bza-agenda-oct-24-23City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
September 26, 2023 – 7 pm
2
Practical Difficulties
The deck addition does not bring the existing structure any closer to the rear property line,
and the desire to build a safer staircase makes sense. Staff does find this request reasonable.
The irregular shape of the lot has already necessitated a variance in the past to utilize the
backyard. Additionally a large portion of that backyard space is further encumbered by the
presence of a floodplain, which this project manages to avoid. Staff believes the site exhibits
unique circumstances.
As noted in the application, this deck addition would not be visible from the street, and the
addition still has sufficient spacing from the neighboring properties.
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:
The home’s location and previous variance means the only option to avoid a variance would
be to keep the existing deck as is today.
Recommendations
Staff recommends approval of the variance request for 8’ off the required 25’ to a total distance of
17’ from the rear property line for a deck addition.
Commissioner Ruby asked if any of the new deck would be in the floodplain and if added elements
would be required to maintain structure stability. Staff responded that they confirmed with the
Environmental Staff that the deck is completely outside of the floodplain, even the footings.
Chair Carlson invited the applicant to speak.
Hannah Heard, applicant, noted that the current deck will be demolished but then replaced as is
AND adding to it along the west side of the house, as presented by staff.
Chair Carlson opened the public hearing 7:12pm.
There were no in person comments
There was one person online but no comment was made.
Chair Carlson closed the hearing at 7:14pm.
Chair Carlson opened the Board discussion.
Orenstein commented the request seems straightforward. Chair Carlson noted staff analysis and he
agrees with their recommendation. Both Nelson and Greiter echoed these comments.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
September 26, 2023 – 7 pm
3
MOTION made by Nelson, seconded by Orenstein to adopt staff findings and approve the variance
request for 8’ off the required 25’ to a total distance of 17’ from the rear property line for a deck
addition.
Motion carried
2. There were no Council updates.
Staff reminded the group that early voting is going on in Golden Valley.
3. Adjournment
MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Chair Carlson and the motion carried unanimously to
adjourn the meeting at 7:21 pm.
Motion carried.
________________________________
Chris Carlson, Chair
_________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant
3
Analysis
In reviewing this application, staff has maintained the points of examination to the
considerations outlined in Minnesota State Statute 462.357 – that the requested variance is in
harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Chapter, that it is consistent with
the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and that a property exhibit “practical difficulties” in order for a
variance to be granted.
Staff finds that the variance is generally in line with both the purpose of the Zoning Code and
the Single‐Family Zoning District chapter, in that it does not change the intent of the lot to serve
as a single residential property.
Staff also finds the request reasonable in light of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which has
among its goals,
Support the production of new, high‐quality, affordable housing in the City
Support long‐term affordability of single‐family homes through home ownership
programs and the community land trust model
In order to constitute practical difficulties:
1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner.
The reduction in front setback allows for an attached garage for the home, and the
reduction still leaves over 50’ to the curb from the home at its closest point. Staff does
find this request reasonable.
2. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that is
not caused by the landowner.
The lot has an irregular shape that leaves a narrow building footprint, and an offset
ROW further eats into the lot’s front yard. In addition, while a detached garage north of
the home is a potential option, it would likely require the removal of a number of
existing mature trees. Staff believes the site exhibits unique circumstances.
3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality.
Multiple homes along Meander, Cutacross Rd and Paisley Ln have reduced front
setbacks of less than 30 feet. Staff believes that the requested variances will not alter
the essential character of the neighborhood and city.
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.
Alternatives to the proposed variance would be either to reduce the overall building
footprint, or to pursue a detached garage to the north of the home (detached accessory
structures having less significant sed/rear setbacks)
2
2022 aerial photo (Hennepin County)
Background
The subject property at 5920 Golden Valley Road is zoned Institutional and is in the Assembly
subdistrict. It consists of two lots that total just under 2.4 acres in size. The site abuts Golden
Valley Road to the south and Oak Grove Circle to the west and north. It has approximately 285
feet of frontage along Golden Valley Road and 480 feet of frontage along Oak Grove Circle to the
west. An additional 185 feet of frontage abuts Oak Grove Circle to the north.
The church building – initially constructed in 1970 – sits on the southern portion of the site with a
parking lot striped for 87 spaces to the north. In 1978, the City approved a variance from the
front yard setback requirements to reduce the setback from 35 feet to 25 feet along the west
property line in order to allow for the addition of a new worship space. A drop off lane has been
constructed to provide vehicle access at the west entrance.
As measured by a recent survey, the amount of lot area covered by the existing building is 28.5%.
This is above the maximum allowance of 25% and staff can find no record of this increase being
quantified or questioned in the past. Technically, this condition would be considered an illegal
nonconformity, though City staff approved the building expansion that led to the current
situation in 1978. A large percentage of the site is currently impervious as a result of the existing
building and the large parking lot.
A French immersion K-5 STEAM charter school, Notre École, also operates out of the building.
3
Summary of Request
The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the front yard setback along Oak Grove Circle (to
the west) in order to allow for the construction of a building expansion, which would include an
elevator (providing increased accessibility to the building), multi-purpose rooms, offices, and a
classroom. The applicant has indicated the expansion is needed both to address ADA issues as
well as to accommodate the growth of the French immersion charter school which operates at
this location. As a result of the additional classroom and resource center space associated with
the school, the church office, a nursery, and a meeting room would be relocated.
Under this proposal, the west wall of the building, which currently sits 25 feet from the property
line, would be extended to the south along the same setback. The majority of the new space
would be located outside of the front yard setbacks along Oak Grove Circle and Golden Valley
Road, but the amount of lot coverage associated with the building would increase by 2,230
square feet from the existing 28.5% to 30%. The applicant has requested a variance for this
increase as well.
An existing drop-off lane along Oak Grove Circle would be removed as part of the building
expansion and the majority of that area (approximately 2,300 square feet) wou ld be returned to
pervious turf.
Analysis
As detailed in the table and images below, a portion of the planned expansion would occur
within the front yard setback along Oak Grove Circle, while the majority would fall outside of
the required setbacks. However, even in a permitted location, the additional building coverage
would intensify an already nonconforming situation with respect to the amount of the lot area
occupied by a structure.
Environmental staff have pointed to the existing high impervious coverage on the lot due to
both the building footprint and the surface parking lot. Preserving as much open space and as
many trees as possible would be beneficial to the site and to the community.
Lot area 103,440 sq. ft.
Existing building footprint 29,573 sq. ft. 28.5% of lot area
Proposed addition 2,230 sq. ft.
Total new building footprint 31,803 sq. ft. 30% of lot area
4
Site plan with proposed building expansions in yellow
6
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 establish areas where both public and private institutional uses such as school, places of
worship, hospitals, parks, golf courses, nursing homes, and public buildings may be located”), as
it does not impact or change the principal use of the lot as a place of worship with a charter
school. Staff also finds the request reasonable in light of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which
has the goal of preserving assembly facilities (schools, places of worship, etc.) as important
spaces for social interaction.
In order to constitute practical difficulties:
1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner. The
proposed expansion to accommodate the growth of the charter school is not
unreasonable, and attempts to match the extent of the front yard varia nce along Oak
Grove Circle that was already approved. The collocation of a religious organization and a
school is common and often provides efficiencies in terms of parking and facility needs.
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 variances requested for the proposed expansion
to accommodate the growth of the school are not a result of any site limitations
associated with topography or sensitive areas, but are due to the large building
footprint already present. The decision to pursue the expansion is voluntary and may
not be the best fit for a constrained site. Staff believes the problems the variances are
attempting to solve are due to circumstances not unique to the property and are
caused by the landowner.
3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. On a
site that already has a high percentage of impervious coverage, the addition of even
more building footprint at the expense of trees, landscaping, and turf has a
disproportionate impact on the character of the surrounding area and would further
increase stormwater runoff. Staff believes the proposed variances would alter the
essential character of the locality.
Additionally, staff assesses whether other options are available to meet the applicant’s needs
without requiring a variance, or whether the proposal requests the sma llest variance necessary
to meet the applicant’s needs.
• Other than adjusting the plans to find space within the existing footprint of the building,
it seems difficult to accommodate the proposed expansion of the charter school without
impacting the amount of building coverage (which is already nonconforming).
2
The applicant is looking to both correct existing stormwater runoff issues from Beverly, and add an
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) which were added to code in the last year. ADUs are allowed as a
secondary dwelling in R‐1 zoning districts, subject to several regulations. While this variance is
required for the applicant to move forward with their preferred ADU/garage design, it does not on
its own allow the ADU to be constructed. The applicant is in the process of applying for a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP), which ultimately would be the approval needed to build the ADU
itself.
Summary of Requests
The applicant is hoping to add a combination garage/ADU to the rear of their lot, off of the
alley. The garage would be at grade with the alley, and replace the existing parking for the main
home off Beverly, allowing the applicant to replace the existing driveway with additional
lawn/landscaping. The ADU would be located above the garage and be roughly at grade with
the home itself. The lot slopes down towards the alley, allowing for the ADU to be roughly at
grade with the home but still have the alley access below.
This preferred design would require two variances to move ahead as proposed:
§ 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (f)(3) Area Limitations
o The proposed garage has an area of 950 sq.ft. which is more than the 800 sq.ft.
allowed for the R‐1 zoning district
§ 113‐159, Accessory Dwelling Units, Subd. (e)(3)(iii) Size Restrictions
o ADUS in code are limited to 12’ in wall height measured from floor to the top
horizontal component, with the garage though the back wall would be 21’ tall.
3
Other requirements relating to the ADU: its area, design compatibility, parking, and more will
be evaluated under the upcoming conditional use permit, and as such the BZA is only tasked
with evaluating if this height increase meets the standards of review for a variance.
The applicant notes this is their preferred design option for a few reasons. Compared to
constructing separate garage and ADU structures in the rear yard, this option has a lesser
increase in overall hard cover. In this scenario of an ADU above the new garage, the percentage
of lot cover from structures would be roughly 22%, below the City cap for R‐1 properties of this
size. Another alternative which keeps the garage below the home itself does address the ADU
height variance but does not correct the existing storm water runoff issues the home faces
today. Generally, staff agrees that both of these options have drawbacks that the variance for
structure height address.
Analysis
In reviewing this application, staff has maintained the points of examination to the
considerations outlined in Minnesota State Statute 462.357 – that the requested variance is in
harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Chapter, that it is consistent with
the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and that a property exhibit “practical difficulties” in order for a
variance to be granted.
Staff finds that the variance is generally in line with both the purpose of the Zoning Code and
the Single‐Family Zoning District chapter, in that it does not change the intent of the lot to serve
4
as a residential property, and because ADUs are an allowed use in the zoning district as of this
year.
Staff also finds the request reasonable in light of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which has
among its goals,
Support a variety in housing types, designs, and prices for all life stages, family sizes, and
incomes through land use policies, zoning regulations, and redevelopment activities
Support the rehabilitation and reinvestment of the housing stock as structures continue
to age
In order to constitute practical difficulties:
1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner.
ADU Height: The request to increase ADU height is related directly to this property also
having alley access for a garage and seeking to collocate these buildings. The design
addresses existing stormwater issues while minimizing the additional lot coverage. Staff
does find this request reasonable.
Garage Area: While having the garage off the alley makes sense to staff, staff sees no
reasonable justification to increase the area beyond what is allowed by code. Staff does
not find this request reasonable.
2. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that is
not caused by the landowner.
In the case of both requests, the lot is unique in that it has access to a rear alley which is
uncommon in the city, and which directly informs the design of the structure. In
addition, the topography of the lot and surrounding neighborhood as mentioned create
issues with having the tuck under garage as it exists today. Staff believes the site
exhibits unique circumstances.
3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality.
Moving the garage and removing the driveway from Beverly Ave will improve the visual
appearance of the front yard area. The ADU will be a significant change in the rear yard,
which will not be as great a visual impact from public ROW, but will be more visible for
adjacent properties. Staff believes that the requested variances will not alter the
essential character of the neighborhood and city.
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.
Alternatives are provided by the applicant in their application packet, and discussed in
the memo above. Keeping the garage as a tuck under beneath the main home would
address both variance requests, but not provide relief in the issues of stormwater runoff
from Beverly.
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
First, we need to rebuild a new principal residence garage because the existing one has caused us a lot of trouble, safety
hazards and psychological stress, for reasons explained in more detail later. Second, we want to build an ADU in our
backyard. Combining the two projects to build an ADU with the principal residence garage underneath allows for a reduced
building footprint, which will be beneficial not only to our own property, but to the entire neighborhood. The elevation difference
of about 10 feet between our backyard and the alley on the north side of the lot provides practical feasibility for this idea. If the
variance is granted, the existing driveway in the middle of our front yard that has been channeling rainwater into the garage
and basement for almost fifty years will be backfilled, along with the often collapsing retaining walls on either side of the
driveway. The front yard garden will be bigger, fuller and more beautiful, benefiting both our family and the neighborhood.
Our property has two unique features. One is that the garage is located in the basement, and its entrance level is about five
feet lower than the connected city road. The second is that there is an alley about 10 feet lower than the elevation of my
backyard on its north side. Every time it rains, the rainwater always pools near the garage entrance. This water can only be
discharged to the front yard after being lifted seven feet by the sump pump. The garage and basement have always been
flooded whenever the sump pump doesn't work properly. At the same time, the rainwater makes the foundation under the
retaining walls unstable, causing the retaining walls to collapse from time to time, which brings certain safety hazards, costs us
a lot of money, and also brings us a great psychological burden, always worrying about the garage, basement and retaining
walls. So we need to rebuild the garage. Also, the difference in elevation between the alley and the backyard makes it possible
to build the ADU with the principal residence garage under it without affecting the image of our neighborhood.
We bought this house four years ago simply because it was close to our son's school. We haven't done any major renovations
to the house in except to rebuild the retaining walls that collapsed twice. As an architect, it is clear to me that the root of all
these problems is the original design flaw. Generally speaking, the entrance elevation of residential garages should be higher
than that of connected urban roads to facilitate drainage. Even if it must be lower than city roads in some cases, the natural
drainage route of storm water must be carefully planned. As long as other ways are possible, you can never rely on lifting to
drain rainwater. Although we have taken some effective steps to improve these situations, it is impossible to fundamentally
correct the original design flaws, which is why we have to rebuild a new garage. If we build the ADU and the principal
residence garage separately, the entire backyard will be almost occupied by buildings and driveway, which should be a
situation that the city, the neighbors and ourselves do not want to see.
If the proposed variance is granted, after the whole project is completed, it will be a two-story building from the alley on the
north side of the lot, but from the backyard of my house, only the one-story ADU on the upper floor can be seen. Meanwhile,
from the city road in front of my house, Beverly Avenue, no one can see the existence of the ADU and the garage. Instead,
you will see that the driveway and retaining walls in the middle of my front yard have disappeared, and the front yard has
become bigger, more complete and beautiful. Therefore this proposed variance will not alter the essential character of our
neighborhood and Golden Valley as a whole, but will improve the neighborhood landscape and city image of Golden Valley.
Legal Description （4220 Beverly Ave）
Property ID number: 19-029-24-41-0018
Address: 4220 BEVERLY AVE
Municipality: GOLDEN VALLEY
School district: 270
Watershed: 7
Sewer district: 01
Construction year: 1948
Owner name: KELING SUN
Taxpayer name and address: KELING SUN
4220 BEVERLY AVE
GOLDEN VALLEY MN 55422
Sales information
Sales prices are reported as listed on the Certificate of Real Estate Value and are not
warranted to represent arms-length transactions.
Sale date: June, 2019
Sale price: $373,000
Transaction type: Warranty Deed
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: "GLENWOOD"
Lot:
Block:
Approximate parcel size: S 81X146X80X154
Metes & Bounds: Common abbreviations LOTS 33 AND 34
Abstract or Torrens: TORRENS
Value and tax summary for taxes payable 2023
Values established by assessor as of January 2, 2022
Estimated market value: $452,000
Taxable market value: $452,000
Total improvement amount:
Total net tax: $6,159.84 Show Net Tax Details - This feature is no
accurate for tax bills less than $10.00.
Total special assessments:
Solid waste fee:
Total Tax: $6,159.84 Go to taxes due
Property information detail for taxes payable 2023
Values established by assessor as of January 2, 2022
Values:
Land market: $203,000
Building market: $249,000
Machinery market:
Total market: $452,000
Qualifying improvements:
Veterans exclusion:
Homestead market value exclusion:
Classifications:
Property type: RESIDENTIAL
Homestead status: HOMESTEAD
Relative homestead:
Agricultural Exempt status: