bza-agenda-may-28-2024 (full packet)
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING AGENDA
Remote Attendance/Comment Options: Meetings are conducted in a hybrid format
with in-person and remote options for attending, participating, and commenting. You
may attend virtually by watching on cable channel 16; streaming on CCXmedia.org
or Webex; or by calling 1-415-655-0001 and then entering access code 2631 794
9591 and password 1234 from phones and video systems.
1. Call to Order:
a. Land Acknowledgement
b. Roll Call
i. Nancy Nelson, Richard Orenstein, Elizabeth Parkes, and Anthony Corrado
ii. Rotating Planning Commission Representative
iii. Youth Member: Vacant
2. Consent Agenda: All matters listed under Item 2 are considered routine in nature and will be enacted by
one motion. Individual discussion of these items is not planned. A member, however, may remove any item to
discuss as an item for separate consideration under New Business.
a. Agenda Approval or Modifications
b. Approve Board Minutes from March 26, 2024
3. Public Hearings:
a. Setback Variance, 1320 Fairlawn Way (PID 3002924420095)
b. File No. 24-001: Deck Variance, 6630 Glenwood Ave (PID 3211821440046)
c. File No. 24-0007: Fence Variance, 900 Ottawa Ave North (PID# 1902924240013)
4. Council Liaison Report
5. Staff Comments
6. Board Member Updates
7. Adjourn
May 28, 2024 – 7 p.m.
Council Chamber
Hybrid Meeting
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
Tuesday, May 26, 2024 – 7 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber
7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427
1. CALL TO ORDER
AND LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: Chair Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. and
read the Land Acknowledgement.
a. Regular Members Present: Nelson, Orenstein, Parkes, Corrado, and
Commissioner Segelbaum
b. Regular Members Absent: None
c. Student Member, Status: Vacant
d. Staff Members Present: Darren Groth, Assistant Community Development Director
Kendra Lindahl, City Planning Consultant
e. Council Liaison Present: Council Member Denise La Mere-Anderson
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Orenstein motioned to approve. Parkes seconded.
Board voted 5-0 to approve, as presented.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes from 12/28/2023 continued to next meeting.
4. STAFF INTRODUCTION(S): Groth introduced himself to the Board.
5. REQUEST:
a. Applicant(s) Donald and Katherine Carmer request a variance from Section 113-149
(Shoreland Management), Subd. (e)(1) (structure setback from ordinary high water) for the
property located at 1860 Major Drive.
b. Variance request would allow a 29.3-foot setback from the ordinary high water line of
Sweeney Lake where 75 feet is required for a 14’ x 21’ deck and related stairs.
c. Lindahl presented the request to the board. She mentioned that the subject site contains
an existing legal, non-conforming structure that can be maintained. Shoreland is
regulated, and based of MNDNR, DNR had no comment. Burden of proof rests on
applicant to show all standards are met.
d. Lindahl presented the following two options to the Board.
i. Move to deny the variance for a 29-.3’ setback where 75’ is required from Sweeney
Lake based on the finding that the variance standards have not been met.
ii. Move to approve the variance for a 29-.3’ setback where 75’ is required from
Sweeney Lake, based on the finding that the variance standards have been met and
subject to the five conditions in their staff report.
e. The board asked for details regarding the five conditions that must be met to approve.
Lindahl referenced the conditions found on page 4 of the staff report.
f. The board asked for details regarding specifics of replacing foliage/vegetation. Lindahl
mentioned that no specific number or percentage is given.
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
Tuesday, May 26, 2024 – 7 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber
7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427
g. Applicant(s) called to the lectern to speak on the request. The applicant representative
expressed the lack of use in current deck and lack of ability to use land based on
topography, mentioned that the change would be consistent to neighboring houses deck
and functional, and answered questions regarding the height and impact to sightline.
h. Chair Nelson opened the Public Hearing at 7:46 p.m.
i. The board asked if all letters received by the City are included in the public comment
record. Lindahl confirmed.
j. Chair Nelson closed the Public Hearing at 7:49 p.m.
k. The board discussed concern in creating this legal non-compliant structure further
deviant to regulation. Comment of efficient use of land based on changes given the
limitations of property.
l. Segelbaum moved to approve applicant variance request as stated 45.7’ off the required
75’ to a distance of 29.3’ closest point to the ordinary water line of Sweeney Lake.
However, suggest adopting the findings in Lindahl’s Staff Report memo in favor, make
subject to five conditions in memo not including or excluding anything in bullet points.
m. Parkes seconded.
n. The board voted unanimously to approve the variance.
6. COUNCIL UPDATES:
a. Council Member La Mere-Anderson provided an update of recent City Council
discussions. She mentioned that Noah Schuchman was introduced as the Interim City
Manager, shared that Chief Green presented the 2023 Police annual report during the City
Council meeting, gave an update on the Community Service Officer program and its
expected growth, and provided further details regarding the construction of a new build
for the HOPE initiative.
7. ADJOURNMENT: Chair Nelson adjourned the meeting at 8:11 p.m.
Approved by:
Atest By: BZA Chair
Darren Groth, AICP, CPM
Community Development Asst. Director
1
Date: May 22, 2024
To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
From: Kendra Lindahl, AICP, Consulting Planner
Subject: Setback Variance, 1320 Fairlawn Way (PID 3002924420095)
SUMMARY
Mitchel Nelson, the property owner, is seeking an after-the-fact variance from the City Code for
an accessory structure in a front yard setback on their property. The 152.25 sq. ft. (10.5 feet by
14.5 feet) sauna was constructed without a permit. Former city staff reached out to the
homeowner to stop the work unless a variance was applied for and granted. The variance
would reduce the required front yard setback from 35 feet to 5.7 feet and allow the accessory
structure in the front yard closer to the lot line than the principal structure, which is not
currently allowed.
The property sits on a corner lot, meaning there are two front yards. The zoning ordinance says
that “The front lot line shall be the boundary of a lot which is along an existing or dedicated
street. In the case of a corner lot, any lot line along an existing or dedicated street shall be
considered a front lot line.” The applicant is seeking a setback variance for the front yard on
the Wayzata Boulevard street side. The property does not face Wayzata Boulevard and has no
access points onto it as it is identified as a major collector street. The side yard is fenced in and
has a heavily planted and wooded barrier along it that blocks views from Wayzata Boulevard,
which only has a sound wall on the opposite side of the street for I-394.
MEETING DATE(S)
Board of Zoning Appeals: May 28, 2024
PROJECT INFORMATION
Applicant: Mitchel Nelson
Property owner: Same
Lot size: 0.43 acres
Future land use designation: Low-Density Residential
Zoning district: Single Family Residential (R-1)
Existing use: Single Family Residence
Proposed use: N/A
2
Adjacent land use, zoning and uses: East- Single Family Detached, R-1, Single Family Residence,
West- Single Family Detached, R-1, Single Family Residence, South- Single Family Detached, R-1,
Single Family Residence, North- Right-of-Way, Wayzata Boulevard and I-394
2022 aerial photo (Hennepin County)
PLANNING ANALYSIS
The applicant applied for a variance to allow the sauna to be placed in the front yard, in front of
the house with a 5.7 foot setback where 35 feet is required. Only when reviewing the details of
the application for this staff report did staff realize that two other variances are required or
structures must be removed:
1. Fence. The property owner also constructed a fence along this street side in the
drainage and utility easement. Staff has found no record of any permits being granted
for this fence. If no variance was granted or zoning permit issued for this 6-foot fence in
the front yard, the applicant would also need to request an after-the-fact variance for
the fence.
2. Second Accessory Structure. The applicant also has another smaller shed accessory
building on their lot located within the required 35-foot setback and is 5.7 feet away
from the front yard property line along Wayzata Boulevard (in a drainage and utility
easement). Staff found no permit for this structure in city files. Furthermore, it appears
that this shed was relocated from an existing non-compliant location to another non-
compliant location. This shed must be relocated to comply with setbacks and be outside
of the drainage and utility easement. This could easily be moved to the southeast
corner of the site in compliance with the 5-foot side and rear setback.
Staff has no record of variances being approved for those two existing structures and it is
unclear why this was not identified as an issue when the violation related to the sauna was
raised. Nevertheless, those variance requests are not part of this application. Staff has reviewed
3
this issue with the City Attorney who has opined that since those variance requests were not
part of this specific variance request and were not part of the hearing notice, they must be
processed separately. The applicant must either bring them into compliance or apply for a
variance.
In reviewing this application, staff has reviewed the request against the standards in §113-27(c)
of the Code, which provides the variance standards in compliance with Minnesota State Statute
§462.357. The burden of proof is on the applicant to show that the request is in harmony with
the general purposes and intent of this chapter and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. A
variance may only be granted when the petitioner for the variance establishes that there are
practical difficulties in complying with this chapter. The term "practical difficulties," as used in
connection with the granting of a variance, means the applicant shows compliance with the
following:
1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner.
The property is located on a corner lot with two front yards, as recognized by the City
Code. One of the street sides, Wayzata Boulevard, is a major collector street, and the
home does not face it, nor does it have any access points along it. The applicant argues
that their second front yard along Wayzata Boulevard should be treated as a typical side
yard and instead use the required setback of 5 feet rather than 35 feet for the setback
of the accessory structures in a front yard.
Survey dated February 21, 2023 (Left), 2022 Aerial Golden Valley (Right)
The shed on the NW corner has moved closer to the required setback areas and into the drainage and utility easement
4
The applicant states that the structure could be built elsewhere on the lot but that it
would be more visible to neighboring properties and that the structure is already under
construction at its existing site.
The accessory structure can be located in the front yard as outlined in §113-88-(f)-1-a if
it has frost footings and is not closer than the principal structure. This section is not
applicable for this project because it is in the front yard closer to Wayzata Boulevard
than the principal structure.
The City would not allow access onto Wayzata Boulevard for this lot, and staff agrees
that this area functions more like a side yard.
Staff recommends that this proposed building and the existing building in the northwest
corner be moved out of the 10-foot drainage and utility easement on the north lot line.
This would result in a 10-foot setback from Wayzata Boulevard rather than the 5.7 feet
requested by the applicant. It does not appear that there are utilities in that easement
today, but the City preserves those easement areas for future infrastructure, and
buildings provide a more significant impediment than fences.
The Board could find that the proposal for the setback reduction, as shown on the site
plan, is a reasonable use of the property and should be allowed to encroach on the
required front yard setback. However, the applicant has not submitted a right-of-way
permit for consideration and engineering approval of the permit would be required
prior to continuing construction.
Alternatively, the Board could deny the request based on the finding that the applicant
could construct the structure elsewhere on the lot in a location that conforms to
existing setback requirements for accessory structures in the front yard and that the
variance is not needed to allow reasonable use of the property.
Staff finds that allowing a structure in the front yard is reasonable given that fact
Wayzata Boulevard is a restricted access street, however, allowing the structure in
easement is not reasonable. Therefore, staff would recommend approval of a variance
to allow a 10-foot setback.
2. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that is
not caused by the landowner.
The applicant’s property is located on a corner lot and has two front yards, as
recognized by the City Code. The applicant argues that their front yard on Wayzata
Boulevard should be considered a side yard because access would not be allowed on
that street. Wayzata Boulevard acts as a frontage road and has no visibility from the
other side of the street as it is above the highway and interstate interchange. The
applicant installed a 6-foot high fence with lots of landscaping and greenery that
prevents visibility of the front yard to Wayzata Boulevard.
5
Staff notes that many lots in this area have frontage on two streets, so the Board could
find that simply having two front yards is not hardship and the circumstances were
created by the applicant doing work without the permits.
Staff does find that there are unique circumstances on the property that were not
caused by the landowner.
3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality.
The applicant states that other properties have similar existing accessory uses in their
front yards along Wayzata Boulevard and included their addresses. Staff found that
neither of these properties has a similar variance type and is due to other
circumstances.
One variance to add an addition above the garage and not change the existing footprint
of the building that was non-conforming to the required setback on Wayzata Boulevard
was approved. This variance was approved because the house was compliant when built
to the 35-foot standard but lost its setback when part of the property was bought to
expand I-394. The addition also did not extend past the existing structure. However, this
still means there are other structures along Wayzata Boulevard that are closer than the
current required setback of 35 feet.
The applicant states that the structure is not very visible to neighbors or those on the
street due to the heavily wooded area between their property and Wayzata Boulevard
and the fence they have built already. The applicant also claims that the architecture of
the building would be modern and match the existing neighborhood well.
Staff finds that variance if granted, would not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood.
Finally, when reviewing a variance, the City must first determine whether or not there is a
practical difficulty and, if so, is the requested variance the minimum action necessary to
eliminate the practical difficulty? In this case, staff does not find that this is the minimum
action necessary to eliminate a practical difficulty. The applicant has a large backyard where the
sauna and existing shed could be located in compliance with ordinance requirements.
Alternatively, the Board could find that the front yard along Wayzata Boulevard where access is
not permitted does create a hardship. In that case, they could approve the variance for a 10-
foot front yard setback and require the accessory structure to be moved out of the drainage
and utility easement.
The Development Review Committee, which includes staff from planning, fire, building, public
works, engineering, and environmental resources, has reviewed this. Building pointed out that
if the sauna structure has power or water, the applicant would need to apply for permits for
6
both of those things and any other applicable building permits based on the use and design of
the accessory structure. No other comments have been received.
Staff notes that based on county aerial and site images provided by the applicant, a large
overstory tree was removed for the construction of the sauna structure. The Board may add the
condition that the applicant must replace the overstory tree outside of the drainage and utility
easement as part of the approval of the variance as laid out in the staff report.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATIONS
Notice was sent to all adjacent property owners as outlined in City Code §113-27-(d)-2. At the
time of this staff report, no comments were received from adjacent property owners.
RECOMMENDATION
The Board should review the applicant’s request and the three findings needed to grant a
variance. The Board has three options:
1. Move to approve variance request for a setback of 10 feet for the accessory structure
from the side front yard property line, where 35 feet is required, so that it is no longer in
the drainage and utility easement, based on the finding that the variance standards
have been met as outlined in the Staff Report, subject to the following conditions:
a. Prior to relocating the sauna and resuming construction:
i) the applicant must either 1) remove the 6-foot high fence or 2) apply for an
after-the-fact variance,
ii) the applicant must apply for a ROW permit for the fence.
iii) The applicant must either 1) move the shed in the NW corner into the rear yard
in compliance with setback requirements and out of the drainage and utility
easement or 2) apply for an after-the-face variance to have the shed in the front
yard
iv) Apply for and receive any applicable plumbing, electrical or other permits for the
accessory sauna building.
v) Plant an overstory tree somewhere on the lot outside of the drainage and utility
easement
OR
2. Move to deny the variance request for an accessory structure in the front yard closer
than the principal structure and a setback reduction from 35 feet as required to 5.7 feet,
based on the finding that the variance standards have not been met. The structure
needs to be removed or relocated to comply with setbacks. The applicant will be
required to apply for a zoning permit and associated building permits to complete the
structure after it has been moved to a proper location. The applicant will also be
subject to the following conditions:
7
a. Prior to resuming construction on the sauna after it has been relocated:
vi) the applicant must either 1) remove the 6-foot high fence or 2) apply for an
after-the-fact variance,
vii) the applicant must apply for a ROW permit for the fence.
viii) The applicant must either 1) move the shed in the NW corner into the rear yard
in compliance with setback requirements and out of the drainage and utility
easement or 2) apply for an after-the-face variance to have the shed in the front
yard
OR
3. Move to approve variance request, as requested by the applicant, for a setback of 5.7
feet for the accessory structure from the side front yard property line, where 35 feet is
required, based on the finding that the variance standards have been met as outlined in
the Staff Report, subject to the following conditions:
Staff does not recommend this option.
a. Prior to resuming construction on the sauna:
i) The applicant must apply for and receive a ROW permit for the sauna.
ii) the applicant must either 1) remove the 6-foot high fence or 2) apply for an
after-the-fact variance,
iii) the applicant must apply for a ROW permit for the fence.
iv) The applicant must either 1) move the shed in the NW corner into the rear yard
in compliance with setback requirements and out of the drainage and utility
easement or 2) apply for an after-the-face variance to have the shed in the front
yard
v) Apply for and receive any applicable plumbing, electrical or other permits for the
accessory sauna building.
vi) Plant an overstory tree somewhere on the lot outside of the drainage and utility
easement
ATTACHED EXHIBITS
1. Location Map
2. Applicant’s variance findings narrative
3. Applicant’s site photos
4. Survey
STAFF CONTACT INFORMATION
Prepared by:
Zeke Peters through Kendra Lindahl, AICP
Consulting Planner
klindahl@goldenvalleymn.gov
Reviewed by:
Darren Groth
Assistant Community Development Director
dgroth@goldenvalleymn.gov
Provide a detailed description of the variance(s) being requested:
Chapter 113 Article 1. - In General
- Lot Line, Front: The front lot line shall be the boundary of a lot which is along an existing or dedicated
street. In the case of a corner lot, any lot line along an existing or dedicated street shall be considered a
front lot line.
Requested Variance:
Treating the lot line along Wayzata Blvd FROM: Front lot line ➔ To: Side lot line.
The front of the primary residence faces Fairlawn way and no curb cuts are present along Wayzata BLVD.
Section 113-88 (f) (1)
Accessory Structures. Accessory structures in the R-1 Zoning District shall be governed by the following
requirements:
(1) Location and Setback Requirements. The following location regulations and setbacks shall be
required for accessory structures in the R-1 Zoning District:
a) Location. A detached accessory structure shall be located completely to the rear of the
principal structure, unless it is built with frost footings. In that case, an accessory
structure may be built no closer to the front setback than the principal structure.
Sturcture will be built on 12” diamater 4’ deep frost footings, with rebar
placed within the frost footings. Sits behind the principle structure and more
than 35’ from front lot line.
b) Front Setback. Accessory structures shall be located no less than 35 feet from the front
lot line
c) Side and Rear Setbacks. Accessory structures shall be located no less than five feet from
a side or rear lot line.
Current structure sits between 15’ or 10’ from Wayzata Blvd lot line as
requested by the variance.
Provide a detailed description of need for a variance from the Zoning Code, including description of
building(s), description of proposed addition(s), and description of proposed alteration(s) to property:
The Variance will allow us to build a 10x14 accessory unit, behind primary residence and 10-15’ away
from side lot line (Wayzata BLVD).
Explain the need for your variance request and how it will result in a reasonable use of the property.
Allowing the lot line along Wayzata BLVD to be treated as a side lot line will be consistent with other
properties along Wayzata BLVD, and will pose the least impact to other adjacent properties. The
location picked for the accessory unit is heavily wooded during most of the year when trees are leafed
out. See google streetview images below of tree coverage. No trees were removed as part of building
the Accessory Structure.
Wazata BLVD and Fairlawn heading West.
1320 Fairlawn straight on.
Heading North on Fairlawn
1320 Fairlawn from Wayzata
Heading East on Wayzata BLVD
The following homes with a side yard abutting Wayzata BLVD also have accessory structures that would
meet similar variance requests.
• 1423 Ottawa Ave S, Golden Valley, MN 55416
• 1300 France Ave S,Golden Valley, MN 55416
What is unique about your property and how do you feel that it necessitates a variance?
We are a corner lot off Wayzata BLVD which serves as an arterial street and frontage road for trunk
highway 394. Corner lots off busy frontage roads are unique because there are no neighbors across
Wayzata BLVD, just a sound wall.
There is not a back door to our home and the only exit to the home is on the side facing Wayzata BLVD.
All historical patios and existing accessory structures have been to the north and west of the principle
structure.
Explain how the need for a variance is based on circumstances that are not a result of a landowner
action.
The side door has been in place prior to us acquiring the property as well as the frontage road.
Explain how, if granted, the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of your
neighborhood and Golden Valley as a whole.
The Proposed variance will not disrupt the neighborhood at it is the least visible location from
neighboring properties. The structure once finished will be a modern architecture and will fit in with
existing neighborhood architecture. It further cements Wayzata BLVD as a frontage road and not a
residential street which is the intended use as designated by Golden Valley and MNDOT.
The City requests that you consider all available project options permitted by the Zoning Code before
requesting a variance. The Board of Zoning Appeals will discuss alternative options to seeking a
variance with you at the public hearing. Please describe alternate ways to do your project that do not
require variances from the Zoning Code.
The Accessory structure could be placed in other parts of the property, but those locations would be
closer to adjacent properties and more visible to other properties outdoor entertaining areas. It would
also be not as close to the primary residence current entertaining areas.
1
Date: May 28, 2024
To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
From: Kendra Lindahl, AICP, Consulting Planner
Subject: Deck Variance, 6630 Glenwood Ave, (PID 3211821440046), (City File 24-001)
SUMMARY
Chris Kuyava, the property owner, is seeking a variance
from the City Code to build a deck onto their existing
home. The proposed deck would seek a variance for
both the deck at 11.4 feet and the stairs at 8.2 feet,
where the code requires a minimum side yard setback
of 15 feet.
The Applicant is seeking a variance to allow the deck to
maintain the same setback as the existing structure at
11.4 feet and allow the stairs to go further (8.2 feet)
into the required setback. The deck is planned to be
approximately 15 feet wide and 12 feet deep. The deck
would be angled to follow the existing angled shape of
the house and garage.
MEETING DATE(S)
Board of Zoning Appeals: May 28, 2024
PROJECT INFORMATION
Applicant: Chris Kuyava
Property owner: Same
Lot size: 0.33 acres
Future land use designation: Low-Density Residential
Zoning district: R-1
Existing use: Single Family Residence
Proposed use: N/A
v
v
2
Adjacent land use, zoning and uses: East- R-1, Single Family Residence, West- R-1, Single
Family Residence, South- R-1, Single Family Residence, North- I-P, Open Space
2022 aerial photo (Hennepin County)
PLANNING ANALYSIS
In reviewing this application, staff has reviewed the request against the standards in §113-27(c)
of the Code, which provides the variance standards in compliance with Minnesota State Statute
§462.357. The burden of proof is on the applicant to show that the request is in harmony with
the general purposes and intent of this chapter and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. A
variance may only be granted when the petitioner for the variance establishes that there are
practical difficulties in complying with this chapter. T he term "practical difficulties," as used in
connection with the granting of a variance, means the applicant shows compliance with the
following:
1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner.
The applicant states that the deck would match the existing home's setbacks and that
any change to this would mean a deck that has less space for a standard table and
chairs. The applicant also points out that much of their rear yard is in a floodplain , which
limits usable areas for entertainment or children's play spaces.
3
The applicant also argues that they cannot
move the placement of the stairs due to
another door and window on the ground floor
next to the deck that would be blocked by the
stairs and the loss of usable space in the rear
yard, which is already restricted by a
floodplain. A photo submitted by the applicant
shows the proposed location behind the
garage and the existing main-level door that
would be used to access the deck.
According to a survey supplied by the
applicant, adjacent homes also have setbacks
less than 15 feet, but none are closer than
11.4 feet, the distance the applicant is
requesting for the new deck to match the
current side yard setback of their home.
The Board could find that the proposal for a deck, as shown on the site plan, is a
reasonable use of the property and should be allowed to encroach on the required
setback, further than the existing structure setback of 11.4 feet to 8.2 feet .
Alternatively, The Board could find that the applicant could construct the deck in a way
that is within the required setbacks and that the variance is not needed to allow
reasonable use of the property.
Staff does find that the variance would allow the property owner to use their property
reasonably if granted.
2. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to
the property that are not caused by the landowner.
The homes in this area are all angled to match Glenwood, meaning
smaller setbacks on some of the side yards, including the
applicant’s side yard for this deck. The original property owner
applied for a setback variance in 1962 to allow a 10-foot side yard
setback for the home. That variance was denied, and the solution
was to cut the corner on the garage off to meet the 13.5-foot
setback required at the time. However, the home now stands 11.4
feet away from the side yard property line. The applicant also
points out how much of the rear yard is in a floodplain zone. This
means there is less usable space in the rear yard, and the applicant
points out that building the deck or stairs into that would limit
the use of the overall yard versus using the side yard to access
the deck.
Photo of site for proposed deck
Floodplain map of the site
4
Staff does find that there are unique circumstances on the property that were not
caused by the landowner.
3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality .
Along Glenwood Ave, there are homes with similar non-conforming setbacks. However,
there are no homes adjacent with side yard setbacks as close as this property at 11.4
feet. These non-conforming setbacks are due to many homes being built when a 13.5-
foot setback was required rather than the current 15-foot side yard setbacks.
The home, when being built in 1962, originally requested a variance for a 10-foot
setback over the then-required 13.5-foot setback and was denied. The home was
ultimately built to an 11.4-foot setback as of today. This explains the angled corner of
the garage on the property and shows why the deck would be built to match this
existing building line.
Staff finds that variance if granted, would not alter the essential character.
As noted earlier, the applicant does have the option to redesign the deck to fit into the setback
requirements without affecting access points already existing in the home. However, the
applicant argues doing so would mean an awkward shape deck due to the access points that
already exist on the home and the floodplains in the rear yard.
The Development Review Committee, which includes staff from planning, fire, building, public
works, engineering, and environmental resources, has reviewed this and has no other comments.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATIONS
Notice was sent to all adjacent property owners outlined in City Code Sec. 113-27-(d)-2. At the
time of this staff report, no comments were received from adjacent property owners.
RECOMMENDATION
The Board should review the applicant’s request and the three findings needed to grant a
variance.
Staff recommends approval of the variance request for a setback of 11.4 feet for the deck and
8.2 feet for the stairs from the side yard property line, where 15 feet is required , based on the
finding that the variance standards have been met as outlined in the Staff Report.
If the Board finds that the variance standards have not been met, they should recommend
denial based on the findings outlined in the staff report.
5
ATTACHED EXHIBITS
1. Location Map
2. Applicant’s variance findings narrative
3. Survey
4. Photo of the site provided by the applicant
5. Meeting notes from variance denial of garage setback dated October 16, 1962
STAFF CONTACT INFORMATION
Prepared by:
Zeke Peters through Kendra Lindahl, AICP
Consulting Planner
klindahl@goldenvalleymn.gov
Reviewed by:
Darren Groth
Assistant Community Development Director
dgroth@goldenvalleymn.gov
Minnesota State Statue 462.357 requires that a property exhibit “practical difficulties” in order for a variance to be considered. Practical difficulties:• result in a use that is reasonable• are based on a problem that is unique to the property• are not caused by the landowner• do not alter the essential character of the locality
To demonstrate how your request will comply with Minnesota State Statute 462.357, please respond to the following questions.
Explain the need for your variance request and how it will result in a reasonable use of the property.
What is unique about your property and how do you feel that it necessitates a variance?
Explain how the need for a variance is based on circumstances that are not a result of a landowner action.
Explain how, if granted, the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of your neighborhood and Golden Valley as a
whole.
Zoning Code Variance Page 2 of 3
continued
PID: 3211821430002Address: 6706 Glenwood Ave.Owner: Russell Kenneth Olson lllPID: 3211821440044Address: 6630 Glenwood Ave.(A Public R/W)GLENWOOD AVENUE (COUNTY ROAD NO. 40)1 Story Brick & Lap SidedHouse w/WalkoutFoundation Area = 1,796 +/- Sq. Ft.N00°31'33"W 135.98 S89°15'03"E 90.89S00°20'22"E 185.11N60°59'15"W 103.75BituminousDrivewayConcrete WalkConcreteStepsBituminousDriveway[A] Rock WallCrosses PropertyLine26.8
50.69.
9
16.47.9
16
.
521.52.
9
0.34.
4 22.90.3 26.1Concrete Porch[B] Chain Link Fenceon Property LineChain LinkFencePID: 3211821440045Address: 6620 Glenwood Ave.Owner: Nancy K PrattPID: 3211821440046Address: UnassignedOwner: City of Golden ValleyExisting Hous
e
Existing House
9" V.S.P.SewerServiceWaterServiceChain LinkFenceDrainage &Utility EasementPer PlatFound 1/2 Inch Open Iron PipeTipped West 1.3 FeetNorthwesterly of CornerFound 1/2 InchOpen Iron PipeFoundNail8" C.I.P. (Per Rec.)ConcreteH
A
M
P
S
H
I
R
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
N
O
R
T
H
(A
P
u
b
l
i
c
R
/
W
)Floodplainat 888.4Contour6.00 6.00Corner Falls in Tree.Witness Points SetOn Property Lines.DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SURVEYEDLot 1, Block 1, DAVID ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota.AbstractGENERAL SURVEY NOTES1. Bearings are based on the Hennepin County Coordinate System (1986 Adjustment).2. Elevations are based on the NGVD 29 Datum. Site Benchmark is the top nut of the fire hydrant located at thenorthwest quadrant of the intersection of Hampshire Ave N and Glenwood Ave, approximately 118 feetsoutheasterly of the southeast corner of the subject property, as shown hereon. Elevation = 905.623. We have shown the location of utilities to the best of our ability based on observed evidence together withevidence from the following sources: plans obtained from utility companies, plans provided by client, markingsby utility companies and other appropriate sources. We have used this information to develop a view of theunderground utilities for this site. However, lacking excavation, the exact location of underground featurescannot be accurately, completely and reliably depicted. Where additional or more detailed information isrequired, the client is advised that excavation may be necessary. Also, please note that seasonal conditionsmay inhibit our ability to visibly observe all the utilities located on the subject property.4. Site Address: 6630 Glenwood Avenue, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427.5. This property is contained in Zone X (area determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain) perFlood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 27053C0351F, effective date of November 4, 2016.Per an email from the City of Golden Valley dated September 20, 2023, the floodplain elevation for the IdahoWetland which lies to the north of the subject property is 888.59' (NAVD 88 Datum). To convert to NGVD 29datum subtract 0.19' for a floodplain elevation of 888.40. We have shown hereon the 888.40 contour.6. The Gross land area is 14,548 +/- square feet or 0.336 +/- acres.7. The names of the adjoining owners of the platted lands, as shown hereon, are based on information obtainedfrom the Hennepin County Interactive Property Map.8. The field work was completed on 8-8-2023.SURVEY REPORT1. This map and report was prepared without the benefit of a Commitment for Title Insurance. The propertydescription was obtained from Hennepin County Tax Records and may not be the latest description of record.We have shown hereon a utility easement per the plat of David Addition only. There may be easements orother matters of record we are unaware of and thus not shown hereon.2. Conflicts such as (but not limited to): encroachments, protrusions, access, occupation, and easements and/orservitudes:[A]. Rock retaining wall crosses the west line of subject property, as shown hereon.[B]. Chain link fence lies on the east line of subject property, as shown hereon.VICINITY MAP6630 Glenwood Avenue
Golden Valley, Hennepin County, Minnesota 55427
6630 Glenwood Avenue, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427
Jill & Christopher Kuyava
PROJECTPROJECT NO.: 23302COPYRIGHT 2023 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.cREVISION SUMMARYDATE DESCRIPTIONV1.0BOUNDARY &TOPOGRAPHICSURVEY9-20-2023 Idaho Wetland Floodplain. .. .. .. .. .N44565RORY L. SYNSTELIENLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY,PLAN, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY MEOR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LANDSURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THESTATE OF MINNESOTA.8-16-2023NCLIENT Civil Engineering Surveying Landscape Architecture 5000 Glenwood AvenueGolden Valley, MN 55422civilsitegroup.com 612-615-0060QA/QCFIELD CREWDRAWN BYREVIEWED BYUPDATED BYDP / CKDPCJ.OVERHEAD UTILITIESGASMAINSANITARY SEWERSTORM SEWERFIBER/COMM. LINEELECTRIC LINE (RECORD)WATERMAINELECTRIC LINEGASMAIN (RECORD)CHAINLINK FENCELINELinetype & Symbol Legend CONCRETE SURFACEPAVER SURFACEBITUMINOUS SURFACEGRAVEL/LANDSCAPE SURFACEWOODEN FENCELINEGUARDRAILWATERMAIN (RECORD)SANITARY SEWER (RECORD)STORM SEWER (RECORD)FIBER/COMM. LINE (RECORD)TELEPHONE LINE (RECORD)TELEPHONE LINESIGNSANITARY MANHOLESTORM MANHOLECABLE TV BOXTELEPHONE MANHOLEELECTRIC TRANSFORMERTELEPHONE BOXTRAFFIC SIGNALGAS METERELECTRICAL METERWATER MANHOLEWATER VALVEAIR CONDITIONERBOLLARDCATCH BASINELECTRIC MANHOLEGAS VALVEFLAG POLEHANDICAP SYMBOLFOUND IRON MONUMENTHYDRANTCAST IRON MONUMENTSET IRON MONUMENTFLARED END SECTIONPOWER POLEUTILITY MANHOLEGUY WIRECONIFEROUS TREEDECIDUOUS TREEROOF DRAINSEWER CLEAN OUTFIRE CONNECTIONWELLUTILITY VAULTPOST INDICATOR VALVEGAS MANHOLEHAND HOLEFIBER/COMM. MANHOLEMAIL BOXFUEL TANKELECTRICAL OUTLETSB SOIL BORINGLIGHT POLEACCESS RESTRICTION40102001020SCALE IN FEET11.4'10'14.5'7.2'8.8' elevation4'x44.7' elv10'15.4'Stairs aprox 12 ft^2 beyond envelope (<25 ft^2)6.8'8.2'5.1'4.9'
ReguL 3 ee:3rs of' •L-hs Ti.ge Couno3.1, t c ob r 1b9 1962 P g 6.
l ecnzes for B 1da'n Pez 9.c - Rober'c L. I£BUSQ, Tnce:
a ..b........
The t.Ic ng Tnsp ci;or p es rs d rQqz:st f bui.ct. po mi o Rob
lt• BS'SIIS J' ia 4 ( A i 1 7 u esU•
P FI t>y F3..n s z e eherer rra.ed o .pp o e 3ae requ s fo
bu_i..c.n.g partr L o• Ro x t L. I aus, Inc., a 7ZltQ ,disan Aver_ue 'es,
sub c 'co 'ha pxo al of e Bu3.1 i.r Inspce r, ara3 $2,Q00 7.an dsaapiag band.
Rer u t a"ox Orda nce d 3v r - 6630 Glenwo d. A enue, Wm. Graaidi:
r._... o .. _.e..
I3u.1ci5.ng 7nspec ox presera ! requos for n o c ir nce w ive.r or idn o
Grr,i.:l. at b630 alen aao i renu. P•.•. Jra L. Dx o rn, Fresident of 1 P ng
C t iDn, presen ed dhe e o 3a-L on of fi.he P7.anr.ng CommcS.ssian i:o der
srxi c rdi.n tce a7a7 e r. (s mi ut of Oc;ob ll., 3.9b2).
W. C z.di s p ese- o azast qta s.'ion ar F:..he Coun il.
P'tT D b y Tere$i ssEOrr.ed by '..r nagran c rric d Co derry he eqc st f r an
ord r n:ce rasver a 6b3{? G.e oc l ventie, upon reco.nc ti n af h Plar ning
Ca ma.ssa ora. P eUr r Sch.er al s ain d from vo ing,
Re oxa Gr.ace. S ag s F xrr.ted Uses ir2 M l ip2e Dra l. sa
J se L. F3x o.= 1-rres d x o he ianrii..ng Gort..ssaon, ga ve cho repoz t af
he 1.a.ng Co ssias ect mmc nding 'Lh er mrr cim. uses ira A.i3 tip1 I.3 re ngs
t r'.s d d r• ba x ud d a. our px ss:a Mul,p. l l ng c.rc s.
s e rau'tt. o' Qccnb .p 9d2)a
A i' b F"J.x t3ag s c rtrled. s 'oresi ca a°.•.ed a pprUVe hQ 'lareni g Ca.ss.an
r c nmcs acS vion .nd ;a r.t.e aw char ges .n he pressn P a1 ip3.a B ael n o d.ta'tzeea
icr u.ons I oti.'aca i n - ez Tavarn, 9 SQ0 6 b h. A enue Nur h:
a... a...
11 grQSerr a rcaed o a.c d -,he .bo te a.r to 2s agersdm.
e 1.11a e P n...ger prese d 3 re r f am he Pa ce DeparLn n: regaxd.g
v3n?a'.or,s of hc 2 i,xua st Su tu 3I:0.3. ba= fi,l.s a xx a.v rn a 9ltQ0 A
6 h .roer uc I ar tx.
P m Za I r z't..nd., Iacens Qf i;h BCSi7' 8`t7B'riy app ed to wer cxues ons
for he Coun il«
P J D b S herer s conded by x r si car s d ta eloss he Ba ac ry avern a
9(30 6th Aver3u ior gar 'a ra calan s beginn:i.n t3 ncia.y, ober 29 h
cd xt ug Fricl€y, iaver.lb r 2xui .q62.
cq x s fc F U1..c I.i.r b !tsv3 r 20 h, P3, i 3ea°I s Iuduscr l °arl:
m
a
h Vi'].. A.n.ger g:s a c r qu for z pub.c he,r o tavemb xA 2A h
o t].. I I a:•c i,t c t.€. k,
r
Reguiar P eetir g of xh Goid n Vai 1:y Planni tg Commi ssion Oct, i 1 , 19b2
Z(NiNG (continued)
A mo on was th+r made by Pe nock, secotaded by Eed aei 1 hat the
Plartning Con rnissio€ acc:t sec ion 2 of tP e cor mittee report and
recor nend to h Council t at he Va11ey Viilage Mui iple Dwellir g
site be ezoned fran C anerciat to Multiple t?set i ing Zoning,
iytotioa unan mously car ri de
ORDINANCE YiAIVERS
3 GLE t 00D AVElVUE - Sideyard CFearnanc: Wme Grazidi
Ordinan e Coe mit Ch rma Bro,-schwig gave the oliowing report :
pplzcat on is for waiver of Sec, 3, 11 yard equirementso
Appiic s °ques ing a 3 foat a ver ram a 13 fta side
y rd to a 10 Yo id yarde The at is iQ r,06 ft, at the
stree ne. This is due to tihe ar gl o th streete The
idth of th i rt a righ angtes to t6 e s$de lines is onty
0,89 feet.
App ica t prop ses a buitding 69 feet tn v idtha The East
corner of the garage wou1d be 3z fte in t e setback, required
F y 0-di anceo
t hE he bui Idi g p a nit was i ssued, he B ai lding Inspec or
dvvs d th appiica: of the disc-epancy and the requireci
c 1 Ear ar e as r mted o zhe permi o
Th cx n-ni tte n ar o l y agre d that tha s +as a case of the
bv taia g not b ng d signed tio frit the tot and eets that rao
justif cation or a wa ver Exis s.
T3 recammend ion Q F he commit ee s for denia of this
r:qc.st.
1r, Graz d w s nr ser t ar d xpiaine a hy he w r ed he s deyarcJ
w iver. {ti i by R g a d, second si by ed e33 tha the lanni g
Cc m s ior accep ae o r mi tee repor ar d reco eo d denial of
tt7is r s a s o h G e10 1o fc un n#ncwsiy e rried,
Q E i STQR 5 - er ma d 1 e in tMuit3pBe 33 e11ing Areas
O di a'e Cc i e: h rm Bromsc wig g ae follo eing r pos ta
The c ni tee c isc s d his proposai at eng h and cQ-
d i f ic i€g:
ia lr staitai c f a,em nt :e grcac-y sto es n mu4 p1e
e8 ir g ua its ad tts ncep i ie r area, from ou
pa,°e at y a 9i r.eapoi is in b a ld rags ha ca er d, fo-
2 -
j.- ' 2 f 2' ?. y z „ _ , /
f-
1
r
EGAN , FI ELD & NOWAK
SURVEYORS
149 WEST UKE STREET E
MINNEA OUS s, MINN.
ESt s. tYl?
x,.
N
CERTIFICATE OF SIJRYEY
ku' For ENGEiETHER
94. _
t
i ;
11, i .
r_,
1
i
Ji
co' SO t¢,-, /C J e o.e ti+-" "'`
n,
a
c
3. ph A as Q;r .Q,. c.^— .. Cann-v--
e
t
i
DESCRIPTICN:
f
1 r, 1`:
loT I Bt,oC c I
I' '
DAV 1 D ADD 1 T 1 ON.
u
M r.
i Q SC)ALE: M .. 30
t
l-
4
We hereby certify thal this is a f ve and correct representation of a survey ofthebounderiesofthelandabovedescribedandofthelocationofallbuildingifany, thereon, and all visibie encroachments, if any, from or on said land.
Da ted t h i s STN day of SEPTEMBER IQ6i . EGAN, F I ELD b NOwAK
r-e Y
Fi le No 353 Book No. bY ' ' ,
x .
r.
e
n. . . F CY',,L J j'''-' _;: . , -L p,...,,
eptember 26s 1962
o :It3$;+.p3 C'i s.P".'eti','d3 c1:.d)".?`u : .`',i ffiC1 4";?:1g?'i A ';58:!:E2Tfl
i i"':; :.,'t 4 iw (fl,-s.'..i. o
2 5.oo r e
W lliam A Graz3di
7 talle Vista 27
a9C7 a.k-: 5++-1476 v,e , sam
Lpt 1 BTock 1 David Addition
s.,:s,-._,.-„.r...:,.p:...a.,.:_.-.,--u.---,n_,....
i..1c.VC,-M'.f^Ye:':-S.a^!.&-.+!r'C^M'—^[3:."!'Re^s R^x 6.a.s6.:.c'Rt'.::=.!/.ta.'i:::DW r-i0."R.'iMi'.IIFI¢c'i'":R'taCp1-l`X.-zID Ils'4..=.A+u=..es.a'l..Ae.e S.aa+¢ilC.b C GV 2[*S.:JC•R:R:.Y'.lY:
LS:.s-.S-'SY!-w[=aG'tY-'A!'iY4'L^i-4'-^.c-r.:Yn'.4.9C':Bx L'II-a-ne6T.x6^Tiaxiv..^.r:a.KfsrYa4e'_::aG6iX1v-'iqeaT"RV.4..aT.T.a a iM'ti3.•fc:T.9e-Vi`o--r..p:R'1-:.+c t'aY ct'[!LT.yp C.S"W-'u- i
Y V 7
6 T Glenwood Av
i'v.; ys tii aio.a
m.1 =...,g°..r
t?'.r ra.3.: :i.F c;
l6CAM_!!'_'Z eJR. R lis@ss-R:^,..%+
r••
y
r.-_aF7ea
t'tE3.'.' c c''',t
VC-s-.s+r_, !
fl't'.".:5'e l.:) +SgStS.F.' ;i.k3.t'`.$.L".';..
a• y g'.=':.`.
waca:e ai:.i a.+c.-+n.-s_-.<:a.x.+e+s u- ..a.,.sr.aacaar..e..z a-csirae¢r.,ca m.aecnou.-.-,
1
aex-m_c.-en:rr-avaan..-:_s;s>arr.:o_a vac.ai.v.s:.u.ca-.c.,c;::-.c:an.r--.r.x,exMrcn...r.-.va.o.-_c_.c-+=_r.mca.-r_..a ..aa-_xu-. --vso-s..,s.e=.-aac,sr_wc,n:....-.-.
K3,, .`C.i!.ea1i..C?S+ C.C'S z.17''N.'7 2 C i ''393.a`+.`y.?;t`v., c"^-zCiCy;3.'".OIr&5: "":na.`l.':Lr!5 'i.',o Iil i`*r`aJf'L.. FJ I: 3.`4.i
The north-east- corner of m garag on this 90 foot lot would extend
out 3 feet within the l3- foat ord ta,c; requ3.red f dwellings inside
the lot line To keep within t e code of 13- feet, garage will be unable
to be buil at right angle 3.n this corr e thus the garagecorrier will
be chopped off 3 fee t from west to east and five feet from north . tv sautl, I am askin that the council e.ransider approving my building
the garage on this corner ten feet from the lot line a.nd not 13- feet
as the ordinance requires;.
I '• • .
M t3(1 n t;??°9 t' 'r .<- 4n!^' ^* :(_i n. .,,' A`p . .'._.. T• P n..., ,.. .,r9,^ n 4 f';9!, :, ' -n n
Will b unable to park cars unable to have work bench the appearance
of the garage will be degrading to the value of the home and the
ralu of the property ar und, I have also spent a long time planning
this home and would like to have it builts without hav ng the corner
of the g cag. chopped off.
4.
a.,L-:,_,,,,.,,.:,. ----.,,.>..,-r,s_,
z rr:,._,,ao„,: s,=,:,
e R ea ;a.: .s.t3 sp a rirer 4s ot a.;an.n p:; t r er; e:o?se i: o€
o;;s c r ,.. a<,r.z s:n 3. 1,3..$1 i3 360 c e e s s e eas.?c f:g nspe o
si;R.3 c?c raz :a J.a a.s...r.,
fl f },'i'.I 3a'u lpl SZF'raR . 4 Ea,$A TI
r`,_,. -. nv..e mr:,e.-.e.,.:.-., ,
r
C,. ,._-..-::..-. _ _
r.: n- r:, , .
ti---., T
M ___ .;.
C`=, G°a-. ..__ G G 33 ,--6
Q
TM ... .-,.,...,..
S'R'=:_...F_¢S+'.G'r_'.!'0.'.Y.'S'T'_-_- .'lIG'dC TSR_Y.:.l1tP-4:^A _ --_- flL. Y.x v
f
LS 2'..x+aSVS"+lSi.`.7E R'iRi.x:3.;-:425.'A'l+la''nR'+IIEC4<rz¢,fl^R C'LK'64 6 YC'szfn BLCSe[i - CrtO
Qrr(
a sM=Yt'-C:zV"-.6'AR:A'.T."'=3'1:.9x-^_'C':Sq.ed!-L'O.Za};„- . ii'-l.,.16Y'PrID'OaL+C'[ttAR!:S166Gfbi'.!`s@.l.s.— -- -S aT'A ID:S.'+'Jml¢-IIT4-8c*.+':t.
LT.CY 9c'ASt'QCf cl_':T..9az.iL'^0°+ic'ez:ma3YTt[t6a4nHCSV _ "c¢.Y;-tc, uic.b
ffiRC.ECFaC T'..:'C-t1`*-'R sa 4'A'y'g ty ili,tuv lvL'-AS.'al"$!"X-eL' ^'- GV4i.S17C:^.t-"CT"_4"dS`TLC..-s.
f;?: :?.g;Y ,,v t r kj a a a ow f3y x .°° es,s
s l c in es e eme?: f
S.r;a fR s.ai r a:n F.*, As a .rs ii a r st t . t e r gop r°x s .g:ed rac^.r s
rac c .
g...y,.,,.. _
l arr l.c f€r7 ?y P1da x af C e a.saesn e:a°e}
d
0'_'fs">I y i t"?,s Y ld
i.c"'qE?; "(3x'i..PJLES$. k'^-.,is tr•;A' ?,r.?~rta :c° 4.$$:A.°
x
h R?Q7 f e q-2..?.
s a ;s-., y--,.-:.
r ??:s,ra; €;rrr is ;r c c .
r_,--_ ------.-.:.,.., ,
Cd E?
s^ - i-= E,,"°`a.n,`.ro:a t' ,.
3
P..:, R Y as.-- ,,,
ss c- -a-.sr°------^' rm+-u• s.,—z:rs ca:.a-::„ae,.xs_.a cr.-•sz-alcajl
i
f:iljt;i° c':,,
a....om,c..ca
zc i r °- .- °rt3f ie t ;rie Y in tlr.f= o af 525,00 to c a ver pab=
ti. .. --«,:,
C is utls hed.
4 / e )cJ
Y.
O ve. /Yo t f' • . . ,« .. . xon
m.
L:t i e.. v Phdm ! .S-/O
a,..t,...-_ ,.. ,...._,....._._ _.,,,.__,.s.
dF e , ; e--:,.
a C 3 a T'i /r'
6 o ., .-e. .. .' 6rt-...,-..:,.
v.w,;rt'?':t, ;.*.;. „v'?`i[
6a v r2 a.,.(ree,y , .,,, ,-
u..,'`
6 3 -J ''l ,, .,-`e (
L1 B_k.i:, a.'<.:..} 3k wf1E`2,., : , ;'Dx':r,y2tl l a?A,
r;^;1°$f'.RYR;:'
l" X 3 (c t°Id S base G ra'
0 l 4 a If fi.[.r.t.c f e. N'a'x'
0
t. k.S.ui.K:,:.3 .; !t K7GY`'C'1 XIik :lt.qiSkXi.i f1 lYd'ihal'i:, _ +r•.
xw..,n..,, i. .. , . >... . _. ., .._ itt't
t.c . /4 i, C u.u,.a. -- C'o,,y f ^*r'• y 7?d,,`. .f J
J
O °' - T'., ,e io ,,-
S- ; Ca P, 4. 5.., . v
e ..w-ee 9 d . D ¢".
o .,
w
r .,._ s . .w..... t.'- '
Fe tY,C rt:u t , a pli ati Mn a am s n. the r eitten ona nt
h :ex df I 3 i¢i3 g Iar,,, +.!h.t . 60-. di W trit Buil in
ns y ctar t..2 eny the ppli stidn,
w,. ehts s d
K .I xt+,vr
m.u.o. .. 3s ,e... - -,,. :.. '
sa. s.....e o f1.r i t Se om afs ion or Adm:. A ataate
SS YON ';
1 r '... r'V l+.ti"'1 9`rs f' 31T11 lJ[/IG t/M A/M.L.!-/ dARiL'W
s1 Y»i 7 / fl
Co-+wnu:.t V-tiG f4 o!K°X
Y'i-'-.. "--'*`'c'= t!'R' f" .,
e„. ` .-- -- ,.
n_
rn _1 6 a .,,,,.,....X.A M\AnAnnJ R/V I I
e..:i :.n ., ..+h(r,:,i.-. ./1i'':ES'.1.J6'CY:i"+i U7di.R- #.[.
r k'..,J.r ..9 (oII
1i;!3a{:,Y ,q'""'t:.
I-
A. f l$`9" .. . Qh.. 5 I 9 6 p
r....,...,. _. ...,.,M.,,<..... . .
1. (.",`,Y'li,
y. ,.r-,,.... , .
s,--z.__.
Y___
a.e,,
January 26, 1960
e, the understgned, do hereby agree to the d vts on of Lot Z0,
uditor's Subd v sion 322. Satd Iot presently measures 182 ft.
of frontage. By div ding same, each 1ot i11 contain 91 ft.
of frontage instead of the 100 ft. m nimum requ rement.
c
i- ,c' F C --"'LG
r -`
E', f
i
r 2f .
r F a %,- -
a-. C-,.
2
6 '%
1
i C%Z.
i.2,, j'J G `'rj v G/Y-iQ ; / j- (,.(J i.
C/J?'G TiZ z.
L.
6 a v '`'u- "-
J rn
a
L, C-7 f;'
1
Date: May 22, 2024
To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
From: Kendra Lindahl, AICP, Consulting City Planner
Subject: Fence Variance to allow a six-foot fence in the front yard, where the maximum
height allowed by code is four feet at 900 Ottawa Ave North (PID#
1902924240013) (City file 24-0007)
SUMMARY
Theodore and Stacy Anderson are requesting a variance to allow a six-foot fence in the front
yard. The property is adjacent to the Luce Line trail, which is a significant pedestrian route. This
trail serves as the primary route into Theodore Worth Park and experiences heightened traffic
from May to October, occasionally resulting in disturbances. The proposed six-foot fence aims
to mitigate these disturbances and enhance privacy for the property.
MEETING DATE(S)
Board of Zoning Appeals: May 28, 2024
PROJECT INFORMATION
Applicant: Theodore Allan Anderson
Property owner: Stacy and Theodore Anderson
Lot size: 0.39 acres
Future land use designation: R-1
Zoning district: R-1
Existing use: Residential
Proposed use: Residential
Adjacent land use, zoning and uses: The properties to the north and west are guided
Residential, zoned R-1 and developed with single family homes. The property to the east is
guided Parks, zoned I-4 and developed as Theodore Wirth Park. The property to the south (on
the other side of the Luce Line Trail) is guided Industrial, zoned I and developed with a Tesla
dealership.
v
v
2
2024 aerial photo (Hennepin County)
PLANNING ANALYSIS
In reviewing this application, staff has reviewed the request against the standards in §113-27(c)
of the Code, which provides the variance standards in compliance with Minnesota State Statute
§462.357. The burden of proof is on the applicant to show that the request is in harmony with
the general purposes and intent of this chapter and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. A
variance may only be granted when the petitioner for the variance establishes that there are
practical difficulties in complying with this chapter. The term "practical difficulties," as used in
connection with the granting of a variance, means the applicant shows compliance with the
following:
1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonably manner.
Section 113-152(c)-1 of the City Code limits fences in the front yard to a maximum height of four
feet. The applicant is requesting a six-foot-high fence in order to provide privacy on their property.
The applicants have provided information about trash being thrown in their yard and noise from
trail users interfering in their right to enjoy their private property. The proposed fence will
significantly contribute to the enhancement of the property's privacy, acting as a tangible barrier
against the nuisances previously experienced by the property owner s.
2. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that is
not caused by the landowner.
Due to its adjacency to the Luce Line trail, a significant thoroughfare that leads into Theodore
Wirth Park, this trail experiences consistently increased traffic volume in the Summer and this
increased traffic disrupts the privacy of the property owners. The applicants have experienced
nuisances from the trail and have indicated that they have frequently contacted police to deal
3
with public nuisance. The allowed four-foot-tall fence would not provide enough of a barrier to
eliminate these nuisance impacts. The practical difficulty is unique to this property and is the
result of being located directly adjacent to the Luce Line Trail leading into Theodore Wirth Park.
3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the character of the locality.
If approved the fence would not alter the character of the locality. The fence would provide a
barrier between the Luce Line trail and this property. There are no roads or driveways that would
have visibility impacted by the proposed fence.
However, staff notes that the fence would be located in a drainage and utility easement.
Engineering must review and approve a right-of-way permit prior to allowing installation of a
fence. The applicant has submitted a fence permit application and a right -of-way permit
application. If the variance is approved, the City could issue those permits.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATIONS
Notice was sent to all adjacent property owners as outlined in City Code Sec. 113-27-(d)-2. At
the time of this staff report, no comments were received from adjacent property owners.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the details provided in this Staff Report and the present status of the documents
associated with the request, if considering a recommendation for approval:
Conditions:
1. The applicant must receive a fence permit from the City prior to installing the fence. The
permit has been submitted and could be issued if the variance and right-of-way permit
are approved.
2. As the proposed fence would be located in a drainage and utility easement, the
applicant is required to obtain a right-of-way permit. and the applicant submitted the
permit application on May 15th.
3. The fence is proposed to be located on the property line. The applicant must locate
survey monuments and mark them on site prior to installation of the fence to ensure it
remains on the property.
ATTACHED EXHIBITS
1. Location map
2. Variance narrative
3. Survey
4. Site photos
4
STAFF CONTACT INFORMATION
Prepared by: Maryse Lemvi through Kendra
Lindahl, AICP
Consulting City Planner
klindahl@goldenvalleymn.org
Reviewed by: Darren Groth
Assistant Community Development
Director
dgroth@goldenvalleymn.gov
<, :
r��
o
,. ,. -,-:- -,·"I"
, �
J•c1
I
l --- I
, �
,_l, 7 <)
"E3 I
II
('' __,,. I C
I Ii
i I
a :�
.., I
rpr
S11rvc:y for: PETE BENNET
\ al fl()() Oll"wn i\v<·1111c North
,:; r=-- - -
I l'ROPER'IY DESCRIPTION
lot 4, Block J, WHITEACRES, accordlog to the
recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Mlnnesota.
I �
::::a.�
�
I
I I i
E':z
J_4 f,
"'Jf.'i
� EXISTING NOUSE
IJ.J L,.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' ',. I 4 II
c::JBituminous Surface
CT:aBrick Paver Surlace
PP-0 Power Pole l I ! ;l_----·,:-:;J- --::'1/ : II
�
llv�-1 I I- 0 'T •
:
,
; 1;:<'<
�: I
\, ::
I
::z I I J-;:5 - : ; ·, .-�- .··:--� .- ... .. � , �-
�-:_·'_ _ '!;, J.J.J,
":::
: : 1.-.-::_,,_d)
I
I
�I�
/ I "
Scale: l Inch • 20 feet
Area m 16,839 square feet (0.39 acre}
I hereby certify that this ls a true and correct representation of a
\ I I: -,
,:,•f-1, ,
<S-'\ �J,>1..:,-t\\ ..,,'\
II !;;
II
Dated this 15th day of November, 2013.
REHDER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
� "'
1 o�-,;-l<"�t,.., o I
.,;- --E-xisting Fence� replatin,6 in same spot;,-,''//
N89°J7.!.. 19'!W 110.59
� �-
Thomas J. Ada.t. Land Su,veyor
Minnesota License No. 43414
Rehder and Associates,
CIVIL ENGINEERS AND LANO SURVEYORS
In<
.H"O rMcrnl Ori�•o • Suite 110 • E09afl, M;nnesoto • Pnon• (651) ,i52�50!
For Official Use Only
Approved by X _ Date
This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call 763-593-8006 (TTY:
763-593-3968) to make a request. Examples of alternate formats may include large print, electronic,
Braille, audiocassette, etc.
j
\
NBJ°51 '32" £
149.75
I
Is
I
LEGEND
o Iron Monument Set
c::Jconcrete Surface
__
survey of the boundaries of the land above described.
I
f�
•