bza-agenda-jun-28-22REGULAR 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 2456 531 8815.
Members of the public wishing to address the Board remotely have two options:
•Via web stream ‐ Stream via Webex and use the ‘raise hand’ feature during public comment.
•Via phone ‐ Call 1‐415‐655‐0001 and enter meeting code 2456 531 8815. Press *3 to raise your
hand during public comment sections.
1.Call to Order & Land Acknowledgement
2.Approval of Agenda
3.Approval of Minutes
April 27, 2022, Regular Meeting
4.Address: 5901 Westbrook Rd.
Applicant: Rebekah and Ryan Bailey
Request: 1 foot over the maximum allowed height of 4 feet to a total height of 5 feet.
§113‐152, Screening and Outdoor Storage, Subd. (c)(1) All Residential Zoning Districts (a)
5.Address: 1109 Tyrol Trail
Applicant: SKD Architects on behalf of Matt and Maddy Goeden
Request: 7 feet off the required 35 feet for a triangular portion of a garage addition on the west side
property line, to a total distance of 28 feet.
§113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (e)(1)(a) Principal Structure Front
Setback
Request: increase of the 15‐foot setback at a 2:1 ratio with encroachments height exceeding 15 feet,
due to second story master bedroom height.
§113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (e)(1)(c)(1) Principal Structure Side
Setback
6.Board Orientation
7.Adjournment
June 28, 2022 – 7 pm
Hybrid Meeting
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
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 by Richard Orenstein.
Roll Call
Members present: Chris Carlson, Nancy Nelson, Richard Orenstein, Lauren Pockl – Planning
Commissioner
Members absent: Kade Arms‐Regenold
Staff present: Myles Campbell – Planner, Jason Zimmerman – Planning Manager
Approval of Agenda
MOTION made by Pockl, seconded by Carlson to approve the agenda of April 27, 2022, as submitted.
Motion carried
Approval of Minutes
MOTION made by Carlson, seconded by Orenstein to approve the March 22, 2021 meeting minutes.
Motion carried
1.Address: 1875 Kyle Place
Applicant: Allison Adrian and Spencer Gerberding
Request: 6 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 9 feet
§113‐88, Single‐Family Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(c)(1) Side Setback Requirements
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, reviewed the request and reminded the Board that the
previous request was partially denied in November 2021. Staff reviewed the property, lot
regulations, and the applicant’s amended request. Staff pointed out that the city zoning code
regulates setbacks to 15ft when a lot is 100ft or wider. The applicant would like to reduce their
setback to 5.9 ft.
Practical Difficulties
‐ The ability to have a deck overlooking Sweeney Lake appears to be reasonable. However, the
applicants already have a walkway facing the lake and, with the construction of the large new deck,
have gone beyond the constraints imposed by the side yard setback that all other homes on Sweeney
Lake must follow.
April 27, 2022 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
April 27, 2022 – 7 pm
2
Enough space exists to the east of the home to construct a conforming deck. Alternatively, a ground
level patio could be constructed in the same area of equal size without necessitating a variance.
Therefore, staff believes the owners do not propose to use the property in a reasonable manner.
‐ The need for the variance is due to the construction – absent City review or permits – of a large
deck without consideration the side yard setback requirement. While staff does not believe this
action was carried out with any ill intent, the fact remains that the need for the variance is clearly
due to circumstances that were caused by the owners and not due to circumstances unique to the
lot. A sufficient side yard exists to allow the applicants to utilize a generous outdoor space, albeit as a
patio instead of a deck.
‐ There are many eyes on the back yards of homes that abut Sweeney Lake, and a number of
concerned residents are aware of the lake’s classification as an impaired body of water. Allowing
large structures to be constructed that meet zoning requirements may be unavoidable, but allowing
those that do NOT meet requirements to remain only adds to the number of impervious surfaces in
the area and contributes to runoff into the lake. Given the large size of the deck – even with the front
portion removed to accommodate the Shoreland Overlay District and the sanitary easement – staff
believes the proposed use would 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:
There remains enough room to the east of the existing home for a smaller deck to be
constructed while observing the 15‐foot setback. Alternatively, the space that the new deck
occupies could be replaced with a ground level patio (under 8 inches) and not be constrained by
the side yard setback (though a setback of 3 feet from the side property line would still need to
be observed).
Recommendations
Based on the factors above, staff recommends denial of the variance request for 6 feet off the
required 15 feet to a distance of 9 feet for a deck from a side property line.
Chair Orenstein invited the applicant to speak.
Ben Oz, Applicant Contractor, stated the home is architecturally significant and passed around
images of the home and shoreline to the Board members. He went on to discuss the front door, the
walkway, and that it’s possible to move the deck however adding that it will interrupt the
architectural design of the building.
Nelson mentioned the large square footage of the deck and asked what it was now with the changes.
Applicant responded it’s 17’wide and 40’deep, 680 sq ft.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
April 27, 2022 – 7 pm
3
Carlson asked about the deck height and the applicant responded that the yard is a slope so the rear
of the deck is on grade and the portion near the lake is about 4ft tall.
Commissioner Pockl asked the applicant why permits weren’t pulled especially considering the
significance of the deck. The applicant stated the lack of permits was their error. Pockl noted the
structure is existing and the applicant would need to remove and edit the deck to meet City criteria.
Staff added notes from the building official and the permit process would start with demo and
proceed as normal and include inspections.
Chair Orenstein opened the open forum at 7:19pm.
There were no in person commenters.
There were no callers.
Chair Orenstein closed the open forum at 7:22pm.
Chair Orenstein opened the Board Discussion.
Orenstein noted that the request doesn’t meet the variance criteria, the burden was caused by the
homeowners, and isn’t sure if the deck changes the feel of the neighborhood, if it were granted he
added he’s not sure it’s reasonable.
Carlson added that they’ve reviewed this request a few times and the applicants have been willing to
compromise. He added that since the request was reduced and the side setbacks aren’t eliminated,
he feels a deck on the lake is reasonable.
Pockl stated she doesn’t have the history with this applicant and initially agreed with staff
recommendation as the determination needs to be consistent with statutory requirements. She
added her main concern was adding impervious surface, creating runoff into the lake, is significant.
This need for a variance is an issue caused by the applicant regardless of how desirable a deck may
be.
Nelson noted that the original proposal did not meet the architectural standards of the home but
feels the current request does. Adding that it’s also attractive from the lake view.
Chair Orenstein organized the group’s findings:
The property is being used in a reasonable matter, the problem of the deck may not be unique but
there are unique circumstances of the plot that make the request tolerable, the deck in it’s current
form/plan does not alter the characteristic of the property.
Nelson and Carlson echoed this statement.
A MOTION was made by Nelson and seconded by Carlson to approve the request for 6 feet off the
required 15 feet to a distance of 9 feet for a deck from a side property subject to the plans
submitted.
Aye: Carlson, Nelson, Orenstein
Nay: Commissioner Pockl
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
April 27, 2022 – 7 pm
4
2. Address: 2330 York
Applicant: Josh Kunde
Requests: 4 feet off the required 15 feet to a total distance of 11 feet
§ 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District (e)(1)(c)(1) Principal Structure Side Setback
Myles Campbell, Planner, reviewed the request that the applicant is seeking a variance to allow for a
garage addition. Campbell noted the area is zoned R‐1, the size of the lot, and that the lot currently
has an attached single car garage.
The existing garage is 15’x25’, just over 20 ft. from the property line and the proposed garage would
be 25’x30’, with a resulting side yard setback of 11’, compared to the required 15’.
Practical Difficulties
1. A two‐car garage is common in Minnesota for indoor storage given winter conditions. At 25’ in
width, the new garage is of a reasonable size, and at 11’ off the property line preserves the
majority of the setback. Staff believes the proposal as shown is reasonable.
2. Mature trees in the rear yard mean that a detached garage or a deeper tandem style garage
would likely require their removal. This leaves a variance as the only option to get more interior
garage space without impacting the trees to the rear of the structure. Staff believes the site
does exhibit unique circumstances.
3. The new garage will fall within the building envelope in terms of height, and will match the
roofline and exterior finish of the home. Staff believes the proposed use would not alter the
essential character of the area.
Other Considerations
Staff assesses whether the variance represents the smallest feasible variance or if there are other
options available:
Any two‐car garage over 20’ in width would require some type of side yard setback given the
existing setback.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance for 4 feet off the required 15 feet to a total distance of
11 feet.
Chair Orenstein invited the applicant to speak.
The applicant noted the home hasn’t been updated since 1950 and the garage addition includes
other curb appeal goals for the homeowner.
Commissioner Pockl asked if the driveway was going to be expanded and the applicant responded
only a bit at the garage to make room for the apron.
Chair Orenstein opened the open forum at 7:41pm.
There were no in person commenters.
There were no callers.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
April 27, 2022 – 7 pm
5
Chair Orenstein closed the open forum at 7:43pm.
Chair Orenstein opened the Board Discussion.
Nelson noted the request is reasonable and agrees with the recommendation to approve, following
staff findings. Commissioner Pockl echoed this statement.
A MOTION was made by Pockl and seconded by Orenstein to follow staff recommendation and
approve the variance for 4 feet off the required 15 feet to a total distance of 11 feet.
Motion passes.
3. Address: 6300 Olson Memorial Highway
Applicant: Connor McCarthy for United Properties
Requests: 25 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 10 feet
§ 113‐151, Off‐Street Parking and Loading (b)(9)(a)(1) External Landscaping: Front Yard
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, introduced the request and gave background that the
address is a 28‐acre site containing a 340,000 sq ft office building. It’s been vacant since 2016 and in
early 2022 Council approved a new business center which means the existing building needs to be
demoed so two new buildings may be constructed. The City required dedication of ROW east/west
through the lot for a potential future road connection
If the City wasn’t requiring the new ROW, there would only be an internal drive and no new front
yards would be required and thus no variances needed. Reducing the area for parking and delivery
truck access to the loading dock would impair the functionality of the site
As proposed, the project already provides an improvement over the large surface parking lot through
the creation of landscaped islands and defined drives, though technically public, the drive will
continue to look and operate as a private drive.
Practical Difficulties
Any light industrial development requires sufficient parking and a clear maneuverable area for
deliveries by truck. As designed and proposed, there would be a sufficient amount of parking
area to accommodate this activity. The introduction of the dedicated right‐of‐way, however,
creates the need for the variances without changing how the property would be accessed or
how operations would be carried out. Therefore, staff believes the applicant proposes to use
the property in a reasonable manner.
Without the City’s condition of approval that requires the right‐of‐way be dedicated for a future
public street, new front yards would not be created and the need for the variances would be
absent. The City’s careful long‐term planning for possible future redevelopment is the sole
contributing factor to the encroachment and not any action on the part of the landowner. In
this case, the applicants’ problem (the need for the variances) is clearly due to circumstances
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
April 27, 2022 – 7 pm
6
that were caused by the City. Further, the dedication of right‐of‐way creates a southern lot with
three front yards, resulting in a unique lot condition.
The existing conditions consist of an extremely large surface parking lot (over 1,300 spaces)
with minimal landscaping. The changes being proposed as part of the project would be an
improvement over what is there today, even with the reduced landscaped area being
requested. Properties in the surrounding area are also commercial or industrial in nature, with
the property directly across Douglas Drive having a paved drive‐thru only 20 feet from the front
property line. Staff believes granting the variances would not alter the essential character of
the locality.
Other Considerations
Staff assesses whether the request represents the smallest feasible variance or if there are other
options available:
Given the needs of a light industrial use, such as the one approved by the City Council in this
instance, staff is challenged to find alternate layouts which would reduce or avoid the need for
a variance while also meeting the aesthetic objectives of the Douglas Drive Corridor Study.
Recommendations
Based on the factors above, staff recommends approval of the variance requests for 25 feet off the
required 35 feet to a distance of 10 feet for parking within a front yard landscaped area.
Members and staff discussed the road, maintenance, and stormwater preservation on site.
Chair Orenstein invited the applicant to speak.
The applicant thanked staff and noted the company will close on the site pending approvals and
permits.
Chair Orenstein opened the open forum at 7:41pm.
Don Kovacovich
Golden Valley Country Club GM,
On behalf of the Club, we’re opposed to this, we’re opposed to the road. The club has existed for 108
years and don’t feel that the Club will leave or develop soon and the road option is present assuming
one day that may happen. Its possible future City Councils may want to use eminent domain to
connect the road. We made our position clear in front of staff, Planning Commission, and City Council.
The speaker and staff discussed the Light Industrial zoning of the area.
We are concerned that if the road is connected, the golf course will eventually be eliminated and
many of our members are anxious about that. This action could impact us in another 100 years and
we question the need for this road.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
April 27, 2022 – 7 pm
7
Nelson asked the speaker how the road would impact the golf course as it dead ends before the
driving range. Staff pointed out that if the road were to become a full road, that it would need to cut
through the driving range. However, the City would not be able to force the road conversion and
eminent domain is only allowed for public purpose and the Club would need to be fully
compensated.
No Callers
Chair Orenstein closed the open forum at 8:06pm.
Chair Orenstein opened the Board Discussion.
Orenstein agreed with staff recommendation and noted the excessive action needed by the City to
put the road through the driving range. Commissioner Pockl noted the variance isn’t for the road and
the ROW is a requirement for the project to move forward. Nelson noted that if it was a private road,
this wouldn’t be necessary and agrees with staff recommendation. Carlson echoed Nelson’s
statement.
A MOTION was made by Orenstein and seconded by Carlson to follow staff recommendation and
approve the variance for 25 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 10 feet for parking within a
front yard landscaped area.
Motion passes.
4. Address: 2234 Lee Ave N
Applicant: Amy and Miles Fiterman
Requests: 9.5 feet off the required 35 feet to a total distance of 25.5 feet
§ 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District (f)(1)(a) Principal Structure Front Setback
Chair Orenstein recused himself from this item due to a personal relationship with the applicant.
Vice‐Chair Carlson introduced himself and informed the applicant of the process.
Myles Campbell, Planner, introduced the address, discussed the zoning designation as R‐1, and the
irregular lot shape.
Staff laid out the four separate requests of the applicant:
14.5 feet off the required 35 feet for the front setback, to a total distance of 20.5 feet
5 feet off the required 15 feet for the east side setback, to a total distance of 10 feet
Waive building envelope requirements from side yard setback for a portion of the new addition
4 feet over the maximum height of 28 feet as measured from the average grade of the home, to
a total of 32 feet
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
April 27, 2022 – 7 pm
8
Staff discussed the city code requirements for each item, the proposed items as part of the
applicant’s addition, and displayed images of the home as it stands and as it would with the
proposed addition.
Staff went into detail on the setback requirements and discussed how they related to the irregular
shape of the lot.
Staff went on to discuss the building envelope and dissected the grade measurements to explain the
envelope is calculated based on the average grade. Campbell displayed 5 grade points that were use
to calculate and shared that the average grade of the first floor had an elevation of 854.84. This
number shows the proposed addition is over the 28ft max for the building envelope.
Practical Difficulties
Front Setback
1. A 25’ setback from the street is in line with previous variance approvals, and the new garage
location on the cul‐de‐sac is a traffic improvement even with this being a low intensity road.
This request is reasonable. The deck shown off the main level could be reworked to fall within
this setback, rather than the 20.5’ shown in plans.
2. The irregular frontage of the parcel creates unique challenges in designing for this lot. Staff
believes the site does exhibit unique circumstances.
3. Given the existing 25’ setback, staff believes the proposed use would not alter the essential
character of the area.
Side Setback
1. The existing home’s orientation puts it at an angle to the side yard lot line, creating difficulty in
maintaining a side setback without increasing the front setback. While the setback here is
reduced, the addition is of reasonable scale given the existing home.
2. The irregular lot shape creates unique challenges in designing for this lot, especially given the
existing orientation of the home. Staff believes the site does exhibit unique circumstances.
3. The majority of the side setback is preserved in the plans as shown, and the alternative would
be to increase further the setback encroachment towards the street, staff believes the
proposed use would not alter the essential character of the area.
Building Envelope
1. Given the minimal encroachment into the envelope, and the fact that it would primarily be roof
area that is intended to match the architectural finish of the home, staff finds the request
reasonable.
2. The irregular lot shape creates unique challenges in designing for this lot. Staff believes the site
does exhibit unique circumstances.
3. The rooflines as designed are intended to match the modern style of the existing home, as
such, staff believes the proposed use would not alter the essential character of the area.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
April 27, 2022 – 7 pm
9
Maximum Height
1. While the lower average grade limits overall building height, the second floor addition is shown
with a floor to ceiling distance of 13.5’, well above any minimums for habitable rooms under
building code. A 4’ increase in maximum building height is also a significant departure from
code. Staff does not find the request reasonable.
2. The irregular lot shape creates unique challenges in designing for this lot. Staff believes this
constitutes unique circumstances. That said, the calculation of average grade is being applied
here similar to any other property in Golden Valley that faces a public street on multiple sides.
In addition, the applicant’s use of the site’s topography to allow for a tuck under garage and
basement addition are also having the impact of lowering the average grade calculation.
3. While the applicant notes in their plans that the structure would only appear 25’ in height from
the north and west, from the cul‐de‐sac it would instead be 34’ in height total. This height
would be atypical for single‐family aoning, and staff believes the proposed use would impact
the essential character of the area.
Other Considerations
Staff assesses whether the variance represents the smallest feasible variance or if there are other
options available:
Scaling back the wrap‐around deck would eliminate the need for any further reduction to the
existing 25’ front setback
Locating the bedrooms addition to the north of the home would avoid the need for a side
setback variance while also potentially raising the average grade calculation due to the higher
topography on the north side of the property
o This would however mean the garage and curb cut would not be relocated to the cul‐de‐
sac
Adjusting the roofline and ceiling height of the main level addition may eliminate or reduce the
building envelope variance, however this might impact the architectural fit with the existing
home
Reducing the floor‐to‐ceiling height of the second story addition would reduce or eliminate the
maximum height variance. (9.5’ floor‐to‐ceiling would require no variance)
Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the variance for 14.5 feet off the required 35 feet, to a total distance of
20.5 feet from the southeast front property line – but staff would recommend approval of a variance
for 10 feet off the required 35 feet, to a total distance of 25 feet from the southeast front property
line.
Staff recommends approval of the variance for 5 feet off the required 15 feet, to a total distance of
10 feet from the east side property line.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
April 27, 2022 – 7 pm
10
Staff recommends denial of the variance for 4 feet over the allowed maximum height of 28 feet to a
total distance of 32 feet from average grade.
Staff recommends approval of the variance to waive the building envelope requirements for the
portion of the garage/bedroom addition on the southeast side of the home. Staff recommends this
building envelope approval be conditioned on the plans not being significantly altered prior to
permitting.
Staff and members discussed the request, reviewed regulations and discussed similar requests that
came before the board in the past.
Vice‐Chair Carlson invited the applicant to speak.
Ryan Thuftedal, Applicant Architect, introduced himself and stated the applicants are looking to
expand their home to accommodate their family size as well as aging members who may move in.
The applicant stated that the angle of the road to the house causes headlights to flood the home and
so the addition was designed to assist in creating privacy inside while offering space the family needs.
He added moving the garage is to create a safer situation in the cul‐de‐sac for traffic and exiting the
garage.
The applicant explained they created the design plans based on an average of points as if the home
were on a regular lot. Additionally, the applicants like their high ceilings as the tall walls are used to
display artwork and they would like to maintain the original open design of the home. The home
owner added that his work is in artwork collection management, the size and height of the walls is
necessary for his business.
Lauren Pockl, Planning Commissioner, added that aesthetically the additional wall space seems
unnecessary and asked what the impacts would be if the wall were 1‐2 feet lower. The applicant
responded that the main level would be below 14ft and it may feel out of character from the original
design, additionally the homeowners need the wall space for artwork. Carlson asked about the deck
size and setback encroachment. The applicant responded that the deck was built by the previous
owners and the homeowner shared they decreased the size after storm damage. As part of the
addition, they received support from the neighbors to increase its size.
Vice‐Chair Carlson opened the public comment portion at 8:55pm.
Campbell reminded the group there was public comment in the packet, a number of neighbors
voiced their support for the applicant’s proposal.
There were no in person comments.
There were no call‐in comments.
Vice‐Chair Carlson closed the public comment portion at 8:57pm.
Pockl started by voicing support for staff recommendation on the envelope requirements as well as
the side yard setback. The front yard setback and height requests are a little less straightforward.
Carlson and Nelson echoed these comments. Nelson asked the applicant if they were comfortable
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
April 27, 2022 – 7 pm
11
asking for a smaller height variance. The applicant responded that the catalyst for this addition and
remodel was to move their child’s bedroom out of the basement as they have sliding glass doors on
three sides. They included her room in the main level floor plan for safety precautions. Additionally,
the height request is to accommodate the homeowner’s business in art collection sales as well as
their personal collection. Architecturally, the homeowner added he wanted to create a balance with
the addition while maintaining the character of the home and neighborhood.
Pockl added that she doesn’t find satisfaction of all three practical difficulties when it comes to the
height proposal, specifically that it’s satisfying a problem unique to the property. Carlson added that
other height options are available and the lot isn’t unique in a way that requires a building height
such as the one proposed. Nelson added the request doesn’t satisfy the practical difficulties
parameters that the Board adheres to. The applicant added that a typical home uses 3 data points t
find an average grade, however due to the home being on an irregular lot, they use 5 data points.
The applicant stated that seems burdensome and unique to the lot.
The group moved on to the front set‐back and added the 25ft setback is consistent with other
determinations made. They discussed the deck, size, and conditions.
MOTION made by Commissioner Pockl, seconded by Carlson to:
a) recommend approval of a variance for 14.5 off the required 35 feet, to a total distance of 20.5 feet
from the southeast front property line for the deck with the condition plans are consistent with those
submitted;
b) recommend approval of a variance for 10 feet off the required 35 feet, to a total distance of 25
feet from the southeast front property line.
Motion passes.
MOTION made by Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Pockl to recommends approval of the
variance for 5 feet off the required 15 feet, to a total distance of 10 feet from the east side property
line.
Motion passes.
MOTION made by Carlson, seconded by Nelson recommends denial of the variance for 4 feet over
the allowed maximum height of 28 feet to a total distance of 32 feet from average grade.
MOTION made by Commissioner Pockl, seconded by Carlson recommends approval of the variance
to waive the building envelope requirements for the portion of the garage/bedroom addition on the
southeast side of the home with the condition the plans not being significantly altered prior to
permitting.
Motion passes.
5. Adjournment
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
April 27, 2022 – 7 pm
12
MOTION made by Carlson, seconded by Orenstein and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the
meeting at 9:23 pm.
Motion carried.
________________________________
Richard Orenstein, Chair
_________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant
Date: June 28, 2022
To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
From: Max Gort, Community Development Intern
Myles Campbell, Planner
Subject: 5901 Westbrook Rd.
Rebekah and Ryan Bailey, Applicant
Introduction
Rebekah and Ryan Bailey, the property owners, are seeking a variance from the City Code to build a
fence at the above address. The applicant is seeking the following variances from City Code:
Variance Request City Code Requirement
The applicant is requesting
a variance of 1 foot over
the maximum allowed
height of 4 feet to a total
height of 5 feet.
§ 113-152, Screening and Outdoor Storage, Subd. (c)(1) All
Residential Zoning Districts (a)
Fences in all front yards shall not exceed four feet in height.
Fences in side and rear yards shall not exceed six feet in height.
Background
5901 Westbrook Rd. is the current address of a single-family
home on the southeast corner of Westbrook Rd. and Zane Ave. N.
Since the home is on a corner lot, the north and east property
lines are street-facing meaning they are subject to zoning code
pertaining to front yards. The homeowner is building an in-
ground pool in the back yard which is required by Ordinance 103-
7(a) to be enclosed by a 5 ft wall or fence. The backyard area of
the property has existing elements for the homeowners to
entertain with a fireplace, and therefore the applicants wish to
enclose the entire backyard with a pool-conforming fence
connecting the home from the east yard to the already existing 5 ft tall fence on their southern
neighbor’s property. However, the requirement for pools to be enclosed by a 5 ft fence conflicts
with the zoning code requirement for front yard fences to not exceed 4 ft in height.
2
Summary of Request
The applicant is requesting a variance on the front yard fence requirement of 1 foot, creating a total
height of 5 ft. The variance request is due to the desire to enclose the entire backyard area in a single
fence, rather than separating the elements of the backyard with a conforming fence closer to the pool.
The applicant states that building the fence in such a way that a variance is not needed would hinder the
family’s ability to use of the backyard, and that providing the variance would not be an upset to the
quality and character of the neighborhood.
The applicant’s plans call for the fence to extend past the fireplace shown on their survey, which is
located on the east property line. This means that an additional permit would be required in order to
allow the fence to encroach slightly into the right-of-way. Engineering staff are aware of this and did not
have any comment on the proposed fence. The fence would still be behind the existing vegetation,
which would minimize the visual impact.
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, as it does
not impact or change the principal use of the lot as a single-family residence, nor does it allow for
additional density of population.
3
In order to constitute practical difficulties:
1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner.
The conflicting ordinances of § 113-152(c)(1) and § 103-7(a) make it difficult for the applicant
to build the required fence enclosing her pool while maintaining the character of the
property. Although the yard facing Zane Ave. is legally a front yard, staff finds that in practice
it is a rear/side yard, since the front door and driveway of the house face Westbrook Rd. The
north yard of the house facing Westbrook Rd. will remain visible which is in line with the
purpose of the zoning code requiring that front yard fences not exceed 4 ft in height.
Furthermore, a 5 ft fence enclosing the east side of the back yard facing Zane Ave. will not
obstruct view of the intersection on the corner of the lot, as the fence will be set back with
the northeast corner of the house. Staff finds this request to be a reasonable use.
2. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that is not
caused by the landowner.
While being a corner lot is typically not considered a unique circumstance when reviewing
variances, this in combination with the existing site layout creates issues with following code
requirements for fences. Building a five foot fence in a conforming location, behind the east
face of the home, would cut the usable rear yard almost in half. The need for a variance is
due to two conflicting ordinances rather than a desire to alter the property outside of the
zoning code entirely. The need for the fence to be constructed in the proposed location is to
connect with the already existing fence along the southern property line constructed by the
applicants’ neighbor. Staff finds that the circumstances are unique to the property and not
caused by the landowner.
3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality
The request details a fence enclosing the backyard of the home that is one foot taller than
the maximum allowed. The fence will be placed behind already existing trees and an
arborvitae row, meaning that the nonconforming fence will not be easily visible from the
street. The applicant states that the fence will not be a privacy fence and will therefore not
hinder visibility into the backyard, although the fence itself will be hidden by the landscaping
features. Staff believes that the requested fence will not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood.
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 applicant did propose an alternative variance to §103-7(a) which
would allow the pool to be enclosed by a 4 ft fence, but this presents a life safety issue for our
building officials and would not be allowed. A conforming fence could be built behind the east face
of the home; however, this would create a barrier through the middle of the backyard.
4
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance for 1 foot added to the required 4 foot maximum height
of a front yard fence resulting in a total height of 5 feet.
Zoning Code Variance Application Page 1 of 3
Street address of property in this application:
Applicant Information
Name (individual, or corporate entity)
Street address Zip
Phone Email
Authorized Representative (if other than applicant)
Name
Street address Zip
Phone Email
Property Owner (if other than applicant)
Name
Street address Zip
Phone Email
Site Information
Provide a detailed description of the variance(s) being requested:
Provide a detailed description of need for a variance from the Zoning Code, including description of building(s), description of
proposed addition(s), and description of proposed alteration(s) to property:
5/1/20
t continued
Physical Development-Planning Department | 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427
763-593-8055 | FAX: 763-593-8109 | TTY: 763-593-3968 | www.goldenvalleymn.gov
5901 Westbrook Rd.
Rebekah Bailey & Ryan Bailey
5901 Westbrook R.55422
(612) 597-6376 rebekahbailey@gmail.com
To the extent that Ordinance 113-152(c)(1)(a), limiting the height of fences in front yards, applies to the side fence on a
corner lot, homeowner seeks a variance, requesting this requirement be waived so that she may erect a five-foot tall fence on
the east side of the lot on the corner of Zane and Westbrook in compliance with Ordinance 103-7(a).
In the alternative, to the extent that Ordinance 103-7(a) requires pools to be enclosed with a five-foot fence, homeowner
requests a variance allowing her to reduce the fence height to four feet so that she may comply with Ordinance 113-152(c)(1)
(a). (Homeowner reserves all rights to challenge this interpretation of section 113-152(c)(1)(a).)
The home in question is on a corner lot. Homeowner is installing an in-ground pool in the backyard. Relevant to this
variance request, homeowner plans to enclose the backyard with an aluminum fence, with 2.5" X 8' spacing. Homeowner
desires for the fence to run from the side of the house out to the east property boundary and back to the south corner,
encasing the many components of her backyard. Homeowner cannot accomplish this while simultaneously complying with
Ordinance sections 113-152(c)(1)(a) and 103-7(a) because the minimum and maximum height requirements conflict.
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
t continued
It is practically difficult for me to comply with both 13-152(c)(1)(a) or 103-7(a) for the reasons stated above. This issue is
unique to my property because my home rests on a corner lot. Golden Valley does not prohibit pools on corner lots, but these
conflicting ordinances essentially do just that. This is a problem not caused by any actions of this landowner.
Failure to provide a variance would require her to segregate her backyard in an unreasonable and less usable way and
would therefore degrade the character of the property (as explained below). Conversely, providing a variance would not
degrade the quality of the neighborhood (see further explanation below).The only other option if the variance is not approved
is for homeowner to cancel the pool, costing her significant sums in deposits and equipment purchases at this late stage, and
denying her of full enjoyment of her property (work is scheduled to begin before the board meets on this request).
-This request relates to the side of my property, not the front. The front yard is perfectly visible to the public.
-This fence will not obstruct site to the intersection as it will be set far enough back.
-The lot is near to two neighbors who have five and six-foot privacy fences on their side yard.
-This request does not involve a privacy fence (see attached). The yard will be visible through the fence.
-The fence will be mostly obstructed by natural vegetation and largely hidden from street view (see attached).
-Our pool will have an automatic hard cover so children and/or animals cannot fall in when the cover is on.
-Homeowners configured the pool to run perpendicular to the house on the west-side of the backyard, allowing for the max
amount of grass on the east-side. Failure to grant a variance will require her to run a fence in the middle of what is remaining
of the grass portion of the backyard or in the middle of her house, dividing up the lot and obstructing views from the home.
As stated above, the need for a variance is the result of two ordinances, as interpreted and explained to me by the City of
Golden Valley, which conflict when applied to properties found on a corner lot.
Homeowner should be permitted to place a pool, that otherwise meets zoning requirements, on her personal residential
property, without having to divide up the remainder of her backyard. This is particularly true where, as in here, her immediate
neighbors all have privacy fences that do not meet the standards that homeowner is presently being held to (see below). In
fact, Homeowner is simply asking to connect her backyard/side yard fence to her southern neighbors backyard/side yard fence
at the same height as that already existing fence.
The variance requested is simply for a fence one-foot higher than what is allowed (or, a fence four-feet tall, which is lower
than what is required to fence in a pool). As stated, the side yard is covered in lush vegetation. The fence will barely be
noticeable from the side street, and anyone wishing to see in, can walk up to one of the small exposed areas and look in since
this will not be a privacy fence.
Homeowner's neighbor to the south (5900 Westmore Way) has a 5-foot privacy fence on his side boundary, which is what
homeowner requests. Further, her kitty-corner neighbor at 2300 Zane Ave,has a pool with a 6-foot privacy fence on its side
lot. Homeowner's request is consistent with the character of the neighborhood (see photos).
4
5901 WESTBROOK ROAD
GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA 55422
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
Zoning Code Variance Application ............................................................ 1–3
Table of Contents .......................................................................................... 4
Legal Description .......................................................................................... 5
Survey of current lot ...................................................................................... 6
Survey of proposed work ............................................................................... 7
Diagram of proposed fence ........................................................................... 8
Illustration of fence style ............................................................................... 9
Picture of front -side lot .............................................................................. 10
Picture of back -side lot 1 ............................................................................. 11
Picture of back-side lot 2 (depicting neighbors’ fence) ................................ 12
Picture of side lot .......................................................................................... 13
Picture of east property boundary taken from southern corner ..................14
Picture of eastern side of backyard .............................................................. 15
Picture of back-east corner of house (shows patio) ......................................16
Picture of eastern side of backyard looking toward Zane............................. 17
Picture of 5200 Zane Ave North taken from side yard ................................ 18
5
Legal Description of:
5901 WESTBROOK ROAD
GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA 55422
Addition name: UNPLATTED 28 118 21
Lot: Block:
Approximate parcel size: 150 X 138
Metes & Bounds: N 168 FT OF E 180 FT OF N 1/4 OF SW
1/4 OF NW 1/4 EX ROADS
Abstract or Torrens: TORRENS
dc1 1001jk10j10
View of front side lot of 5901 Westbrook Rd on the corner of
Westbrook and Zane. NE lot boundary stake depicted here.
Fence should not be visible from this vantage point because
of the hill and trees.
dc2 1001jk10j10
View of side yard from Zane. The fence would be on the inside
of the vegetation, running through the three pine trees….
dc3 1001jk10j10
View of side yard from Zane. The fence would be on the inside of the vegetation,
running through the three pine trees, and most visible in the clearing indicated by
the horizontal arrow. Notice the five-foot privacy fence of my southern neighbor…
dc4 1001jk10j10
Photo depicting side of the house from Zane. Fence will run
from the right of the side door out to eastern boundary
(allowing that patio area to stay in the fenced area of my
yard), then back to the southern corner. The fence will run
under and through three pine trees. Arrow is an estimate.
dc5 1001jk10j10
View of the boundary line
from the south-east most
corner. Fence will run
between the arborvitae
and the fireplace,
continuing on through the
pine trees. Zane is to the
right. Arrow is an
estimate.
dc6 1001jk10j10
Photo depicting back yard to demonstrate just
how much grass space will be segregated out
of the yard if homeowner is required to start
fence at edge of house. Blue lines represent
where pool decking will be. Arrow and lines
are estimates. Not pictured, the fireplace and
patio to the right.
dc7 1001jk10j10
Photo depicting the side-door patio that will be placed
outside the backyard fence should the fence begin at the
corner of the house. Arrow is an estimate.
dc8 1001jk10j10
Photo depicting the east back boundary of lot. The fence would run between historic fireplace and
arborvitae. The entire space depicted here would be outside our backyard if homeowner is required to set
fence all the way back to the side of the house. (the play out under the pine trees is being removed).
dc9 1001jk10j10
View from homeowner’s lot from kiddy-corner neighbor at
5200 Zane Ave North, depicting a six-foot tall privacy fence
on the corner side boundary. Backyard contains a pool (this is
a picture from last month before the trees bloomed, sorry)
Date: June 28, 2022
To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
From: Max Gort, Community Development Intern
Myles Campbell, Planner
Subject: 1109 Tyrol Trail
SKD Architects on behalf of Matt and Maddy Goeden, Applicant
Introduction
Matt and Maddy Goeden, the property owners, are seeking a variance from the City Code to build a
new home addition at the above address. The applicant is seeking the following variances from City
Code:
Variance Request City Code Requirement
The applicant is requesting
a variance of 7 feet off the
required 35 feet for a
triangular portion of a
garage addition on the west
side property line, to a total
distance of 28 feet.
§ 113-88, Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District, Subd.
(e)(1)(a) Principal Structure Front Setback
The required minimum front setback shall be 35 feet from any
front lot line along a street right-of-way line. Decks and open front
porches, with no screens, may be built to within 30 feet of a front
lot line along a street right-of-way line. This requirement shall not
reduce the building envelope on any corner lot to less than 27 feet
in width.
The applicant is requesting
a variance allowing for an
increase of the 15-foot
setback at a 2:1 ratio with
encroachments height
exceeding 15 feet, due to
second story master
bedroom height.
§ 113-88, Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District, Subd.
(e)(1)(c)(1) Principal Structure Side Setback
In the case of lots having a width of 100 feet or greater, the side
setbacks for any portion of a structure 15 feet or less in height
shall be 15 feet. The side setbacks for any portion of a structure
greater than 15 feet in height shall be measured to an inwardly
sloping plane at a ratio of 2:1 beginning at a point 15 feet directly
above the side setback line.
2
The applicant is requesting
a variance for an existing
living space and garage wall
encroaching 4.7 feet into
the north side yard,
reducing the setback from
15 feet to 10.3 feet.
§ 113-88, Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District, Subd.
(e)(1)(c)(1) Principal Structure Side Setback
In the case of lots having a width of 100 feet or greater, the side
setbacks for any portion of a structure 15 feet or less in height
shall be 15 feet.
The applicant is requesting
a variance from the side
wall articulation
requirements for the
existing garage and
addition.
§ 113-88, Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District, Subd.
(e)(4) Side Wall Articulation
For any new construction, whether a new dwelling, addition, or
replacement through a tear-down, any resulting side wall longer
than 32 feet in length must be articulated, with a shift of at least
two feet in depth, for at least eight feet in length, for every 32 feet
of wall.
Background
1109 Tyrol Trail is the current address for a single-family home
built in 1938. The lot is 24,912 sq. ft. with most of the eastern
portion wooded, backing up to Theodore Wirth Park. The home
is relatively small compared to other homes in the area, with 2
bedrooms and an oversized single stall garage. The garage
setback from the north side property line is at 10.3 feet, which
follows zoning code for single-family homes constructed prior
to 1982 allowing for side yard setbacks at a minimum of 3 feet.
The applicant is seeking to build a set of additions on to the new home to increase its overall size and
improve their use of the property. The additions include:
- Expand the garage to the west and south to accommodate 2 vehicles more reasonably and add a
storage workshop space above
- Build a small master suite on the second level over the existing living room to be close to the
children’s’ existing bedrooms
In their variance application the applicants mention that they are
looking to expand their home due to the small size of the existing
home, which does not create an ideal living situation for their
family. Additional details as to the request can be found in the
full variance application which has been attached with this
memo.
3
Summary of Requests
The applicant is requesting four variances – two that relate to either the side setbacks of the
property to allow for the new additions off the north and south sides of the home. Similarly, the
third variance relates to the encroachment on the front setback requirement on the street-facing
side of the house. Finally, a side wall articulation variance would be required due to the existing
north side wall being over 32’ already and being expanded as part of the garage addition.
Beginning with the variances related to the
garage addition, the applicants sought to
avoid further encroaching on the north side
yard property line, and so looked at
expansion to the west and south, trading
some living space with an existing
mudroom for extra garage space. The new
garage would be 25’2” in depth and 24’6” in
width, allowing for two cars to be parked
indoors. The southwest corner of the new
garage would encroach on the required 35
ft front setback for R-1 Single-Family zoning
districts by 7 ft, resulting in a setback of 28
ft. Additionally, the garage expansion would
continue the existing setback of 10.3’ from
the north property line, While the existing
garage setback is legal, the addition would require a variance to maintain this setback. Similarly, the
existing side wall on the north side of the home exceeds 32’ in length, and the addition would only
increase this length. Therefore, a waiver from the side wall articulation requirements is necessary to
move forward with the addition as shown on plans.
Along with these requests, the homeowners are also looking to add additional living space on the second
level of the home and are requesting a pair of waivers from the building envelope requirements of
zoning code to do so. City code establishes that for principal structures over 15’ in height, that portion of
the structure must be set back further from the property line than the side setback, at a rate of 1 foot
further in from the property line for every 2 feet of additional height. This creates a tent shape as you go
up in height, and is intended to keep very tall strucutres offset further from adjacent properties.
The applicants are requesting a variance from this building envelope requirement on either side of the
principal structure in order to allow for a set of second story additions, a workshop above the garage and
north side of the home and a master bedroom off the rear/south side. The applicant notes in their
materials that the variance would allow them to continue the gabled roof design of the existing home
and that strictly following the envelope requirements for the master bedroom would result in harshly
sloped walls.
4
Analysis
In reviewing this application, staff has maintained the points of examination to the considerations
outlined in Minnesota State Statute 462.357 – that the requested variance is in harmony with the
general purposes and intent of the Zoning Chapter, that it is consistent with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan, and that a property exhibit “practical difficulties” in order for a variance to be
granted.
Staff finds that the variance is generally in line with both the purpose of the Zoning Code, as it does
not impact or change the principal use of the lot as a single-family residence, nor does it allow for
additional density of population. Staff also finds the request reasonable in light of the 2040
Comprehensive Plan, which has as one of its goals to “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.
Garage Front and Side Setbacks: A larger garage allowing for both applicant-owned vehicles
to be stored will protect the vehicles from exposure to weather and keep them out of sight
from the street. At 24.5’ in width, the proposed design keeps the garage minimal in scale
relative to the rest of the property and neighboring properties. With the encroachment on
the north setback being flush with the existing garage wall, the impact on the northern
neighbor will be minimal. The encroachment on the front setback remains a considerable
distance from the street, which will not cause disruption to the use of the front yard or close
encroachment on the west side property line. Staff finds this request reasonable.
Building Envelope: The master suite addition on the second floor is within similar scale to the
rest of the existing home, with similar room sizes and ceiling heights. The addition brings the
home from 2 bedrooms to 3 bedrooms, accommodating the needs of the homeowners’
family with children. The building envelope encroachment to the south would be minimal,
5
especially considering the existing gabled roof and chimney which will remain. The
encroachment on the north side with the garage addition would be even smaller, and should
have little impact on surrounding properties. Given that the encroachments will not disrupt
the essential character of the home and neighborhood while allowing the homeowners to
comfortably live in their home, staff finds this request reasonable.
Side Wall Articulation: Given that the existing wall is over 32’ in length and the home is
already encroaching on the side setback, articulation would require more significant
reconstruction of the home, and would further eat into the existing homes floor area by
pushing the garage further south by at least 2 feet. Because of the roof gables on the second
story, staff is not concerned with a flat wall “canyon effect” and 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 home was constructed in 1938 in line with the building standards of the time, and with
specific design elements that give the home a special character, such as the roof orientation.
Since the existing garage footprint extends into the north setback, and essential living space
exists behind the garage to the east, the applicants state that the only possible directions for
expansion are to the west and south. Furthermore, the property is well buffered by trees
with Theodore Wirth Park to the east, such that building outward on to the rest of the lot
may necessitate more signifcant removals of vegetation. Staff believes the site exhibits
unique circumstances.
3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality
The applicants have stated that the plans to expand the capacity of their home was done
with careful intent to preserve the character and scale of the home. Exterior finishes and
roof orientation are being taken into consideration to this end. The visual impacts of the
variances are minimal, with encroachments onto various setback lines kept within a few feet.
The applicants also highlight that Tyrol Trail is a dead-end road, and therefore impacts on
traffic will be kept to a greater than usual minimum. 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.
Front and Side Setback Variances: With the existing garage already extending into the north setback
line by 4.7 ft and essential living space to the east, there are no existing options for expansion of the
garage but to the south and west, encroaching on the front setback. Staff met with the architects
from SKD and agreed that this approach was the most viable option, finding no other options that
were reasonable to the applicants’ needs and not requiring a variance from zoning code.
6
Side Setback Variance: Building the additional master bedroom suite above the living room is the
only reasonable location, as there is no additional space on the second level or the main level that
would meet the applicants’ needs without incurring significant cost. Building the master bedroom
above the living room while being in line with the required 2:1 setback ratio with make the bedroom
much smaller and require a hip roof and breaking the character of the home. Staff believes that this
proposal is the best option to meet the applicants’ needs and that options that don’t require a
variance are not available.
Recommendations
Staff recommends approval of a variance of 7 feet off the required 35 feet for a triangular portion of
a garage addition on the west side property line, to a total distance of 28 feet.
Staff recommends approval of a variance for an existing living space and garage wall encroaching
4.7 feet into the north side yard, reducing the setback from 15 feet to 10.3 feet.
Staff recommends approval of a variance waiving the building envelope requirements for a portion
of the garage and master bedroom additions, subject to consistency with the plans as submitted.
Staff recommends approval of a variance waiving the side wall articulation requirements for the
north side wall.
From:
To:Jason Zimmerman
Cc:matthew.goeden@gmail.com
Subject:1109 Goeden Project
Date:Thursday, June 2, 2022 7:00:19 AM
EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This message originated from outside the City of Golden Valley. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Jason,
I am Matt and Made's neighbor to the north at 1101 Tyrol Trail. Matt has shared the plans with
me and I have no objections to the plans and the needed variance. I am supportive of the
project.
Best Regards,
Michael Cavanaugh
1101 Tyrol Trail, Golden Valley, MN
--
Michael Cavanaugh
City of Golden Valley
Board and Commission
Member Orientation
●Commitment to Community
●City of Golden Valley Structure
●City Boards and Commissions Structure
●Board and Commission Member Roles &
Responsibilities
Agenda
Commitment to
Community
All Are Welcome
The City of Golden Valley believes in and stands for the values of social equity, inclusion,
and justice.
We embrace diversity and recognize the rights of individuals to live their lives with dignity,
free of discrimination, fear, violence, and hate.
We welcome individuals to Golden Valley regardless of race, color, creed, religion, national
origin, immigration status, gender, gender identity, marital status, age, disability, economic
status, sexual orientation, familial status, or cultural background.
We strive to provide fair and unbiased services and programs, giving opportunities for all.
We are dedicated to being a supportive and united community, strengthened by the
diversity of our residents and visitors.
Vision & Mission
Vision
Golden Valley strives to creatively connect
people and places, preserve and enhance
community resources, and nurture
opportunities for all.
Mission
The City of Golden Valley delivers high-
quality, responsive services to ensure the
community remains a vibrant and
welcoming environment in which to live,
work, and play.
Our Values
Why And How We Work
Communication
Community
Inclusion
Integrity
Respect
Innovation
Courage
Accountability
Golden Valley Commitment to Equity
•Provides free legal and title services to help property
owners find discriminatory covenants and discharge them
from their property titles.
•Provides education opportunities to help communities
acknowledge this racist history and pursue reconciliation
and anti-racist solutions.
•Take action to dismantle the racist systems that deny
opportunities to communities of color, and by investing in
solutions that create equity.
Equity and Inclusion
Manager •Directs and develops initiatives in policy, practice and community
engagement to develop equitable outcomes internally and externally;
•Develops and facilitates staff training and professional development;
•Manages and updates the City’s Equity Plan;
•Collaborates with staff in all departments; and
•Staff Liaison to the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Commission.
Kiarra Zackery
Community Connection and
Outreach Specialist
Airrion Williams
•Build partnerships within the Community to increase
engagement and connections.
•Building trust and establishing collaborative relationships with
underrepresented communities
•Assist with data collection to improve outreach and education
•Assist with developing and implementing civic engagement
strategies to increase participation among diverse populations
•Staff Liaison for the Police Employment, Accountability, and
Community Engagement Commission in collaboration with the
Police Department.
City Structure
City Demographics
•Population –22,552
•Location –10.5 square miles, located
five miles west of downtown
Minneapolis
•Median Age –45.6
•Race –White 80%, Persons of Color 20%
•Median Household Income -$98,100
•Plan B form of Government
Current City Council
Shep Harris
Mayor
(2023)
Kimberly Sanberg
Council Member
(2023)
Denise La Mere-
Anderson
Council Member
(2025)
Maurice Harris
Council Member
(2023)
Gillian Rosenquist
Council Member
(2025)
City Staff Leadership Team
Tim Cruikshank
City Manager
Kirsten Santelices
Deputy City
Manager/Human Resources
Director
Rick Birno
Parks and
Recreation
Director
Marc Nevinski
Physical
Development
Director
Sue Virnig
Finance Director
Cheryl Weiler
Communications
Director
Virgil Green
Chief of Police
John Crelly
Fire Chief
Maria Cisneros
City Attorney
Tim Kieffer
Public Works
Director
●City Council point-of-contact
●Administers City business –including hiring and directing City staff
●Assists Council with developing policies
●Implements policies and directives of the Council
Organizational Priorities
Strategic Development & Redevelopment
Effective Governance
Infrastructure Maintenance & Enhancement
Financial Wellness
Community Affairs
Boards and
Commissions
Structure
How Everyone Works Together
Community
Role
Board/Commission/
Task Force Role
Mayor and
Council Role
•Elect Council and
Mayor
•Participate in
community input –
which may include
Board/Commission
and Task Force
initiatives
•Make decisions
based on provided
input
•Study issues and
provide input to
City Council
Council makes final decisions
that may or may not reflect the
recommendations of the
advisory body.
Process includes discussions and
debates; and may result in split votes,
and dialogue is open and respectful.
Staff Role
•Study issues and provide professional
recommendations to the Council and Boards,
Commissions, and Task Forces
•Carry out policy and directives from City Council
Board and Commission Structure
Ordinance
•Laws passed by the City Council creating and setting rules
for City commissions
Bylaws
•Commission governing document –approved by Council
Quorum
•Majority of seated members required to vote on
business items
•Meetings can be held without a quorum, but cannot
conduct business by taking votes on motions.
Roberts Rules
•Procedure used to run Commission meetings
Officers
•Chair (1 year)
•Vice Chair (1 year)
•Max 2 consecutive years and Chair
and Vice Chair
Types of Meetings
•Regular
•Special
Meeting Packet
•Agenda
•Minutes
•Additional Supporting Documents
Work Flow Calendar
●Boards/Commissions begin
submitting annual work plans to
Council (Example)
●Reappointment Process Begins
●City Manager’s Office reviews
attendance for the previous year
(April-March)
●Reappointments and new member
appointments effective May 1
●Review Commission bylaws (first
meeting in May)
●Annual Board/Commission
Appreciation Dinner
●New member recruitment begins
●City Council hosts annual strategy
session
●Boards/Commissions conduct ongoing regular business
●Policies and initiatives that were not included in the
Council’s action steps or Board and Commission annual
work plan become recommendations for Council
consideration at the next annual strategy session.
●Other initiatives may take priority as the Council and
Commissions work to be responsive to community
needs.
January
May
February
June –December
March-April
●Joint Board, Commission, and City
Council Meeting
Current City Board and Commissions
Meet to hear requests for variances from the zoning
code (which is the City’s main form of land use
regulation).
Board of Zoning Appeals
Advises, recommends, and assists Council in matters
relating to diversity, equity, inclusion, and human
rights. The mission of the Golden Valley DEIC is to
promote and nurture a safe and welcoming
community dedicated to the values of social equity,
inclusion, and justice.
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Commission
Advises and makes recommendations to the Council
in matters that affect the environment.
Environmental Commission
Plans and holds fundraisers and events to help raise
money to meet previously identified human service
needs in the community. Advises City Council on
allocation of funds.
Human Services Commission
Current City Board and Commissions
Police Employment, Accountability and
Community Engagement (PEACE)
Commission
Help the Golden Valley Police Department innovate
and transform its provision of public safety services
based on community input and needs, and to assure
that the department provides inclusive, community-
centered service.
Advises, recommends, and assists Council in matters
relating to planning and growth of the City, including
issues relating to the social, economic, and physical
environment.
Planning Commission
Advises, recommends, and assists Council in policies
and plans relating to open space needs, parks and
recreation programs, trail systems, and Brookview
Golf Course.
Open Space and Recreation Commission
Board and
Commission Members
Roles and
Responsibilities
Board/Commission Roles
Role of Board/Commission
Discuss matters within the scope of
the board/commission, as defined by
Council-approved work plan, bylaws
and City Code, or as directed by City
Council.
Conduct research, including gathering
community input and subject matter
expert advice.
Advise the Council on topics within
the scope of the Board/Commission’s
work, and submit recommendations
as voted upon by the
Board/Commission.
Not Role of Board/Commission
Boards/Commissions do not direct the
work of City staff.
Cannot direct the use of City funds
With the exception of
Board/Commission’s Council-
approved budget.
We will not always agree, but we
share the same end goals:
•Provide Council with the best
information possible
•Result in smart outcomes for
the City!
Member Expectations
•Prepare by reading agenda and previous
meeting minutes prior to meeting
•Attend meetings & events
•Participate during meetings and planned
events
•Monitor emails on a regular basis.
•Communicate with staff liaison
•Respect all
•Follow the Guidelines and Guiding Principles
¡OJO!
•Members are expected to attend
all meetings & the joint meeting
•Staff liaisons track attendance at
each meeting
•Virtual attendance is allowed in
limited circumstances under
virtual attendance policy
Open Meeting Law
This law pertains to emailing, phone calls, social media and texting!
Purpose
•Prohibits secret meetings
•Ensures the public’s right to
be informed
•Gives the public an
opportunity to participate
Rules
•Meetings must be open to
the public and noticed in
advance
•Violations occur when a
quorum of members meet
and decide business in
private
Written Records and
Communication Methods
•How Council Gets Board/Commission Updates:
•Meeting Minutes
•Staff Report (written by Staff)
•Annual Report/Work Plan
•Joint Council, Board, and Commission meeting
•Official City Communications –City Staff and Council
•Media Requests
•T.V. Spots
•Social Media
•City Website
•Marketing and Graphics
Thank you for your service!