bza-minutes-apr-27-22REGULAR 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 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