bza-minutes-mar-22-22
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 Richard Orenstein.
Roll Call
Members present: Chris Carlson, Nancy Nelson, Richard Orenstein, Kade Arms‐Regenold, Adam
Brookins – Planning Commissioner
Staff present: Myles Campbell – Planner, Jason Zimmerman – Planning Manager
Approval of Agenda
MOTION made by Carlson, seconded by Orenstein to approve the agenda of January 25, 2022, as
submitted.
Motion carried
Approval of Minutes
MOTION made by Arms‐Regenold, seconded by Orenstein to approve the December 28, 2021 meeting
minutes.
Motion carried
1. Address: 1875 Kyle Place
Applicant: Allison Adrian and Spencer Gerberding
Request: 9.3 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 5.9 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.
March 22, 2022 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
March 22, 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 9 feet 3 inches off
the required 15 feet to a distance of 5 foot 9 inches for a deck from a side property line.
Chair Orenstein invited the applicant to speak.
Spencer Gerberding, Applicant, stated that they have pulled the deck back to meet the shoreline
setback but want to maintain the deck size to accommodate large gatherings. The deck was built in
order to utilize the minimal shade offered by vegetation. Meeting the 15‐yard setback decreases the
size of the deck to where a table won’t fit. The grade change discussed by staff means the lower level
is a walk out on the lake side and the main level becomes a second level. Creating a patio will be six
feet below the deck due to this grade change.
Board members asked a few questions about grading, creating a patio/deck combination, and the
current deck size with the shoreline section removed. The applicant discussed the integrity of the
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
March 22, 2022 – 7 pm
3
home design and the deck’s design created to enhance that. The applicant also spoke of the support
for the deck from the office building next door and other neighbors. Members and the applicant
discussed alternatives in deck size, location, and design to accommodate regulation and still be
pleasing to the applicant.
Chair Orenstein started the open forum and stated the large volume of letters that came in from
neighbors and the commercial property next door. Staff clarified the comments were from the
previous meeting, before the item was tabled.
The other applicant and their architect called in during public comment. The architect added that the
grade is challenging to create a patio and would require 6 or 7 tiers of a patio. This would be a large
landscaping change and would alter the character of the yard.
Chair Orenstein closed the open forum at 7:28pm.
Members discussed the property, city regulation, the current design, and not knowing what
alternatives would be more acceptable. Members discussed what they would consider if the
applicant requested a variance before construction. Commissioner Brookins stated he sees other
areas on the property to accommodate a deck or other ways to create a deck in the same location.
He added that it’s not a practical difficulty that a homeowner should require 800sqft to host a party.
Brookins said the group has pushed back when a homeowner is requesting a 1.5 car garage and are
now considering a variance for a deck that’s 832sq feet and built without a permit. Brookins is
inclined to denying the variance completely. Member Carlson stated that he understands the
applicant’s desire but the size is too large for the available space. He added that the applicant should
receive the same scrutiny they give to other variances. He added he’s not comfortable with a
variance as it is.
The applicant added the deck location doesn’t impact neighbors.
Staff reminded the group that a lot of factors are at play and they should follow the BZA guiding
principles.
Chair Orenstein asked if they should vote or if the applicant would like to table.
The applicant requested to table.
Members stated the applicant should table and redesign their deck but they’re all inclined to decline
the request as it stands.
Brookins added that he can see a reasonable deck size being significantly smaller; that the deck can
reduce from 18ft wide to 14 and doesn’t need to be 43 feet deep. Brookins added that he would not
have approved the variance if the applicant came to the board prior to construction and there is
room on the west side of the home to build a conforming deck.
Members requested the applicant remove the portion of the deck facing the water and increase the
5.3 ft request off the property line to
A MOTION was made by Orenstein and seconded by Nelson to table the item to March 27th, 2022.
Aye: Arms‐Regenold, Carlson, Nelson, Orenstein
Nay: Commissioner Brookins
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
March 22, 2022 – 7 pm
4
2. Address: 428 Sunnyridge Lane
Applicant: Greenwood Design Build LLC
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, Subd. (f)(1)(a) Principal Structure Front
Setback
Myles Campbell, Planner, summarized the request for 9.5 feet off the 35‐foot requirement from the
front property line. This is a corner lot and the request is for the portion of the lot facing Woodstock.
Staff gave a review of the lot, the neighborhood, and its zoning designation. The lot is technically two
parcels but are combined into one PID and treated as a singe lot. The current home is legally non‐
conforming and the applicant originally wanted to split the lot and build two new houses. They
created alternative plans after receiving significant negative feedback from neighbors and are now
redeveloping the single‐family home.
This lot had two variance requests from 2019, one denied and one approved.
The applicant intends to combine the lots into a single 80’ parcel and is requesting a reduction in the
street side setback
‐ Reduced setback set at 25.5 ft from the north property line
‐ Buildable area with standard setbacks is 31.5 ft (80 ft – 47.5 ft)
‐ With the variance, buildable area width increases to 42’
Practical Difficulties
‐ The proposed building footprint radically improves the street setback on Woodstock compared to
the existing home (25.5’ versus 2.4’). This setback intrusion would also be facing a mostly forested
area on the South Wirth Apartment Site to the North, limiting impacts on surrounding properties.
Staff believes the proposal as shown does use the property in a reasonable manner.
‐ Being a corner lot is not typically considered a unique circumstance, even though at 80’ this is
relatively narrow. Compared to 2019, the lot is less encumbered by the 35’ street setback because of
the 40’ of additional width, and the buildable area is wide enough (32.5 ft) that it does not trigger the
exemptions in code for corner lots. Staff believes the property does not exhibit unique
circumstances.
‐ The resulting setback would similar to that of other homes in the immediate area. The decision to
develop this property as a single lot was also a result of feedback from surrounding neighborhood.
Staff believes the proposed use would not alter the essential character of the area.
Other Considerations
‐ As new build, there are options to reduce the variance request amount, although staff is not
concerned with the visual impact of the existing request
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
March 22, 2022 – 7 pm
5
Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the variance for 9.5 feet off the required 35 feet to a total distance of
25.5 feet
‐ If the board chooses to approve the variance, staff recommends this be conditioned upon the
approval of the lot consolidation at City Council.
Chair Orenstein invited the applicant to speak.
Greenwood Design, Applicant, stated he’s the owner and the developer for the property. The
applicant stated that the original plan was to develop two model homes but paused the plan as the
pandemic started. There is a client on contract to build a home on this lot as a single‐family lot. The
applicant acknowledged the only hardship is that the lot is a corner lot and that reduces the building
envelope.
The applicant is building the home and so the request for a variance is the result of the client’s design
needs for the home.
Chair Orenstein opened the open forum at 8:20pm
Staff stated no comments were received but the consolidation request did go to the Planning
Commission and there was a neighborhood meeting with 5 attendees. They were supportive of the
consolidation but no opposition to the variance today.
There were no in person comments.
There were no callers.
Chair Orenstein closed the open forum at 8:22pm.
Members discussed the request and Member Nelson stated she would approve it as it’s an
improvement on the previous request, it’s a smaller request, and is a better solution. Member
Carlson echoed this statement and added that there are many homes over the setbacks in that area.
An alternative would create the need for articulation on the other side of the building envelope.
Member Arms‐Regenold echoed the previous comments and added the importance of a condition.
A MOTION was made by Carlson and seconded by Nelson to approve the variance request of 9.5 feet
off the required 35 feet to a total distance of 25.5 feet conditional upon the approval of the lot
consolidation at City Council.
Motion passes.
3. Presentation of 2021 Board of Zoning Appeals Annual Report
Myles Campbell, Planner, presented the draft copy of the report.
In 2021, 23 variance requests were considered and 16 were in the R‐1 District.
17 Approved
3 denied
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
March 22, 2022 – 7 pm
6
2 Tabled
2 Withdrawn
Majority of requests were for garages (7), there were 2 requests each for a deck, shed, and parking,
then one for a new build.
Staff reviewed applications for the last 5 years as well as compared Board decisions.
4.Adjournment
MOTION made by Carlson, seconded by Orenstein and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the
meeting at 8:36 pm.
Motion carried.
________________________________
Richard Orenstein, Chair
_________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant