bza-minutes-oct-25-22REGULAR 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, Adam
Brookins – Planning Commissioner
Members absent:
Staff present: Myles Campbell – Planner
Approval of Agenda
MOTION made by Nelson, seconded by Orenstein to approve the agenda of October 25, 2022, as
submitted.
Motion carried
1.Address: 610 Ottawa Ave N
Applicant: Lori Bosclair
Request: To build a deck off an existing office building, 17 feet off the required 35 feet from the west
property line, and 4.5 feet off the required 20 feet from the north property line.
This item was tabled at the previous meeting. Since then, the applicant notified staff they will no longer
explore an exterior remodel but rather an interior remodel. The applicant was not present so staff
presented this information to the Board.
Myles Campbell, Planner, summarized the original request and that staff recommended denial.
Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of a variance of 17 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 18
from the west property line
Staff recommends denial of a variance of 4.5 feet off the required 20 feet to a distance of
15.5 feet from the north property line
Chair Carlson open the open forum at 7:03pm.
There were no in person comments.
There were no remote comments.
Chair Carlson closed the open forum at 7:05pm.
October 25, 2022 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
October 25, 2022 – 7 pm
2
A MOTION was made by Commissioner Brookins and seconded by Arms‐ Regenold to follow staff
recommendation and deny the variance request of 17 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of
18 from the west property line and deny the variance of 4.5 feet off the required 20 feet to a
distance of 15.5 feet from the north property line.
Motion carried.
2.Address: 1800 Independence
Applicant: Heidi and Chad Hollinbeck
Requests:
To allow a shed to be located closer to the front setback than the principal structure.
§113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(a) Accessory Structures:
Location
To allow 5 feet off of the required 5 feet to a distance of 0 feet for a shed from the side property line.
§113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(c) Accessory Structures:
Side Setback
Myles Campbell, Planner, presented the two requests made by the applicant. He displayed a map to
illustrate the home’s location in the City as well as noted the double frontage, Independence Ave and
Wheeler Blvd.
The extra ROW for Wheeler Blvd was vacated in 1981 when the plans for a longer road were
abandoned; however, this portion of the lot still has easements over pre‐existing sewer and water
mains. The applicant reached out to staff to replace an existing fence and shed and that’s when the
intricacies of the lot were brought to staff’s attention. The applicant was amenable to shifting their
fence site plan so it complies with the property lines and easement; they are now working with staff
on the shed. Engineering staff has guided the shed location out of the easement and the homeowner
would like the shed to be flush with the fence.
Practical Difficulties
As proposed, the shed would be positioned in an area that both functions as a rear yard and
which would predominately screened from view by the fence and existing trees from
Independence Ave and the neighbor to the south. It would only be visible from Wheeler Blvd,
which is a low intensity road serving a small number of homes. The intended size is not
excessive and it is a complementary use commonly found on single‐family lots. Staff believes
the proposed use is reasonable.
The double frontage is not the fault of the applicant but does severely restrict where an
accessory structure could be located due to eliminating any “rear yard”. The city utilities and
easements further reduce available land. Staff feels these are unique circumstances that are
not caused by the landowner.
The proposed location for the shed is in an area that is shielded from view from the public
right‐of‐way along Independence by a fence and existing mature trees. The new location
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
October 25, 2022 – 7 pm
3
corrects the incursion to the lot to the south and mitigates impacts on that neighbor with the
fence screening. Staff believes granting the variance would not alter the essential character.
Other Considerations
Staff assesses whether the request represents the smallest feasible variance or if there are other
options available:
Locating the shed north of the driveway creates a new front setback variance and reduces usable
greenspace for the family
Locating the shed to the side yard would require setback variances for distance between
structures
A viable option: shed could be moved slightly off the side yard property line without getting too
close to the driveway to be a collision risk.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow an accessory structure to be located closer to
the front setback than the principal structure.
Staff recommends approval for the variance of 5 feet off of the required 5 feet to a distance of 0 feet
for an accessory structure from the side property line.
Staff and board members reviewed the number of homes with double frontage roads as well the
shed’s proximity to the property line compared to the home.
Chair Carlson invited the applicant to speak.
Chad Hollinbeck, applicant, noted that his family was caught off guard to learn there were two front
yards. They purchased the home 15 years prior and had what they thought was a standard front and
rear yard as designated by the fence line in place when they bought the home. The family has a tuck
under garage and they prefer to keep the lawn mower, snow blower, and gasoline in a shed. They
would like the shed in what they perceive to be the rear yard, but the regulations for dual front yards
has made navigating a location challenging.
Chair Carlson opened the open forum at 7:22pm.
There were no in person commenters.
There were no callers.
Chair Carlson closed the open forum at 7:24pm.
Nelson stated agreement with staff that there don’t seem to be any good alternatives. Arms‐
Regenold echoed this statement and added that the request was straightforward. Chair Carlson
added the request met all the practical difficulties and added that cases like these are the reason the
BZA does its work.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
October 25, 2022 – 7 pm
4
A MOTION was made by Carlson and seconded by Nelson to approve both variances:
1.To allow a shed to be located closer to the front setback than the principal structure.
2.To allow 5 feet off of the required 5 feet to a distance of 0 feet for a shed from the side
property line.
Motion carried
Council Member Rosenquist attended the meeting and gave the Board a quick update on term
limits, budget planning, and the proposed levy.
Staff introduced Golden Valley Speaks to the group and discussed the new Home Ownership Program
for Equity.
3.Adjournment
MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Carlson and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the
meeting at 7:33 pm.
Motion carried.
________________________________
Chris Carlson, Chair
_________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant