bza-agenda-aug-22-23
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 2450 314 6596.
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, enter meeting code 2450 314 6596, and password 1234. Press
*3 to raise your hand during public comment sections.
1. Call to Order & Land Acknowledgement
2. Approval of Agenda
3. Approval of Minutes
July 25, 2023
4. Address: 1000 Tyrol Trail
Applicant: Mike Huhn
Requests: A variance of 2.22’ off the required 35’ to a total distance of 32.78’ from the front
property line for an attached garage.
5. Address: 617 Westwood Drive S
Applicant: Traci Toomey & Frank Beeck
Request: A variance of 6” off the required 25’ to a total distance of 24’6” from the rear property line
for a home addition.
6. Council Updates
7. Adjournment
August 22, 2023
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: Chris Carlson, Elizabeth Greiter, Nancy Nelson, Richard Orenstein, Adam
Brookins – Planning Commissioner
Members absent:
Staff present: Jason Zimmerman – Planning Manager, Myles Campbell – Planner, Lia Siro –
Planning Intern
Approval of Agenda
MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Chair Carlson to approve the agenda of June 27, 2023, as
submitted.
Motion carried.
Approval of Minutes
Member Nelson noted two edits.
MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Commissioner Brookins to approve the June 27, 2023
meeting minutes pending changes.
Motion carried.
1. Address: 2320 Aquilla Ave N
Applicant: Nathan Elliot
Requests:
A variance of 2’ off the required side wall articulation of 2’, resulting in a sidewall of 38’ in
length.
A variance of 15” off the required 15’ to a total distance of 13’9” from the side property line for
a home addition.
Myles Campbell, Planner, noted this item was tabled from the previous meeting. He reviewed the
location and noted some changes to the request due to calculations and a need for an articulation on
the side wall. Campbell reviewed the lot, it’s size, the two‐car attached garage, location of mature
trees on the lot, and the side setback that was approved by BZA in June 2023. At that meeting the
July 25, 2022 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
July 25, 2023 – 7 pm
2
need to add a sidewall articulation was mentioned and the applicant has proposed three options to
meet that requirement.
Waive the articulation requirement
o Keeps the setback encroachment the most minimal, allows the existing roofline to be
carried back along the new addition
2’ bump out
o Brings the setback down to 11’9”, more indoor storage but less clean roof
eaves/overhang
o No variance for articulation
1’ bump out
o Brings setback down to 12’9”, similar pros and cons to 2’ bump out
Staff presented each option and reviewed diagrams for clarity.
Practical Difficulties
1. The tandem design limits the encroachment into the side yard by the largest amount possible
and maintains the current architectural character of the home. Staff finds this request
reasonable.
2. The home’s location within the setbacks restricts the ability to expand what is existing today,
and in addition there are a number of mature trees behind the home that restricts the ability to
build a detached garage to the rear of the existing home. Staff believes the site exhibits unique
circumstances.
3. The garage addition would be to the rear of the existing structure and not very visible from the
street, although it would be slightly closer to the neighboring structure. The amount of
encroachment into the setback would be minimal however, and 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:
Jogging the wall in would not allow enough space to park a vehicle
A conforming detached garage in the rear yard would increase impervious surface and require
additional tree removals
Recommendations
Staff recommends approval of a variance of 15” off the required 15’ to a total distance of 13’9” from
the side property line for a home addition.
Staff recommends approval of a variance of 2’ off the required side wall articulation of 2’, resulting in
a sidewall of 38’ in length.
Members and staff reviewed potential articulation alternatives and staff’s recommendation.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
July 25, 2023 – 7 pm
3
Chair Carlson invited the applicant to speak.
Nathan Elliot, applicant, did not have other things to add and thanked staff.
Chair Carlson opened the public hearing 7:20pm.
Whitney Buck
2340 Aquila Ave N
I’m the neighbor next to the garage and I agree option A is the best option. This house is unique because
the layout is different and Nathan and Chad are only the second owners of the house. Their proposal is
the most appealing aesthetically. The yard behind the garage is an empty shed and broken concrete, their
idea is more appealing. The lawn layout doesn’t lean towards other options.
There were no online/remote comments.
Chair Carlson closed the hearing at 7:23pm.
Members unanimously agreed with staff findings and thanked the applicants for their willingness to find
alternatives to the original request.
MOTION made by Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Brookins to approve the variance of 2’ off the
required side wall articulation of 2’, resulting in a sidewall of 38’ in length.
Motion carried
MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Commissioner Brookins to approve the variance of 15”
off the required 15’ to a total distance of 13’9” from the side property line for a home addition.
Motion carried
2. Address: 2700 Orchard Ave N
Applicant: Karin and Christian Twigg
Request: A variance of 2 feet over the maximum of 4 feet to a height of 6 feet for a fence in the
secondary front yard
Myles Campbell, Planner, noted the property’s location in the City as well as the fact that it has two
front yards without being a corner lot. This double frontage lot, Orchard Ave to the west and Noble
Ave to the east, results in no “rear yard” by zoning code as both yards face a public street, and a
limitation on the height to which a fence can be built as 4ft is the max height in a front yard. Staff
reviewed the request to replace the existing 3ft chain‐link with a 6ft privacy fence. Staff reviewed the
neighboring lots, traffic on the road, and applicant need.
Practical Difficulties
The desire for additional privacy is understandable, but staff feels that other reasonable options
have not been considered by the applicant. Code allowances for additional fence height make a
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
July 25, 2023 – 7 pm
4
clear distinction between arterials and collectors based on the average daily trips and posted
speed limits. Staff does not find this request reasonable.
The fact that this lot has two frontages and therefore two front yards is an uncommon
circumstance, not only along Noble but in the entire city. Staff believe the site does exhibit
unique circumstances.
Other properties along Noble have fences at 5 or 6 ft in height, including the neighbor to the
north of this property. Staff believes the proposed use would not alter the essential character
of the area.
Other Considerations
Staff assesses whether the request represents the smallest feasible variance or if there are other
options available:
A 4‐foot privacy fence would still have a large impact in regards to vision and noise, especially
given that the home is at a lower elevation than the roadway
Evergreen trees and shrubs would be another option that would be allowed by right to get
year‐round visual and noise breaks from the roadway
Recommendations
Based on the factors above, staff recommends denial of the variance request of 2 ft. over the
allowed 4 ft. in height to a total of 6 ft. for the fence.
Member Greiter asked staff if other 6ft fences in the neighborhood were built legally. Staff
responded that the one adjacent to the applicant seems to be legally non‐conforming: it was
originally built before the height restrictions were in place. The discussion also included other lots
with dual front yards and exceptions for lots on different road designations. The group also discussed
the grade change between Noble and the rear yard of this lot.
Chair Carlson invited the applicant to speak.
Karin and Christian Twigg, applicants, added that main reason for the fence is that the grade of the
house is lower than Noble and as such, folks can easily see over the fence and down into the house.
Bedrooms face the rear yard and thus that rear sidewalk. This privacy fence would afford the family
members greater privacy. Adding vegetation and a 4foot fence would be a greater financial impact
than a 6ft privacy fence.
Chair Carlson opened the public hearing 7:39pm.
There were no in person comments but staff noted a few letters from neighbors were received and all
were in support of the applicant’s request.
There were no online/remote comments.
Chair Carlson closed the hearing at 7:40pm.
Nelson said she drove around the area and saw numerous 6ft tall fences, adding to staff’s previous
comment about many being considered legally nonconforming. Chair Carlson added most houses face
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
July 25, 2023 – 7 pm
5
Noble and these few houses where the applicant lives don’t. The discussion continued around frontage
roads, road classifications, privacy fences in general, and privacy.
MOTION made by Chair Carlson, seconded by Nelson to approve the variance of 2 feet over the
maximum of 4 feet to a height of 6 feet for a fence in the secondary front yard.
Motion carried
There was not a Council update.
3. Adjournment
MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Chair Carlson and the motion carried unanimously to
adjourn the meeting at 7:48 pm.
Motion carried.
________________________________
Chris Carlson, Chair
_________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant
2
The applicant proposes to expand the existing attached garage and rooftop deck on the
northern side of the home in order to improve the property’s livability.
Summary of Requests
Chapter 113‐88 of zoning code handles the Single‐Family
Residential zoning district. Under Subsection (e)(1)(a) the
requirements for accessory structure side setbacks are
laid out, restricting structures to a setback of 35’ from
front property lines.
In the plan layout, the existing garage would be expanded
to the north. The proposed garage would bring the garage
to a total area of approximately 575 sq.ft. The garage
would be 32.78 feet from the front property line at its
closest point, requiring a front setback variance. The
garage would be 22.1 feet from the side property line at
its closest point, making it conforming with side yard
setback requirements from code.
The existing attached garage door opening is 6.5’ and
currently is 5.6’ at the end of the garage door tracks.
These height restrictions are considered insufficient by today’s standards and car size
requirements. Current foundation and infrastructure of the existing garage would be re‐used
for the future expansion garage. Approximately half of the north front garage would be
demolished in order to extend the opening for the expansion with a new column to bear the
existing structure.
The garage expansion is what triggers the need for a variance, as it would only be 32.78 feet off
the front property line, as opposed to the required 35 feet. The addition is a single story with a
rooftop deck above.
3
Analysis
The requested variance is to approve the expansion of the garage structure within the front
yard (north). The existing attached garage is small by today’s standards, with a 6’6” garage door
opening, and because of the topography at the north front lot line, the proposed garage
opening will be greater in height due to the property’s steeper nature. Rather than rebuild in
the current location given the challenges of a sloping lot and an existing structure above the
garage, the applicants would like to add on to the north side of the home.
In reviewing this application, staff has maintained the points of examination to the
considerations outlined in Minnesota State Statute 462.357 – that the required 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 exhibits “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 in regard to housing, “Support the
rehabilitation and reinvestment of the housing stock as structures continue to age.”
In order to constitute practical difficulties:
4
1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner.
Given the steep topography at the northern lot line and the size of the existing garage,
which would be viewed as insufficient by today’s standards, and the principal structure
currently above the attached garage, staff believes it is reasonable to construct a new
attached garage expansion. The garage expansion is reasonably scaled to what
applicants are trying to achieve, and the overall encroachment into the setback is minor.
Overall staff finds 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’s curved front property line and topography with an inclined driveway creates a
challenging condition. Staff believes there are unique circumstances not created by the
owner.
3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality.
The garage expansion will be closer to the front property line with more visibility from
Tyrol Trail and is being completed by‐right. A number of properties along Tyrol Trail
have two‐car garages that are located as an addition onto or under the principal
structure. 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.
The existing garage currently sits within the 35’ setback. The garage is insufficient by
today’s standards and needs to be replaced, which could be done without a variance,
but would not address the height challenges and safety concerns present.
The applicant could meet 35’ setback by demolishing the existing structure but this
would significantly increase the budget and labor of the project as it would require
removing the existing cast‐in‐place structure of the garage that supports the home
above.
Recommendations
Staff recommends approval of a variance of 2.22’ off the required 35’ to a total distance of
32.78’ from the front property line for a garage addition.
Points of Consideration for “Practical Difficulty” Test Met Not Met
Property proposed to be used in a reasonable manner X
5
Problem due to circumstances unique to the property and
not caused by the landowner
X
If granted, would not alter the essential character of the
locality
X
Are other reasonable options available?
Replacing without expansion or building in current location with greater infrastructure and cost
2
Summary of Requests
Chapter 113‐88 of zoning code handles the Single‐Family Residential zoning district. Under
Subd. (e)(1)(b) Principal Structure Rear Setback the required rear setback from the property line
is established as 25 feet. While the majority of this addition would fall within the standard
building envelope, the northwest most corner of the addition would extend into the setback,
being 24’6” at its closest point to the property line.
The portion of the porch that falls outside the setback is equal to 1.25 sq.ft. The porch would be
roofed and have retractable sides that could be used depending on weather/season. A step
down to a patio pad would also be included as part of the project, but would not require a
variance, as code exempts a certain amount of stairs and landings for accessibility.
3
The applicants also hope that other planned improvements with this project such as the patio
design and drain trench will help to manage and direct stormwater runoff. They also note in
their application that this porch footprint has been reduced from original plans, which were
based on an older code requirement for rear setbacks (rear setbacks were previously calculated
as 20% of the lot depth instead of a flat 25’).
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 in regards to housing, “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.
The addition is in line with the rear of the home and does not significantly encroach into
the setback. The area in question already has a patio there today, so this addition would
be adding to that outdoor living space by adding the option to enclose it. 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 home’s existing location within the setbacks restricts the ability to expand what is
existing today, as evidenced by previous variances. The home is also not built parallel to
the rear property line causing only a portion of the addition to fall within the setback.
Staff believes the site exhibits unique circumstances.
3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality.
The addition would not be visible from the street and would thereby not impact views
from public ROW. The design of the porch carries forward the existing rear façade to
mitigate visual impacts on neighbors.
Staff believes that the requested variances will not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood and city.
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
In order to build a fully conforming porch in alignment with the Yr.2000 house and garage additions (petition # 99-6-17, dated
06/22/1999, submitted by Michael and Caryn Glover) a variance to the property setback line is required.
Our house is oftentimes referred to as a Norman Rockwell House. Front entrance door portal and ornaments, along with
symmetric bay windows on ground-level and symmetric dormers on upper-level are just a few artifacts of this lovely
architecture. The house exhibits a harmonic and balanced appearance (see photos attached). The back of the house,
unfortunately, requires some attention and improvements. While the Yr.2000 addition on the back-east side to the house
pursued practical purposes, the architecture of this addition is a first step towards an all-around harmonic and balanced
appearance. The back-west side, however, looks incomplete because it lacks a structure that completes the Yr.2000 addition
all along the backside of the house. This is where the proposed porch fits in. It will be a continuation of the existing addition
from the back-east side to the back-west side of the house based on the same aesthetics as the front of the house. Design
aspects include same roof pitch, same white cedar panel sidings, inside a french door (same style as elsewhere in the house),
smooth steps into the paved garden surfaces and aesthetic lighting Plus it would allow us to have a space to hide from the
Since the completion of the Yr.2000 addition the setback limit to the back of the property changed from 21.56 feet to 25 feed.
This reduced the available space for the porch by 3.44 feet. The proposed porch fully aligns with existing house perimeters
and enhances the balanced appearance and harmonics, but unfortunately encroaches into the setback space by 1.25 sqft.
An additional objective to the covered porch is the capture and channeling of rainwater to our underground rainwater storage
cistern. It has an overflow through an underground 6-inch pipe to the street curb to the city sewer system. Due to a drop in
elevation from the east side to the west side of our property by almost 3 feet and further, a significant drop in elevation towards
our property from the uphill (east side) neighbor yards creates surface water problems including soil erosion and washouts.
Our proposed porch, in combination with an open patio and trench drain will help alleviate the erosion problems and washouts
in our flower gardens and lawns and especially helps our west side (lower elevated) neighbor Eddie Alch.
The proposed porch balances the backside house structure and harmonizes with existing house wall and roof structures.
See rendering in attachment 2.
Our neighbors welcome the proposed addition. See attached comments with their respective contact information.
1
Frank Beeck
From:Traci Toomey
Sent:Tuesday, August 1, 2023 4:46 PM
To:Edward Alch
Cc:frank.beeck
Subject:Re: new plans
Thanks Eddie.
And no worries, Frank is always trying to figure out ways to reduce how much water goes your way. There will be a
gutter that collects water from this roof into the rainwater collection system!
On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 4:37 PM Edward Alch wrote:
Of course no problems, enjoy it!
One request: given the water issues that exist already and the new roof that will inevitably collect more rain, can you
have the architect plan to send the added roof water to the front of your yard and down the street? The last thing my
patio can handle is even more water coming in during storms. Thanks!
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 1, 2023, at 4:14 PM, Traci Toomey wrote:
Hi Eddie, Frank and I have been working with an architect to design a possible addition to the back of
our house. It would upgrade our patio and have a covering and drop‐down screens so that it can also
serve as a screened porch. We need to get a variance because the northwest corner of the addition
would go slightly over the new setback line. Our goal is simply to have a straight line from the previous
addition (note: just the one corner goes over the setback line because of the angle of our house on the
property). I've attached a few images so you can see what it would look like. We want and need to
make sure that this variance is ok with our surrounding neighbors. If it is ok with you, can you send
confirmation either by email or text? I believe the city will also reach out to you. And please let us
know if you have any concerns about these plans!
Traci
<Attachment 2 New Plan Pg 2.png>
<Attachment 2 New Plan Pg 1.png>
1
Frank Beeck
From:Traci Toomey
Sent:Tuesday, August 1, 2023 4:27 PM
To:frank.beeck
Subject:Fwd: new plans
From: Greg Mevissen <
Date: Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 4:22 PM
Subject: Re: new plans
To: Traci Toomey
Hi Traci
The addition looks splendid. I have no objections. You will love this new space!
Greg
On Aug 1, 2023, at 4:13 PM, Traci Toomey wrote:
Hi Greg, Frank and I have been working with an architect to design a possible addition to the back of our
house. It would upgrade our patio and have a covering and drop‐down screens so that it can also serve
as a screened porch. We need to get a variance because the northwest corner of the addition would go
slightly over the new setback line. Our goal is simply to have a straight line from the previous addition
(note: just the one corner goes over the setback line because of the angle of our house on the
property). I've attached a few images so you can see what it would look like. We want and need to make
sure that this variance is ok with our surrounding neighbors. If it is ok with you, can you send
confirmation either by email or text? I believe the city will also reach out to you. And please let us know
if you have any concerns about these plans!
Traci
<Attachment 2 New Plan Pg 2.png>
<Attachment 2 New Plan Pg 1.png>