bza-minutes-jun-28-22
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 by Chair Chris Carlson.
Roll Call
Members present: Chris Carlson, Nancy Nelson, Richard Orenstein, Mike Ruby – Planning
Commissioner
Members absent: Kade Arms‐Regenold
Staff present: Myles Campbell – Planner, Jason Zimmerman – Planning Manager
Approval of Agenda
MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Nelson to approve the agenda of June 28, 2022, as submitted.
Motion carried
Approval of Minutes
MOTION made by Nelson, seconded by Orenstein to approve the April 27, 2021 meeting minutes.
Motion carried
1. 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)
Max Gort, Planning Intern, reviewed the request, the property, lot regulations for a corner lot, and in
ground pool regulations. Staff displayed numerous photos to illustrate the request and detailed a
pool has a requirement to have a 5ft fence around it, the homeowner would like a 5ft privacy fence
around the entire yard, and that their corner lot legally has two front yards which has a max height
requirement 4ft.
Practical Difficulties
The conflicting ordinances of § 113‐152(c)(1) and § 103‐7(d)(1) 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
June 28, 2022 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
June 28, 2022 – 7 pm
2
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.
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.
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.
Other Considerations
Staff assesses whether the request represents the smallest feasible variance or if there are other
options available:
The applicant did propose an alternative variance to §103‐7(d)(1) 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.
Recommendations
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.
Chair Carlson invited the applicant to speak.
Rebekah Bailey, Applicant, discussed their plans to get a pool started a year ago and how it would
add to the usability of the yard. Applicant added that if this height variance wasn’t approved, the
yard would be split by a fence and decrease its functionality. Members did not have questions for the
applicant.
Chair Carlson opened the open forum at 7:16pm.
There were no in person commenters.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
June 28, 2022 – 7 pm
3
There were no callers.
Chair Carlson closed the open forum at 7:18pm.
Chair Carlson opened the Board Discussion.
Commissioner Ruby asked staff to clarify the regulation statement that a pool must be enclosed by a
5‐foot fence when this will be a fence enclosing a yard with a pool. Staff noted the building code
requires a fence to enclose the area with a pool and that could be defined as the barrier of the pool
or it could be the yard a pool is in. The regulation is to address public safety.
A MOTION was made by Orenstein and seconded by Carlson to approve the request for 1 foot
added to the required 4‐foot maximum height of a front yard fence resulting in a total height of 5
feet.
Motion carried
2. Address: 1109 Tyrol Trail
Applicant: SKD Architects on behalf of Matt and Maddy Goeden
Request: 7 ft of the required 35 ft front yard setback for a triangular portion of garage addition
§ 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (e)(1)(a) Principal Structure Front
Setback
Request: 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
Request: 4.7 feet off the required 15 ft side yard setback for portion of garage addition to be in line
with existing non‐conforming wall
§ 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (e)(1)(c)(1) Principal Structure Side
Setback
Request: A variance to the side wall articulation requirement for the existing garage and addition
§ 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (e)(4) Side Wall Articulation
Max Gort, Planning Intern, reviewed the requests by the applicant and gave a background on the
property. The lot is constrained by a wooded area to the east and the lot to the south is
undeveloped. Staff reviewed the narrowness of the lot as well as the multitude of legally non‐
conforming elements due to the construction date being 1938.
Practical Difficulties
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
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
June 28, 2022 – 7 pm
4
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.
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, 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.
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.
The home was constructed in 1938 in line with the building standards of the time, and with
specific design elements that give the home the 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 onto the rest of the lot may
necessitate more significant removal of vegetation. Staff believes the site exhibits unique
circumstances that are not caused by the landowner.
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.
Other Considerations
Staff assesses whether the variance represents the smallest feasible variance or if there are other
options available:
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.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
June 28, 2022 – 7 pm
5
o Staff met with the architects from SKD and agreed that this approach was the most
viable option
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.
o 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.
Recommendation
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.
Members asked about the vacant lot to the south and staff addressed that it is zoned single family
and the long‐term plan is for a home to be there. Staff approved building plans for the lot to the
south last year and based on the design, the bulk of the home will be to the east of the second
story addition.
Chair Carlson invited the applicant to speak.
Steven Kleineman, addressed the southern property line concerns and the proposed south wall is
offset so the character is carried while being sensitive to the southern property owner.
Chair Carlson opened the open forum at 7:44pm.
There were no in person commenters.
There were no callers.
Staff noted an email from the northern neighbor and they support the variance.
Chair Carlson closed the open forum at 7:46pm.
Chair Carlson opened the Board Discussion.
Orenstein commented on the analysis of staff and they discussed the addition, that it is reasonable,
and noting the wooded areas around the house. Commissioner Ruby noted the good fortune that
staff has seen the plans for the vacant lot south of the home and thus having the knowledge that the
variance will not impact them. He added to be aware in the future of situations similar to this where
a variance may negatively impact a future build next door and notifying that owner beyond a generic
mailing.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
June 28, 2022 – 7 pm
6
A MOTION was made by Nelson and seconded by Orenstein to follow staff recommendation and
approve the 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.
Motion carried
A MOTION was made by Nelson and seconded by Carlson to follow staff recommendation and
approve the 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.
Motion carried
A MOTION was made by Nelson and seconded by Carlson to follow staff recommendation and
approve the variance waiving the building envelope requirements for a portion of the garage and
master bedroom additions, subject to consistency with the plans as submitted.
Motion carried
A MOTION was made by Nelson and seconded by Orenstein to follow staff recommendation and
approve the variance waiving the side wall articulation requirements for the north side wall.
Motion carried
3. Orientation
New member/role orientation for BZA members
Staff presented the annual Board of Zoning Appeals Orientation.
4. Adjournment
MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Carlson and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the
meeting at 8:04 pm.
Motion carried.
________________________________
Chris Carlson, Chair
_________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant