bza-minutes-aug-23-22
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: Chris Carlson, Nancy Nelson, Chuck Segelbaum – Planning Commissioner
Members absent: Kade Arms‐Regenold, Richard Orenstein
Staff present: Jason Zimmerman – Planning Manager, Myles Campbell – Planner
Approval of Agenda
MOTION made by Nelson, seconded by Carlson to approve the agenda of August 23, 2022, as submitted.
Motion carried
Approval of Minutes
MOTION made by Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Segelbaum to approve the July 26, 2022 meeting
minutes.
Motion carried
1. Address: 8020 Wynwood Road
Applicant: Aaron Johnson
Request: To waive the building envelope requirements from the side yard setback for a portion of the
new structure for the construction of a home addition
§ 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (e)(1)(c)(1) Principal Structure Side Setback
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, reminded the group that this item was tabled at the July BZA
meeting. Per direction of the BZA, the plans were revised and the variance request reduced.
Zimmerman summarized the request, provided background on the lot, and noted the impact area is
the upper portion of the second floor while the height requirement will still be met. Staff displayed
updated architectural plans.
Practical Difficulties
As proposed, the addition would add a master suite and a family room to the east end of the
existing home. Due to the time period in which the home was constructed, a larger, more
modern, living space is a reasonable request. The revised design of the addition attempts to
incorporate the site conditions and has minimized the area that falls outside of the building
envelope. Therefore, staff believes the proposal is reasonable in its revised form.
August 23, 2022 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
August 23, 2022 – 7 pm
2
The design of the current home, which has the garage and basement constructed at a lower
level than the main floor, was not caused by the current owner but constructed decades ago.
While there are many homes that sit on lots with a sloping grade and include a tuck‐under
garage, which creates constraints through the average height calculation, this lot also slopes
from front to back. Staff believes the compounded site conditions impacting the plans for the
desired addition create circumstances that are unique.
As proposed, the addition would not be excessively tall and would not be out of line with the
rest of the neighborhood. While a majority of the homes along Wynwood are single‐story,
there are also a handful that have second stories. In addition, the increased distance from the
side setback line and therefore from the adjacent property and home help minimize any
impacts. 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:
Lowering the height of the addition to match that of the existing roofline, possibly by
removing the row of windows near the peak, could reduce further the need for the
variance. The applicant has already adjusted the plans by reducing the width of the addition
and pushing it further form the side setback line.
Recommendations
Based on the factors above, staff recommends approval of a variance to waive the building envelope
requirements from the side yard setback for a portion of the new structure, with the following
condition:
The approved plans shall be those submitted with the variance application and any significant
deviation from these plans would require a new application with the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Staff and members discussed the condition, where the side yard setback is measured from, as well as
how the average grade factors in.
Chair Carlson invited the applicant to speak.
Greg Kunze, Applicant, stated the hardship in this request is due to how the average grade is
established. Adding the 2to1 ratio hinge point is lower than the roof and the home can’t extend to
the setback line due to these factors. The applicant added how the aesthetic of the design matches
the neighborhood. Members asked the applicant about the roof style and snow and the applicant
went into detail on the design/build to direct snow/water away.
Chair Carlson opened the open forum at 7:22pm.
Stephanie Houselog
2315 Valders Ave N
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
August 23, 2022 – 7 pm
3
I support this variance; the owners are fantastic neighbors and we’d like to keep them in the
neighborhood.
There were no remote commenters.
Chair Carlson closed the open forum at 7:24pm.
Chair Carlson opened the Board Discussion.
Nelson thanked the applicant for returning with a revised plan after meeting with the BZA in July.
Members discussed the application and reviewed staff findings. Members agreed that the request
met the necessary findings.
A MOTION was made by Nelson and seconded by Commissioner Segelbaum to approve the variance
to waive the building envelope requirements from the side yard setback for a portion of the new
structure, with the following condition:
The approved plans shall be those submitted with the variance application and any significant
deviation from these plans would require a new application with the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Motion carried.
2. Address: 6800 Kingston Circle
Applicant: Matthew Sanders
Request: A variance of 7 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 28 from the north property line and
a proposed three‐season deck
§ 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (e)(1)(a) Principal Structure Front Setback
Myles Campbell, Planner, reviewed the request, location of the lot in Golden Valley, and gave a
background on the property. Staff was sure to note for the group that according to zoning code, this
lot has three front yards. The homeowner would like an attached three season porch in what they
use as a rear yard. Staff reviewed dimensions and proximity to the road. Staff pointed out that the
request would be compliant with the front yard setback requirement except for one small section of
the property that jogs toward the home to make space for city ROW. It should be noted that if this
were a zoned rear yard, the project would be in compliance with rear yard setbacks.
Practical Difficulties
The new porch is proposed in a location that minimizes visual impact from the street and
from adjacent residential properties. It is not oversized for its use and would add to the
backyard. Staff finds this request reasonable.
The lot facing public right‐of‐way on three sides is very unique for residential properties in the
city, and adding to this the variable property line along the north side. Staff believes the site
exhibits unique circumstances.
The deck is located in a similar area to the existing patio, and would likely only be visible from
one street, Idaho Ave to the east. The new deck also leaves additional space between the
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
August 23, 2022 – 7 pm
4
west side property line to mitigate impacts on 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 patio could be located in this area without a variance, but would not be protected from
weather or elements, which is a principal desire of the resident.
The deck depth could be further reduced to minimize the setback encroachment; however, the
floorplan is already conservatively sized and this would likely mean removing either the dining
area or seating.
Recommendation
Based on the factors above, staff recommends approval of a variance of 7 feet off the required 35
feet for a new porch on the north property line, to a total distance of 28 feet.
Chair Carlson invited the applicant to speak.
Matt Sanders, applicant’s architect, stated the process seemed straightforward until they applied for
building permits and found out they had three front yards, according to zoning code. The applicant
discussed process for matching the porch to the home and making sure it aligns with the character of
the neighborhood.
Members and the applicant discussed the porch size and how the dimensions came to be. Applicant
acknowledged they didn’t decrease the porch sq footage based on the variance but looked into
altering the location/angle, however there isn’t another location off the house to locate the porch.
Chair Carlson opened the open forum at 7:44pm.
There were no in person commenters.
There were no callers.
Chair Carlson closed the open forum at 7:46pm.
Chair Carlson opened the Board Discussion.
Commissioner Segelbaum discussed the front yard setback and continuity however he added the
anomaly of the third front yard and the concrete wall separating the yard from the road. He added
he agrees with staff. Chair Carlson echoed these statements.
A MOTION was made by Segelbaum and seconded by Carlson to approve of a variance of 7 feet off
the required 35 feet for a new porch on the north property line, to a total distance of 28 feet.
Motion carried
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
August 23, 2022 – 7 pm
5
3. Address: 234 Ski Hill Road
Applicant: Aleksey Derevyanko
Request: A variance of 3 feet over maximum height of 28 feet for a total height of 31 feet for the
construction of a new home.
§ 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (e)(2) Principal Structure Height
Restrictions
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, stated the lot is empty and the variance is related to
construction of a new home. This lot was originally part of one large lot with a home on it, the home
was demolished and the lot split into three. Two of the lots have been constructed on and this is the
final lot. The proposal for this construction is to have a tuck under garage and the revised plans have
a portion of the structure extending about the maximum height allowed in the R‐1 district.
Displaying extensive plans, staff pointed out the impacted area is primarily a pitched roof portion to
the rear of the structure but that a parapet on a lower flat roof also exceeds the maximum. The
design shows two full stories built over a tuck‐under garage and the applicant reports the water table
limits the ability to sink the structure further into the site.
Staff also noted the applicant has already altered the original plan so it fit within the building
envelope, whereas it didn’t before.
Practical Difficulties
As proposed, the new home would fill a lot that has been vacant since it was created in 2015.
The property is zoned for single‐family use. In Minnesota, a pitched roof is better suited to
handle snow in contrast to a flat roof. Therefore, staff believes the proposed use is reasonable.
The applicant points to a high water‐table and the topography of the lot as unique
circumstances that create the need for the variance. While there are certain challenges
associated with the location, there are a number of alternatives designs that would meet the
City’s zoning requirements, even if they were not preferred by the new homeowners. Absent
extreme conditions, a vacant lot should be able to be utilized in a conforming fashion.
Therefore, staff believes that the current problem is caused by the preferences of the landowner.
Adjacent to two other new homes, the design of the proposed structure would fit nicely and
complement the existing character of the neighborhood. The sloped roofline is located to the
back of the home and would be fairly unobtrusive even if built to the proposed height. Staff
believes granting the variance 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:
The initial plans submitted to the City were revised once already in order to avoid violations
of the building envelope as well as to reduce the overall height of the structure. Converting
the remaining pitched roof to a flat roof would further reduce the proposed height, though
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
August 23, 2022 – 7 pm
6
it does not appear it would remove the need for a variance. A lower flat roof also exceeds
the maximum height of 28 feet by a foot or less.
Recommendation
Based on the factors above, staff recommends denial of the variance request of 3 feet over the
maximum height of 28 feet to a total height of 31 feet for the construction of a new home.
Staff and members reviewed the building envelope and height maximum and staff pointed out the
advantage of a vacant lot allows the applicant to create a design that won’t require a variance at all.
Staff and members discussed the change in grade on the lot and how that factors in to the site plan
and building envelope. They discussed the water table, topography, mature trees on the lot, and a
pitch roof vs flat roof.
Chair Carlson invited the applicant to speak.
Fernando Lino, architect, and Aleksey Derevyanko, builder, were present to represent the
client/homeowner.
The previous owner is the neighbor and his request was to maintain the trees if a home was built, the
applicants stated this was their starting point.
The homeowner discussed the views of the home from the neighbors and the street, the roof pitch
to mitigate leaves in the gutters, and the sq footage of the home.
The applicant stated that in order to meet all the standards and maintain the home size, as designed,
the home would need to be moved to the north and trees would be removed. The conversation
continued on the average grade impacting the height requirement, the water table, and the rain
garden that will be installed as part of the design. The applicant pointed out that the homeowners
spent a year designing the home to make sure it fits in with the topography
Chair Carlson opened the open forum at 8:32pm.
Staff read an emailed comment from 235 Paisley and they are in support of the variance.
There were no in person commenters.
(name not given)
324 Meander
With the pitched roof, where would the water flow? Our home is at the bottom of the hill that this
house is on, and our concern is about water running towards our house. I’m also curious about the
flat roof, are you saying more trees would be removed if there was a flat roof to prevent leaves in the
gutters?
Alex Lanning
324 Meander
I am asking the variance be denied. The tall house is fine but as the trees come down, it will be
exposed and we will lose the green space.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
August 23, 2022 – 7 pm
7
Chair Carlson closed the open forum at 8:41pm.
Staff responded to the water questions, using a topography map, and t water may flow towards the
neighboring lot, stay at the rear of the lot, and the water will then go to the rain garden. The
applicant echoed this and added that the lot is heavily wooded plus the design was created to
maintain as much tree coverage as possible.
Commissioner Segelbaum asked about neutral impact of the neighbors. Staff responded that
stormwater management stated runoff already occurs due to current topography, the direction of
water isn’t changing. Gutters and downspouts will alter the water direction and is an option.
Nelson noted that the architect already altered the design to fit the building envelope however the
ordinance is there to avoid 2 story houses over a garage. Carlson noted how dramatic the hill is
already and the home will dominate the area. The home could be moved, not need a variance, but
the trees ill be lost. Commissioner Segelbaum noted that the determination for this variance seems
to be related to a policy issue. Adding he’d rather let the City Council decide if this variance will be
approved since it relates to policies of house height as well as goals to maintain trees/greenspace.
The conversation continued on if tabling was the right choice but noting the architect already
reworked the design and stating the homeowner’s clear desires for the home and the land
preservation. Being that this variance is to allow a new construction to fit in to current topography
and not with an existing home, it doesn’t meet the practical difficulties requirements and the group
thinks Council should make the decision on what their policy will be.
Segelbaum noted that there isn’t a great impact to the land, preserving the trees reduces impact to
one neighbor, and the 100ft distance from the proposed home to the other neighbor could be
enough to justify the larger home and thus this variance. However, that’s a Council determination.
Everyone noted they hope Council approves it.
A MOTION was made by Segelbaum and seconded by Carlson to deny the variance request of 3 feet
over the maximum height of 28 feet to a total height of 31 feet for the construction of a new home.
Motion carried
4. Adjournment
MOTION made by Nelson, seconded by Carlson and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the
meeting at 9:02 pm.
Motion carried.
________________________________
Chris Carlson, Chair
_________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant