: Email address:
SITE INFOPMATION
Provide a detailed description of the variance(s) being requested:
My wife and I would like to build a 6 foot tall cedar fence on our property that is on the corner bordering
Glenwood Pkwy and Zenith Ave. Across from us on Zenith (our "second front yard") there is a parking lot
and we would like to have the fence be 6 feet (instead of 4 feet) there because we have a dog that can
jump over fences that are 4 feet tall and the land slopes downward on that side of our yard so the fence
would seem to appear much lower than it is.
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:
Our house will not be modified, the fence will just be 2 feet taller for a portion of its length than it would be otherwise.
Planning 1 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427-4588 city 0
763-593-8095 1 TTY: 763-593-3968 1 www.goldenvalleymn.gov I planning@goldenvalleymn.gov
golden
valley
Zoning Code Variance -.
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.
Building a fence that is the 6 feet instead of 4 feet is reasonable because we are not altering the property structure
or doing any type of major construction. The fence will also be entirely within our property lines.
What is unique about your property and how do you feel that it necessitates a variance?
The unique problem with our yard is that we have "two front yards" and on the Zenith Ave side of the home the
yard slopes downward significantly. We would like to be sure that our pet will not be able to jump outside the yard.
Explain how the need for a variance is based on circumstances that are not a result of a landowner action.
We have talked with our bordering neighbors and they approve of our planed location to build the fence. We are not
modifying the land itself or its borders.
Explain how, if granted, the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of your neighborhood and Golden Valley as a whole.
The fence meterials are beautiful western cedar and will not alter the character of Golden Valley as a whole. The
fence is going to be set within our property boundaries. Zenith Ave actually seems like a side yard rather
than a front yard as our house faces Glenwood Pkwy and we do not have any residential neighbors across from our
property on the Zenith side, just a parking lot.
Planning 1 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427-4588
763-593-8095 1 TTY: 763-593-3968 1 www.goidenvalleymn.gov I planning@goldenvalleymn.gov
«ty of
golden'
valley
*4r' Zoning Code Variance -.
The City requests that you consider all available project options permitted by the Zoning Code before requesting a variance. The Board
of Zoning Appeals will discuss alternative options to seeking variance with you at the public hearing. Please describe alternate ways to
do your project that do not require variances from the Zoning Code.
We considered building the fence closer to the house so that it does not extend to the west towards Zenith or make
that side 4 feet tall. This was considered but we would like to build the fence as planned because we will be able to
have more outside space in our backyard. Building a smaller fence would make our backyard feel much smaller than
it is.
PEQUIPED ATTACHMENTS
O 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 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)
0 Fee: $200 application fee for Single -Family Residential, $300 application fee for all other Zoning Districts
O Legal description: Exact legal description of the land involved in this application (attach a separate sheet if necessary)-
SIGNATUPES
To the best of my knowledge the statements found in this application are true and correct. I also understand that unless construction of
the action applicable to this variance request, if granted, is not taken within one year, the variance expires. I have considered all options
afforded to me through the City's Zoning Code and feel there is no alternate way to achieve my objective except to seek a variance to
zoning rules and regulations. I give permission for Golden Valley staff, as well as members of the Board of Zoning Appeals, to enter my
property before the public hearing to inspect the area affected by this request. Please include printed name, signature, and date for ap-
plicant, authorized representative (if other than applicant), or property ower (if other than applicant).
Name of Applicant (please print): Zachary Tamble
Signature of Applicant: Date: 7-23-2019
Authorized Representative (if other than applicant)
Name (please print):
Signature: Date.
Property Owner (if other than applicant)
Name (please print):
Signature: 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
properties directly across streets or alleys. Your neighbors have the right to address the Board of Zoning Appeals at your public hearing.
You are advised to personally contact your neighbors and explain your project to them before the public hearing.
This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72 -hour request. Please call 763-593-8006 (TTY: 763-593-3968) to
make a request. Examples of alternate formats may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc.
01'"419 1 7800 Golder, valley f old, GrcldenValie MN 55427.4588
593 gf�g5 1 TTY. 763-593.3568 Manning"C ldenvalfeyrnn oov
IMA� I
_ _ 9
golden
vallcv
For official Use Only Approved by
Daae
ilxs docurncur; 6 avaftaWe in alternate for gels upon a 72-hcwr request. Please call 763.593-BW6 FTY: 763.5933968) to
make a requesL Exaanple$ of alterMIr— formats may include targe prurt, otectronit. Braille, aunt cassette, etc.
(2) ►t311fi
cit, Uf�
go Zdcn'`�'``
valley
Date: August 27, 2019
MEMORA Lovivi
Physical. Development Department
763-593:-8€951763-593-B1 09 (fax)
To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
From: Emily Anderson, Planning Intern
Subject: 8805 and 8905 Wayzata Boulevard
Luther Auto, Property Owner
Introduction
Luther Auto, owner of the properties at 8805 and 8905 Wayzata Boulevard, is seeking a variance
from the City Code in order to update the lighting within their auto sales lot.
Variance Request City Code Requirement
The applicant is requesting a variance ofg § 113-153, Outdoor Lighting, Subd. (i)(2) Light
11.5 footcandles off the allowed 0.5 Trespass. Outdoor lighting shall be designed and
footcandles for a total of 12 footcandles at located such that the maximum illumination shall
the north property line. 3 not exceed 0.5 footcandle at the lot line.
............._._.._...... ...... ............................_............._......._....._........................................._..._........................................................._.............3................................................. ..................... ......._._.........._......._...... ............... .... ............. ............. _... _._........ _...._............................. ........._............................. ...............
i
Background
Both 8805 and 8905 Wayzata Boulevard are zoned for commercial use. They are both part of PUD
91, which was approved by the City Council in 2001. There are four amendments to the PUD from
2001, 2007, 2015, and 2018 allowing for a redesign of the layout of the parking lot, an additional car
wash, the acquisition of additional property for the second dealership, and a building expansion.
At the time of the initial PUD approval, the City allowed the parking lot for automobile inventory
storage to extend all the way to the north property line, adjacent to the right-of-way for 1-394. This
was a deviation from the typical setback for parking which would be 35 feet in a front yard.
City Code Requirement
The Zoning Code has three key regulating criteria that apply to lighting in auto sales lots. The
maximum amount of light allowed within the auto sales lot is 20 footcandles. The maximum to
minimum light ratio in an auto sales lot must not exceed 30:1. Finally, the light trespass at the
property line must be 0.5 footcandle or less.
Summary of Variance Request
The applicant has stated that because of the colocation of the parking lot edge along the north
property line, it is impossible to meet all three of the lighting criteria in the Zoning Code. If the
maximum amount of light allowed in the auto sales lot is 20 footcandles and the minimum amount
is based on a maximum/minimum ratio of 30:1, the minimum amount of light allowed in an auto
sales lot is 0.67 footcandle. However, since the auto sales lot goes all the way to the north property
line, the amount of light at the lot light must also not be higher than 0.5 footcandle.
The applicant points out that the issue was created through the City's actions when the PUD was
created (allowing the parking to extend to the property line). It is noted that given the higher
elevation of 1-394 compared to the properties in question, the additional light at the north property
line will not affect motorists.
Analysis
In reviewing this application, staff has maintained the points of examination to the considerations
outlined in Minnesota State Statute 462.357, requiring that a property exhibit "practical difficulties"
in order for a variance to be granted. In order to constitute practical difficulties:
1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner.
Providing adequate lighting in an auto sales lot is a reasonable use of property.
2. The landowners' problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that is not
caused by the landowner.
It is not the fault of the landowner that the lot is unable to conform to the lighting standards
in Zoning Code. The lot abutting the north property line as allowed in PUD 91 makes it
impossible for the lot to conform to all aspects of the lighting standards in Zoning Code.
3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality.
This variance does not alter the essential character of the locality. The only other adjacent
property is also a car dealership to the west, so changes in the lighting on the north side of
the properties in question will not affect that property nor affect the essential character of
the locality.
Additionally, staff assesses whether other options are available to meet the applicant's needs
without requiring a variance. A potential solution could be to reduce the maximum amount of light
in the parking lot to 15 footcandles in order to meet the 30:1 ratio while also meeting the 0.5
footcandle property line requirement. It is unclear to staff if this solution is feasible from the
perspective of a lighting professional — more information will need to be provided at the Board of
Zoning Appeals meeting by the applicant.
Lastly, staff assesses whether the proposal requests the smallest variance necessary to meet the
applicant's needs. As mentioned above, additional technical information is needed in order to
evaluate if the are other options that could result in a smaller variance.
In the end, staff places the highest priority on keeping the maximum lighting levels in compliance
with the City Code and second highest priority on maintaining an even lighting level across the site
(the maximum/minimum ratio). Because of the highway use north of the subject properties and the
low to zero impact of a higher lighting level at that property line, staff is comfortable supporting the
variance request in this situation.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the request for a variance of 11.5 footcandles off the required 0.5
footcandle to a total of 12 footcandles at the north property line.
3
Subject Properties
m
N
MIS �
m
9191 m
C:
9393
959 ~
440
9394 .•
Planning 1 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427-4588
city of
--I ;4 ^, A
../-.+arv�a✓ 111./vr.�ar.�avc,l ( vv vvvv.yveucnvuucyu nl.yvv Nlunllllly�; y.,lu�llull�ylll l.y,,. �'"{Ll i&"fL f61W
�7 valley
PLANNING APPLICATION
Zoning Code Variance
Street address of property in this application:
APPLICANT•. •
Name (individual, or corporate entitiy):
Luther Auto- Land Rover/Jaguar & Toyota
Address:
8905 Wayzata Blvd., Golden Valley, MN.
Phone number: Email address:
(
Autlhoriwd Representative Cif other than appflcanft t
Name:A- w Fall'
Darren Johnson w/Winsupply t
Planning 1 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427-4588
763-593-80,95 1 TTY: 763-593-3968 ! www.goidenvalleymn.gov I planning@goldenvalleymn.gov
Minnesota State Statue 462-357 requires that a property exhibit "practical difficultlee 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 pr"rty
• are not caused by the landowner
• do not alter the essential character of the locality
To demon -ATate how your request wifl comply with Minnesota State Statute 462. 7, please respond to the Wowing questions.
Explain the need for your variance request and how it will result in a reasonable use of the property.
No Physical Changes will be done to either, customers property or state property, primarily just light as they may
possibly have now, but of better quality, 90 CRI
What is unique about your property and how do you feel that it necessitates a variance?
North Property Line of the Property is the Actual Edge of the pavement.
The North Property line is also not adjacent to Private property, it is State Property, so
light spilling to the north will not affect private parties but enhance the security of the
property.
Also the Elevation the State Roadway to the north is at a much higher elevation than the
property paved lot, thus light spill will not affect motorists vision in any way.
Explain how the need for a variance is based on circumstances that are not a result of a landowner action.
The Landowner is trying to comply to a written code but no matter what quantity & quality of light system to be designed, would not be
able to meet the Criteria because of the proximity of the North Lot Line to the pavement.
Explain how, if granted, the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of your neighborhood and Golden Valley as a whole.
Character in this case might refer to the 'look and feel of an area', in particular a residential area. In this case, we are working with a
commercial area, Automotive Sales. This intended improvement should not negatively alter the area but positively affect the area
with Higher Efficiency of light, Higher Control of light, and Higher Quality of light.
Planning 1 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427-4588
763-593-80,95 TTY: 763-593-3968 ( www.goidenvalleymn.gov I planning@goldenvalleymn.gov
�0 pop
Zoning Code Variance(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 variance with you at the public hearing. Please describe alternate ways to
do your project that do not require variances from the Zoning Code.
There is no alternative that we are aware of.
REQUIRED .
2 Current survey of your property, including proposed addition and new proposed building and structure setbacks (a copy of Golden
Valleys survey requirements is available upon re- guest; apPlkation considered in€anVlete without a current property survey)
M One current color photograph of the area affected by the proposed va-riance (attach a .printed photograph to this application or
email a crigtal ifnege to plannin golrlenvalleymn.gov; submit additional photographs as needed)
2 Fee. $20o appli tsan fee for Single -Family Ra idential, $300 application fee for all ether Zoning Districts
M l e # descr"rptionr. 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 construction of
the action applicable to this variance request, if granted, is not taken within one year, the variance expires. I have considered all options
afforded to me through the City's Zoning Code and feel there is no alternate way to achieve my objective except to seek a variance to
zoning rules and regulations. I give permission for Golden Valley staff, as well as members of the Board of Zoning Appeals, to enter my
property before the public hearing to inspect the area affected by this request. Please include printed name, signature, and date for ap-
plicant, authorized representative (if other than applicant), or property ower (if other than applicant).
Name of Applicant (please print): r ,i n d a McGinty
Signature of Applicant: G Date 98-08-201
Authmmd RepreumWive (if o heanf.)
Nam lease print .on
Signature: Date:08-08-2019
Property Owner (if other than applica
Name (please print):
Signature: 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
properties directly across streets or alleys. Your neighbors have the right to address the Board of Zoning Appeals at your public hearing.
You are advised to personally contact your neighbors and explain your project to them before the public hearing.
This document is available in alternate foTmats upon a 72 -hour request. Please call 763-543-8006 (TTY: 763-593-396% is
make a request. Examples of alternate formats may seclude large prim, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc.
Hennepin County Property Map
Date: 8/8/2019
PARCEL ID: 0611721240027
OWNER NAME: The Luther Company Ulp
PARCELADDRESS: 8805 Wayzata Bl%d,
Golden Valley MN 55426
PARCEL AREA: 7.98 acres, 347,620 sq ft
ArT-B: Both
SALE PRICE:
SALE DATA:
SALE CODE:
ASSESSED 2018, PAYABLE 2019
PROPERTY TYPE: Commercial -Preferred
HOMESTEAD: Non -Homestead
MARKET VALUE: $16,216,000
TAX TOTAL: $600,743.70
ASSESSED 2019, PAYABLE 2020
PROPERTY TYPE: Commercial -preferred
HOMESTEAD: Non -homestead
MARKET VALUE: $16,216,000
Comments:
This data(I)is furnished 'AS IS' with no
representation as to completeness or
accuracy; (ii) Is furnished with no
werranty of any kind; and (III) is notsuitable
for legal, engineering or suryeying purposes.
Hennepin County shall not be liable for any
damage, injury or loss resu king from this data.
COPYRIGHT ® HENNEPIN
COUNTY 2019
W
OL
A)
W
d
m
8
a
CD
N
m
O
N
r
N
GI
C
CL
W
U
N
OD
W
<u \uJ'
0
a
C)
Z 7�
a�
Cd
o rn
Go