bza-minutes-mar-28-23
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 and the land acknowledgement was read by Chair Carlson.
Roll Call
Members present: Kade Arms‐Regenold, Chris Carlson, Nancy Nelson Richard Orenstein, Sophia
Ginis – Planning Commissioner
Members absent:
Staff present: Myles Campbell – Planner
Approval of Agenda
MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Carlson to approve the agenda of March 28, 2023, as
submitted.
Motion carried.
Approval of Minutes
Nancy Nelson noted she was present at the December meeting but was marked absent.
MOTION made by Nelson, seconded by Orenstein to approve the December 27, 2022
meeting minutes pending the noted edits.
Motion carried with one abstention from Commissioner Ginis.
1. Address: 309 Edgewood
Applicant: Roger Friedell
Request: Variance of 6’8” off the required 15’ to a total distance of 8’4” from the side property line
for a raised deck.
Myles Campbell, Planner, showed members the home’s location on a map in the City. He explained
the zoning of the home, the area, and the only exception to R‐1 is Perpich School. Staff went on to
explain the grade and topography allows stormwater to run from the street towards the home. The
applicant would like to tear down the existing home, improve the site grade, and build a new home.
The applicant would like to include a walk out deck or patio to access outdoor landscaping.
Staff reviewed City Requirements, deck options vs patio options.
March 28, 2022 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
March 25, 2023 – 7 pm
2
Environmental staff had comments:
Both plans account for stormwater, but the open deck would likely improve the site’s ability to
move stormwater runoff towards the rear of the parcel and away from the adjacent property.
In either scenario, a stormwater management permit would be required along with building
permits. Both will provide the opportunity to confirm the grading, as shown, is being followed.
Practical Difficulties
The deck is reasonably scaled and is a common and expected use in residential zoning districts,
overall staff finds this request reasonable.
The lots grading has previously presented unique challenges to construction. The need to route
stormwater to the rear of the home is a circumstance not created by the landowner, and based
on discussion with other staff, the deck option makes more sense to accomplish this over a
system of retaining walls and patio. Staff believes the site exhibits unique circumstances.
Given the existence of a by‐right option of a patio and retaining walls, staff feels that the deck is
no more intrusive or disruptive, and may be less impactful on the neighbor to the south given
its less developed appearance. 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:
A deck to the rear (west) of the home could be pursued without a variance, but would not
provide access as easily to the front of the home
The patio/retaining wall option is effectively the by‐right alternative in this location
Recommendations
Staff recommends approval of a variance of 6’8” off the required 15’ to a total distance of 8’4” from
the side property line for a raised deck.
This approval is conditioned on the submittal of a suitable screening plan at time of building
permitting
Chair Carlson invited the applicant to speak.
Roger Friedell, Applicant, thanked staff for their presentation and noted the increase in large rain
events. The applicant spoke to neighbors and they support the plans, they will also stay in
communication and add screening if it seems necessary. Commissioner Ginis asked the applicant if
the deck could be more behind their home. The applicant noted a porch in the rear yard and the deck
couldn’t be placed on top of the porch. The goal was to add plantings to help in retention but will
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
March 25, 2023 – 7 pm
3
also enhance the view from the street and for the neighbors. The deck and patio area are the same
size but the retaining wall will be closer to step up to the height.
Chair Carlson opened the public hearing 7:40pm.
Staff noted a written comment that was included in the agenda.
There were no in person comments.
There were no online/remote comments.
Chair Carlson closed the hearing at 7:42pm.
Commissioner Ginis noted the proposal of the retaining wall and patio stretches the intention of the
rules. The flexibility lies in what is allowed at grade and the by right option is violating the intention of the
code and manipulating a loophole to intend for something that wasn’t allowed. However, because this is
allowed by right, the deck is preferred for water management but it impacts the neighboring property.
This seems to be a non‐necessary request because there is a lot of flexibility in how you create outside
spaces. We are shrinking a setback for a desire instead of a constraining need, specifically because this is
a new build and there are a lot of options. If this was for an existing home I’d feel differently but this is a
new build, not using the site, and encroaching. All of this leads to a greater need for a screening plan
otherwise this sets a precedent.
Nelson asked if this group notes the screening in the request. Staff confirmed grading is a requirement for
City but screening requirements would need to come from BZA. The deck proposal is less imposing than a
retaining wall and patio. Staff did a good job, neighbors support it, and I’m in favor. Chair Carlson noted
the larger dip into the setback but added the request will improve the area.
MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded Nelson by to approve of a variance of 6’8” off the required 15’
to a total distance of 8’4” from the side property line for a raised deck.
This approval is conditioned on the submittal of a suitable screening plan at time of building
permitting
Motion carried
2. Address: 5320 Dawnview Terrace
Applicant: Colleen Batty
Request: Variance of 2.5’ off the required 15’ to a total distance of 12.5’ from the side property line
for a home addition
Myles Campbell, Planner, showed members the lot’s location in the city and provided a background.
The lot’s unique shape was pointed out, it’s shaped like a piece of pie with the rear of the lot being
narrower than the front. Additionally, the home is parallel to the road but does not line up with the
side yard property line, due to the lot shape. The home owner would like to convert a portion of the
existing garage to a living space and build a new addition to allow for a family room. This project will
include the removal of an existing non‐conforming shed. The homeowner could build an addition
without a variance, however there is a large mature tree in the rear yard and that would require the
tree’s removal; the homeowner would like to avoid that.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
March 25, 2023 – 7 pm
4
Practical Difficulties
The garage and home additions are of a single story and reasonably scaled to what they are
trying to achieve, and the overall encroachment into the setback is minor. Overall staff finds
this request reasonable.
The lot’s narrowing shape and angled orientation from the roadway creates a unique
circumstance not created by the owner in regards to future additions. Additionally, a mature
maple to the rear of the home restricts the homeowner’s ability to push the home further
back into the lot without needing to remove the tree. Staff believes the site exhibits unique
circumstances.
The garage addition will be the more visible of the two proposed changes, and is being
completed by‐right, whereas the family room addition will be less visible from the street. The
existing shed to be removed is already closer to the neighbor. 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:
A smaller addition or no addition on the rear could be pursued, however this would leave less
living space available for the interior remodel
Recommendations
Staff recommends approval of a variance of 2.5’ off the required 15’ to a total distance of 12.5’ from
the side property line for a home addition.
Orenstein asked if the addition would impact the front yard setback, and staff confirmed it would
not. Nelson asked if shed removal needed to be a condition on approval, staff said its removal will be
the result of the variance.
Chair Carlson invited the applicant to speak.
The applicant noted staff presented all the information and had nothing to add but was available for
questions. Board members did not have questions for the applicant.
Chair Carlson opened the public hearing 8:02pm.
There were no in person comments.
There were no online/remote comments.
Chair Carlson closed the hearing at 8:04pm.
Arms‐Regenold noted the request is reasonable given the home’s location on the lot, lot shape, and
the small corner portion that will be in the side yard setback. Nelson added that the homes in the
area have the garages on the same property line so the potential for disturbance is decreased. She
added that she’d like to add a condition noting plans to be submitted to make sure the small area in
the setback stays that small. Orenstein and Chair Carlson echoed staff’s assessment. Commissioner
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
March 25, 2023 – 7 pm
5
Ginis noted the request is reasonable and the visual appeal without the shed will be an
improvement.
MOTION made by Nelson, seconded by Orenstein to approve a variance of 2.5’ off the required 15’ to a
total distance of 12.5’ from the side property line for a home addition per the submitted plans.
Motion carried
3. Discussion of Draft BZA Annual Report
Myles Campbell, Planner, presented the 2022 Draft Annual Report. The previous meeting was cancelled
so this report was presented to City Council prior to this presentation. Campbell noted the fence height
variance requests dropped and that may be due to a change in the ordinance along arterial roadways.
There was an increase in new build requests and there’s a noted grey area with grading and retaining
walls and staff will review that moving forward. One change for this year is that staff started tracking
variance locations and types to see if there are patterns. They will also start tracking decisions to make
sure there isn’t an area of bias.
The group and staff discussed some requests, appeals, and patterns.
4. Adjournment
MOTION made by Orenstein Carlson, seconded by Chair Carlson and the motion carried
unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:22 pm.
Motion carried.
________________________________
Chris Carlson, Chair
_________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant