2025-02-25 - AGE - BZA Meeting February 25, 2025 — 7:00 PM
Council Chambers
Hybrid Meeting
1.Call to Order, Land Acknowledgement, and Attendance
Attendance by presence, not roll call
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.
2.A.Approval of Agenda
2.B.Meeting Minutes - September 24, 2024
2.C.Meeting Minutes - November 26, 2024
3.Public Hearings
3.A.6701 Plymouth Avenue
3.B.6601 Plymouth Avenue
4.Council Liaison Report
5.Staff and Board Member Updates
5.A.Board Recruitment
6.Adjourn
BZA REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Board of Zoning Appeals meetings are being conducted in a hybrid format with in-person and remote
options for attending, participating, and commenting. The public can make statements in person at
this meeting during the public comment sections.
Remote Attendance/Comment Options. Members of the public may attend this meeting and address
the Board remotely by:
Streaming via Microsoft Teams (meeting ID 225 267 076 862 and passcode USdEgu)
Calling 1-872-256-4160 and entering phone conference ID 801 290 16#.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting February 25, 2025 — 7:00 PM
1
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
BZA MEETING MINUTES
Tuesday, September 24, 2024 –7 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber
7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427
1.CALL TO ORDER
Chair Nelson called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. &read the Land Acknowledgement
a.Members Present:Nelson, Orenstein, Corrado, Commissioner Van Oss
b.Members Absent:Parkes
c.Student Member, Status:Vacant
d.Staff Members Present:Darren Groth, Assistant Community Development Director
Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner
e.Council Liaison Present:Councilmember Denise La Mere-Anderson
2.CONSENT AGENDA:Orenstein motioned to approve the consent agenda.
Corrado seconded. Board voted 4-0 to approve.
Chair Nelson gave an overview of the Board of Zoning Appeals process and requirements for
approval, alternatives, and consistency. She further informed all participants that the process
is staff will present the request followed by a Q and A with the board, then the applicant is
invited to speak followed by a Q and A with the board, then the public hearing is opened for
the public to comment, the public hearing is closed after public comments are received, then
the board deliberates and votes on the request. In addition, Chair Nelson informed applicants
that if their request is denied, they can appeal to City Council.
3.COMMISSIONER INTRODUCTION
a.Commissioner Van Oss was introduced to the board.
4.PUBLIC HEARINGS
a.Setback Variances, 5111 Golden Valley Road
At 7:04 p.m., Kramer started the presentation to share the details and summarize the staff
report of the request.She noted that this is an after-the-fact variance request for one accessory
structures in the front yard that were constructed without permits. The variance would reduce
the front yard setback of accessory structures along St. Croix Avenue North from 35 feet to five
feet and would allow the accessory structure to be closer to the front setback line along St.
Croix Avenue North than the principal structure. Kramer also noted that a zoning permit has
been submitted. She also noted that there were two letters in opposition received after the staff
report was completed.
At 7:13 p.m., Chair Nelson opened the floor to board member questions, the following was the
series of questions asked with the respective staff responses.
Nelson: asked if Kramer could pull up the slide with the site plan showing the locations
where accessory structures could locate per City Code. Kramer showed the image and
pointed out the alternative location for the shed.
2
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
BZA MEETING MINUTES
Tuesday, September 24, 2024 –7 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber
7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427
Corrado asked about the slope on the lot. Kramer: highlighted the image and explained that
this is a corner lot.
Corrado asked how this came to the City’s attention. Kramer stated she was not aware of
who first informed the city of the shed, but once Community Development staff were notified
they made a site visit and determined the shed was built without permits.
Kramer and the Board members discussed the locations of the old and new shed and the
letter in opposition that was recevied after the staff report was published.
At 7:30 p.m.,the Applicant, Mitchel Nelson, was invited to speak. He stated that other properties
have structures closer to Wayzata Blvd, as shown on the aerial image from Kramer’s
presentation. Nelson further stated that a shed was there when he bought the home, but he
replaced it. Chair Nelson asked if it was replaced in the same location. Nelson replied yes.
Nelson also mentioned that he reached out to his neighbors, and all were supportive of his
requested variance.
Orenstein made a motion to deny the variance request. Corrado seconded the motion, as
stated. Nelson called for a vote. The board voted 3-0-1 to approve the stated motion with
Orenstein abstaining from the vote.
b.Setback Variances, 307 Edgewood Avenue North
At 7:39 p.m., Kramer started the presentation to share the details and summarize the staff
report of the request. She noted that this is an after-the-fact variance request for a screened
porch and a deck. The variance request would reduce the side yard setback of a principal
structure from 15’ to 14’-1 ½” and reduce the side yard setback for a deck from 8’-4” to 6’-8”.
Chair Nelson opened the floor to Q&A from board members.
Nelson: you already have to move the structures out of the easement. Nelson: yes, both
structures will be moved out of the DUE.
Orenstein: if the sauna has power or water, a building permit is also required. Nelson: no
power or water proposed. Kramer: since the structure is less than 200 sq. ft., a zoning
permit is required.
Orenstein: so,there’s no electricity. Nelson: no, we ran an extension cord.
Nelson: any more questions. Corrado: it’s admirable that you reached out to your neighbors.
Orenstein made a motion to deny the variance request. Corrado seconded the motion, as
stated. Nelson called for a vote. The board voted 3-0-1 to approve the stated motion with
Orenstein abstaining from the vote.
5.COUNCIL UPDATES
At 7:49 p.m., Councilmember La Mere-Anderson provided updates on various City of Golden
Valley happenings, including:
1.Emily Goellner was hired as the new Community Development Director.
3
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
BZA MEETING MINUTES
Tuesday, September 24, 2024 –7 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber
7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427
2.The City has launched a Workplace Culture Committee to focus on improving the
workplace and build employee retention.
3.Voting is underway in the Council Chambers and will continue through Election Day
on November 4.Voting is open from 8:00am to 4:30pm, Monday through Friday. City
Hall will also be open for absentee voting on Saturday, October 26 and on Saturday
and Sunday, November 2 and November 3.
4.Ardmore Drive will be closed between Olson Memorial Highway frontage road and
Woodstock Avenue on September 25 through Friday September 26. The closure is
needed to make important sanitary and sewer line connections for residents in the
area.
5.Last week at City Council:
a.Reviewed the proposed 2025 Budget and Tax Levies to meet the State Law
requirements for certification of a Proposed Budget and Tax Levies by
September 30. The final Property Tax Levy will be adopted by the Council on
December 3. The levy increase was modest and will be invested in important city
services.
b.Unanimously approved a PUD amendment for the addition of Assisted Living
Services at the Bassett Creek Medical Center located at 5851 Duluth Street.
c.Approved by a three to two vote a Minor Subdivision at 6930 Olson Memorial
Highway.
6.Upcoming:
a.Market in the Valley ends on October 13.
b.Winter Market will begin soon and will take place at the Brookview Community
and Event Center.
c.Mighty Tidy day is scheduled for October 12.Accommodations have been made
for those who will be celebrating Yom Kippur on October 12 to be able to still take
part in the Mighty Tidy program.
7.Board Member Discussion:
a.A discussion was brought up by Vice Chair Orenstein about the allowable
absences for board members.
b.Councilmember La Mere-Anderson noted that the Council conducted board and
commission interviews. There was a lot of interest in serving on the boards and
commissions. No Board of Zoning Appeals interviews at this time. Will try to do
some outreach to get people interested in serving on the Board of Zoning
Appeals. For all boards and commissions, the Council is trying to encourage
youth representation.
6.ADJOURNMENT:Chair Nelson adjourned the meeting at 8:21 p.m.
Approved by:
A?est By:Chair
4
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
BZA MEETING MINUTES
Tuesday, September 24, 2024 –7 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber
7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427
Jacquelyn Kramer
Senior Planner
5
MEETING MINUTES
1.Call to Order and Land Acknowledgement
Chair Nelson called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. & read the Land Acknowledgement.
a. Members Present: Corrado, Nelson, Orenstein, Parkes, Commissioner Brookins
b. Student Member: Vacant
c. Staff Members Present: Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner
Steven Okey, Associate Planner
d. Council Liaison: Not Present
2.Consent Agenda
Orenstein made motion to approve, Brookins seconded. Unanimous approval.
3.Staff Introduction
Steven Okey, Associate Planner, was introduced to the board.
4.Public Hearings
a. 5509 Lindsay Street
Applicant:Vladimir Sivriver & Iryna Sivriver
Request:Request for a variance to reduce the front yard setback for new single-detached
dwelling.
Kramer presented the staff report.
Applicant spoke
o Explained previous plan revisions, how we arrived at current plans
o Suggested update to zoning code to shorten second front yard setback on
corner lots to better align with neighboring cities.
Nelson opened the public hearing. No one in person or online. Nelson closed the public
hearing.
Board discussion
o Orenstein: We granted the variance once and we should grant it again.
o Nelson: went through findings of fact, agrees with staff on their
recommendations.
o Brookins: doesn’t think this application has demonstrated practical difficulties.
Noted that the zoning on the lot hasn’t changed since the applicant bought the
property in 2020.
o Corrado asked if this variance would apply to sheds and other accessory
structures. Kramer replied no, this variance would only apply to the principal
structure.
Orenstein made motion to approve, Parkes seconds. Unanimous approval.
November 26, 2024 –7 pm
City Hall: Council Chamber
Hybrid Meeting: Teams/Phone
6
City of Golden Valley BZA Meeting Minutes
November 26, 2024 – 7 pm
2
b. 901 Xenia Avenue South
Applicant:Imaginality Designs, LLC
Request: Request for a variance from the maximum allowable square footage for permanent
signs to allow for one additional sign on the property.
Kramer presented the staff report.
Nelson: how did nearby buildings get their signage approved? Kramer replied that the
city doesn’t have clear record of how those signs came to be. Past process has been
unclear.
Corrado: would other buildings be required to reduce their signage to 50 square feet to
come into compliance with code? Kramer stated no.
Board invited applicant to speak and Corrado asked how Golden Valley sign code
compares to other cities. Applicant replied the process is tougher here. She explained
the different city code considerations her company looks for when proposing signage.
Board discussion
o Brookins excited for sign code update. He’s worked with Imaginality before and
likes their work.
o Brookins states he’s convinced by the request after hearing the signage size
maximums of other uses of similar size in the I-394 district.
Nelson opened the public hearing. No one in person or online. Nelson closed the public
hearing.
Brookins made motion to approve, Orenstein seconded. Unanimous approval.
c. 1130 Toledo Avenue North
Applicant:Gwen Mackey & Sean Mackey
Request:Request for two variances, one to reduce the rear yard setback and one to reduce the
separation requirement between structures to allow for a shed.
Kramer presented the staff report.
Corrado asked how the size of the solar panel array would be impacted if the variance
was denied. Kramer replied it depends on what alternative the applicant pursues to
come into compliance with the zoning code.
Corrado asked if the variance was denied would solar panels be allowed on the house.
Kramer replied yes; the variance neither applies nor effects the installation of solar
panels on the house.
The Board invited the applicant to speak. Sean Mackey explained the history of the
project. The pavilion was constructed with a permit, but the shed was not. The pavilion
is constructed with posts spaced nine feet apart.
Besides the location of the shed requiring a variance for the buffer between structures,
the shed is otherwise meeting all zoning code requirements.
House will provide just over half of the energy needs of the property. The pavilion and
shed have south-facing roofs which provide much more solar energy.
Mackey explained the details of the proposed solar energy system.
Corrado asked what alternatives the applicant would pursue if the variance is denied.
Mackey replied they would probably reduce the size of the shed.
7
City of Golden Valley BZA Meeting Minutes
November 26, 2024 – 7 pm
3
Brookins asked if the building inspections division had any concerns with the current
location of the structures. Kramer replied they do not have any concerns.
Brookins asked if there were any other zoning code violations on the property. Kramer
replied there are not.
Orenstein asked staff to explain economic considerations and practical difficulty. Staff
explained that economic considerations by themselves don’t constitute a practical
difficulty, but there is an exception in the code for inadequate access to direct sunlight
for solar energy systems. Orenstein stated he doesn’t believe the Board would grant
these variances if the proposals had come to the Board before the structures were
constructed.
Corrado wondered if the practical difficulty was created by the landowner building
without all required permits.
Nelson stated she is conflicted on this application.
Brookins said he is struggling with findings. He stated the structures don’t change the
essential character of the locality. He’s not concerned with other code violations and is
glad the building inspections division has no concerns.
The Board members agreed the structures are a reasonable use of the property and do
not change the essential character of the locality.
Mackey explained the applicants used Google Solar Tracking to calculate the best areas
on the site for solar energy. They found the south-facing roofs of the pavilion and shed
provided the most energy.
Parkes stated she believed the Board might have granted these variances before
construction, based on the strength of the argument of access to direct sunlight for
solar energy generation.
Corrado was concerned that while individual variances don’t set a precedent for future
requests, if the board approves these variances on the basis of solar access, other
applicants may use the same argument for after-the-fact variance requests.
Kramer led a discussion with the Board on options for tabling the application for a
future meeting
o She asked if there was additional information the applicant could provide that
would help the Board’s decision. Board members replied no.
o The Board discussed how they could approve the variances with additional
conditions. There was consensus that the Board would like the approval to be
contingent on a guarantee that the solar panels would be installed. However,
the group decided tabling the applications would not bring them any closer to a
final vote.
Board members discussed if the variance applications proved a unique circumstance not
created by the landowner. Board members debated if the south-facing roofs of the
pavilion and shed were enough to satisfy the practical difficulty requirement, rather
than only an economic consideration.
Staff explained the process of appealing a variance denial to City Council.
8
City of Golden Valley BZA Meeting Minutes
November 26, 2024 – 7 pm
4
Board members asked staff if the language in the zoning code could be updated to
provide better guidance for what kind of solar energy system meets the requirements in
Section 113-27(c)(2).
Nelson opened the public hearing. No one in person or online. Nelson closed the public
hearing.
Brookins moved to approve both variances and cited the solar energy component of the
project as the deciding factor. Parkes seconded.
Four aye votes, one nay (Nelson). Both variances approved.
5.Staff Comments
a. Joint PC/BZA training in January
b. Next board meeting January 28
6.Adjourn
Brookins made the motion, Parkes seconded. Unanimous approval. Meeting adjourned at 8:55pm
9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Community Development
763-512-2345 / 763-512-2344 (fax)
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting
February 25, 2025
Agenda Item
3.A. 6701 Plymouth Avenue
Prepared By
Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner
Summary
Matt Cooke, on behalf of Sumba Properties, LLC, seek a variance from the City Code Section 113-88(e)
(1)a to reduce the minimum front setback along Hampshire Avenue North from 35 feet to five feet.
Relevant code section:
113-88 Single Family Residential (R-1), subsection (e)(1)a: Principal Structure Setback Requirements.
The required minimum front setback shall be 35 feet from any front lot line along a street right-of-way
line. Decks and open front porches, with no screens, may be built to within 30 feet of a front lot line
along a street right-of-way line. This requirement shall not reduce the building envelope on any corner
lot to less than 27 feet in width.
If granted, the variance would allow construction of a new single-family home on a currently vacant lot
with a 40-foot wide building envelope, as shown in the applicant’s preliminary floor plan.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends the Board move to approve the variance request for a 30-foot reduction to the
front yard setback along Hampshire Drive based on the finding that the variance standards have been
met as outlined in the Staff Report with the following condition:
The applicant must provide a shared access easement over a new driveway to allow permanent
access from 6709 Plymouth Avenue to Hampshire Avenue.
Recommended motion language: “I move to approve the variance request to reduce the front yard
setback along Hampshire Avenue from 35 feet to 5 feet, subject to the findings and conditions in the
February 25, 2025, staff report.”
Supporting Documents
6701 Plymouth Avenue - Report
6701 Plymouth Avenue - Survey
6701 Plymouth Avenue - Proposed Site Plan
10
Date: February 25, 2025
To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
From: Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner
Subject:Request for Variance to Golden Valley City Code – 6701 Plymouth Avenue
Subject Property
Location:6701 Plymouth Avenue
Parcel ID Number:2911821440130
Applicant/Property Owner:Matt Cooke, on behalf of Sumba Properties, LLC
Site Size:0.16 acres, 7,147 square feet
Future Land Use:Low Density Residential
Zoning District:R-1 Single Family Residential
Existing Use:Vacant lot
Proposed Use:Single-family residence
Adjacent Properties:Single family homes
The property is a 50’x143’ vacant lot at the southwest corner of Plymouth Avenue and
Hampshire Avenue. Because the property is a corner lot, both the north and east principal
building setbacks are 35 feet. The west side setback is five feet because the property is less
than 65 feet in width, and the south rear setback is 25 feet.
The adjacent property to the west (6709 Plymouth) has access to Hampshire Avenue through a
driveway that runs across 6701 Plymouth Avenue. Both properties are owned by the applicant
Sumba Properties.
v
v
11
Site Image
Planning Analysis
In reviewing this application, staff reviewed the request against the standards in Section 113-
27(c) of the Code, which provides the variance standards in compliance with Minnesota State
Statute Section 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.
Each variance application must be reviewed based on the unique circumstance of the
application. For that reason, no variance sets a precedent because no two circumstances are
identical.However, if the city finds itself granting numerous similar variances, the City could
consider amendments to the city code.
Staff considered the following requirements in Section 113-27(c) when evaluating the variance
requests:
1.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:
6701 Plymouth Avenue
Plymouth AvenueHampshireAvenue
12
a.The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner.
The applicant proposes to build a new single-family home on the property.The
adjacent properties are single-family homes.
Staff finds that the proposed use of a single-family home is a reasonable use of
the property.
b.The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property
that is not caused by the landowner.
The property is located on a corner lot with two street-adjacent front yards, as
defined by the City Code. The applicant did not plat the property and did not
create any existing conditions. The property is only 50 feet wide, so the current
setback on Hampshire Avenue limits the building envelope width to ten feet.
Section 113-88(e)(1)a contains the provision that street setbacks may not reduce
the building envelope on any corner lot to less than 27 feet.
Staff finds that there are unique circumstances on the property that were not
caused by the landowner.Specifically, the property is a 50-foot corner lot with
two street frontages that result in a 10-foot building envelope, which is not
allowed in the R-1 district.
c.And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality.
The neighborhood is predominantly single-family homes, which is the proposed
use of the property. Two other corner properties at this intersection are much
wider and able to meet minimum front setback requirements. The property to
the north, 1309 Hampshire Avenue, is 50 feet wide. The property received a
“hardship waiver” to reduce setbacks in 1954, which allowed construction of the
existing home.
Staff finds that variance,if granted,would not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood.The use is consistent with the rest of the neighborhood, and the
variance would allow construction on a narrow corner lot in a similar manner to
what the city has allowed at this intersection in the past.
2.Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The applicant
argues the variance request is due to two front yard setbacks on a 50-foot wide lot.
Staff finds that the practical difficulties in the variance request are not solely due to
economic considerations.
3.The Board of Zoning Appeals may not grant a variance that would allow any use that is
not allowed under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land
is located. The property is located in the Single Family Residential (R-1)zoning district.
The applicant proposes building a single-family house on the property, which is a
permitted use.
13
Staff finds the variance will not permit a use not allowed in the zoning district where the
property is located.
4.Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of this chapter and when the variances are consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.Staff finds that the variance is in line with the purpose of the R-1 district, which is
“to provide for detached single-family dwelling units at a low density along with directly
related and complementary uses.”
5.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? Staff finds there are practical difficulties in
complying with the zoning code.The lot is unbuildable without a variance. Given the
findings, staff finds the minimum action necessary to eliminate the practical difficulty
would be to grant the variance.
The Development Review Committee, which includes staff from planning, fire, building, public
works, engineering, and environmental resources, has reviewed the project plans. Engineering
requests a shared access agreement be required to maintain the existing vehicular access from
6709 Plymouth Avenue to Hampshire Avenue. City staff have no other concerns or conditions.
Staff Recommendation
The Board should review the applicants’request and the findings needed to grant a variance.
Staff recommends the Board move to approve the variance request for a 30-foot reduction to
the front yard setback along Hampshire Drive based on the finding that the variance standards
have been met as outlined in the Staff Report with the following condition:
The applicant must provide a shared access easement over a new driveway to allow
permanent access from 6709 Plymouth Avenue to Hampshire Avenue.
Recommended motion language:“I move to approve the variance request to reduce the front
yard setback along Hampshire Avenue from 35 feet to 5 feet, subject to the findings and
conditions in the February 25, 2025, staff report.”
Next Steps
If the Board approves the variance request :the applicant will finalize construction plans and
apply for building permits.A shared access agreement over the new driveway will be required
before city staff issue building permits.
If the Board denies the variance request:the applicant may appeal the decision to the City
Council per the process described in Section 113-27(d)(4). If the applicant does not appeal the
Board’s decision, or if City Council upholds the Board’s decision, the applicant will need to
revise their plans to comply with the current setbacks on the property before applying for
building permits.
14
362
PLYMOUTH AVENUE NORTH
HAMPSHIRE AVENUE NORTH363
I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and
that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the
laws of the state of Minnesota.
Print Name
Signature
Date License Number
SCALE IN FEET
12730 182nd Street North | Scandia, Minnesota 55047
Phone: (651)433-0110 | Web: goersls.com
PETER GOERS
1/14/2025 44110
“”
LEGEND
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
LOT 363 BELMONT
6709 PLYMOUTH AVE N
GOLDEN VALLEY
HENNEPIN COUNTY
MINNESOTA
REVISIONS:
1-14-2025 Front setback along
Hampshire Ave N
DRAWN BY:PDG
CHECKED BY:PDG
FIELD CREW:PDG
FIELD DATE:5/19/2023
DATE ISSUED:5/26/2023
JOB NUMBER:23-017
SURVEYOR'S NOTESLEGAL DESCRIPTION
ZONING
15
16
17
18
19
20
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Community Development
763-512-2345 / 763-512-2344 (fax)
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting
February 25, 2025
Agenda Item
3.B. 6601 Plymouth Avenue
Prepared By
Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner
Summary
Paul Patton and Barbara Pierson, the homeowners at 6601 Plymouth Avenue North, request a
variance to reduce the structure setback from the ordinary high water mark for General Development
Waters (Bassett Creek) in order to expand an existing deck into a three-season porch. Relevant code
section:
Section 113-149, Shoreland Management, Subd. (e)(1) Zoning Provisions: Standards.
If approved, the variance would allow the new three-season porch to encroach four feet into the
shoreland setback.
Recommended Action
Motion to deny the variance request for a reduction of four feet to the 50-foot structure setback from
the ordinary high water for General Development Waters (Bassett Creek), based in the findings in the
February 25, 2025, staff report.
Supporting Documents
6601 Plymouth Avenue Report
6601 Plymouth Avenue Survey
6601 Plymouth Avenue Photos
6601 Plymouth Avenue Applicant Narrative
21
Date: February 25, 2025
To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
From: Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner
Subject:Request for Variance to Golden Valley City Code –6601 Plymouth Avenue
Subject Property
Location:6601 Plymouth Avenue
Parcel ID Number:2911821440103
Applicant/Property Owner:Paul Patton & Barbara Pierson
Site Size:0.3 acres, 13,117 square feet
Future Land Use:Low Density Residential
Zoning District:R-1 Single Family Residential
Existing Use:Single-family residence
Adjacent Properties:Single family homes
Site Image
v
v
6601 Plymouth Avenue6601 Plymouth Avenue
22
The property contains a single-family home constructed in 1955.It fronts onto Plymouth Ave to
the north and abuts Bassett Creek to the south. The lot drops down to the creek from the high
point near the roadway. An elevated deck sits to the rear and the one-story home, built in
1955, has a walkout onto a patio that is covered with pavers. The property was granted a
number of variances in 1999 to allow for the construction of the deck. These involved making
legal existing nonconformities with respect to the front and side setbacks, as well as a 10-foot
variance from the shoreland setback of 50 feet for the home. The deck received a variance from
the side yard setback of 5.35 feet off of the required 15 feet but did not extend into the
shoreland setback which at the time was interpreted as a distance of 50 feet from the high
water mark.
A more accurate interpretation of the shoreland overlay area, as well as modifications to the
grading of the stream bank as part of a restoration project, have resulted in an established
ordinary high water elevation of 871. A recent survey shows that measuring from this elevation
contour puts the existing deck as well as a greater portion of the home within the shoreland
setback.
The applicant applied for a variance in 2022 to reduce the shoreland setback by 13 feet in order
to construct a three-season porch (with a larger footprint than in the current application). Staff
recommended denial of the variance, and the Board ultimately voted to deny the request,
based on the findings that the circumstances in the application were not unique to the property
and were created by the landowner.
The applicant met with city staff to discuss options for the proposed three season porch in 2021
and again in June 2024.Planning and Engineering staff reviewed the request for an expansion
of the existing deck and in the end offered a limited compromise which was that support could
be offered for a three-season porch constructed as part of a conversion of the existing deck, but
that no support would be given for a horizontal expansion of the deck/ porch. Similarly, staff
preferred not to see an expansion of the paved area below the deck, and in fact encouraged the
removal of an existing paved area in the southwest portion of the lot much closer to Bassett
Creek.
Shoreland Overlay District.The City’s shoreland overlay is intended to regulate the subdivision,
use and development of the shorelands of public waters and for purposes of preserving and
enhancing the quality of surface waters,preserving the economic and natural environmental
values of shorelands, and providing for the wise utilization of waters and related land
resources. Ȟaȟá Wakpádaŋ (Bassett Creek)has been identified by the DNR as a General
Development Stream and due to that classification, there is a shoreland overlay district that
extends 50 feet from the contour determined to the ordinary high water elevation. Within this
setback,most structures are prohibited in order to preserve the quality and natural character of
these protected waters of the City. Existing structures are allowed to remain but are deemed to
be nonconforming and may not be expanded without approval through a variance.
Ultimately, staff is striving to review the proposal with an eye towards the purpose of the
shoreland area to preserve, to the extent possible, the natural look and feel of the 50 foot
23
swath adjacent to the ordinary high water elevation as well as the consideration of the
experience of those using the public water of the creek or viewing across it from the other side.
Planning Analysis
In reviewing this application, staff reviewed the request against the standards in Section 113-
27(c) of the Code, which provides the variance standards in compliance with Minnesota State
Statute Section 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.
Each variance application must be reviewed based on the unique circumstance of the
application. For that reason, no variance sets a precedent because no two circumstances are
identical.However, if the city finds itself granting numerous similar variances, the City could
consider amendments to the city code.
Staff considered the following requirements in Section 113-27(c) when evaluating the variance
requests:
1.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:
a.The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner.
The property is currently a single-family residence. The proposed three-season
porch in the rear yard is a reasonable use for this type of property.
b.The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property
that is not caused by the landowner.
Unique circumstances relate to physical characteristics of a particular site such
as lot dimensions, steep slopes, poor soils, wetlands, and trees that prevent
compliance with the required setback. These do not include physical limitations
created by the property owner or personal circumstances such as a growing
family or design preferences.
The updated interpretation of the shoreland overlay area, as well as
modifications to the grading of the stream bank as part of a restoration project,
have led to the existing deck’s location in the shoreland setback area. This
circumstance was not created by the landowner.However, the proposed three
season porch design extends horizontally beyond the existing deck’s footprint
and thus encroaches farther into the setback area. This design is based on the
landowner’s design preference rather than the physical characteristics of the
site. Although the current design encroaches the setback less than the 2022
proposal, it still increases the encroachment beyond the existing deck footprint.
24
Other properties in the shoreland overlay district must comply with the same
shoreland boundaries as the application site.
Staff finds the circumstances on the property are caused by the landowner’s
preferred design rather than intrinsic physical characteristics of the site.
Furthermore, the presence of the shoreland overlay is not a unique
characteristic of the property but is found on parcels throughout the city.
c.And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality.
Staff agrees with the applicant that a three-season porch is a common feature on
homes in Golden Valley, and this structure alone does not alter the essential
character of the locality.
However, the presence of the creek and associated shoreland overlay requires a
higher level of scrutiny. The shoreland overlay setback requirements are
designed to preserve the natural characteristics of protected waters and limit
the intrusion of structures or other uses that may detract from the experience of
using protected waters such as Ȟaȟá Wakpádaŋ (Bassett Creek). The proposed
three-season porch would have a greater visual impact than the existing open-air
deck.
Staff finds that the variance,if granted,would alter the essential character of the
locality by visually impacting the shoreland area.
2.Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The applicant
argues the variance request is due to unique physical and design conditions on the lot
that are not present on other parcels in the shoreland area.
While Staff disagrees with parts of the applicant’s argument for a variance request, staff
finds that the practical difficulties in the applicant’s request are not solely due to
economic considerations.
3.The Board of Zoning Appeals may not grant a variance that would allow any use that is
not allowed under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land
is located. The property is located in the Single Family Residential (R-1)zoning district.
The applicant proposes building a three-season porch in the rear yard, which is a
permitted use.
Staff finds the variance will not permit a use not allowed in the zoning district where the
property is located.
4.Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of this chapter and when the variances are consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.Staff finds that the variance is in line with the purpose of the R-1 district, which is
“to provide for detached single-family dwelling units at a low density along with directly
related and complementary uses.”
25
The variance request is not necessarily aligned with the purpose of the Shoreland
Overlay District which is to provide for the wise utilization of shoreland areas in order to
preserve the quality and natural character of these protected waters of the City.
5.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? City staff have discussed alternative plans with the
applicant. Staff finds the minimum action necessary to eliminate the practical difficulty
is to design a three-season porch within the existing footprint of the deck.
The Development Review Committee, which includes staff from planning, fire, building, public
works, engineering, and environmental resources, has reviewed the project plans. Engineering
staff provided additional guidance on variance applications from the DNR, which were
incorporated into the staff findings above. If the Board approves the variance application,
Engineering staff have provided some conditions of approval to minimize the impacts of the
project on the shoreland.
Staff Recommendation
The Board should review the applicants’request and the findings needed to grant a variance.
Staff recommends the Board move to deny the variance request for a four-foot reduction to the
shoreland structure setback based on the finding that the variance standards have not been
met as outlined in the Staff Report.
Recommended motion language:“I move to deny the variance request to reduce the 50-foot
structure setback from the ordinary high water for General Development Waters (Bassett
Creek), based in the findings in the February 25, 2025, staff report.”
Next Steps
If the Board approves the variance request :the applicant will finalize construction plans and
apply for building permits.Staff recommend the conditions of approval suggested by
Engineering staff be required before final CO is issued.
If the Board denies the variance request:the applicant may appeal the decision to the City
Council per the process described in Section 113-27(d)(4). If the applicant does not appeal the
Board’s decision, or if City Council upholds the Board’s decision, the applicant will need to
revise their plans to comply with the current shoreland setbacks on the property before
applying for building permits or applying for another variance.
26
27
Page 1 of 1 6601 Plymouth Ave N. – 3 Season Porch 1/2/25
Variance6601_2024_Photos
28
Page 1 of 12 6601 Plymouth Ave N. – 3 Season Porch 1/2/25
Variance6601_2024_Supplement
Variance application for a screen porch addition at
6601 Plymouth Ave N.
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Owners: Paul Patton & Barbara Pierson
612-418-4895 (Paul)
paul@dysym.com
Legal description of the property (from the survey document):
That part of Lots 367, 368, 377 and 378 lying North of
a line running from a point on the west line of Lot 378
distance 223.35 feet northerly from the southwest
corner thereof to a point on the east line of Lot 368
distance 99.79 feet southerly from the northeast
corner thereof, BELMONT, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof.
1. Overview Illustrations:
This document begins with illustrations showing:
1. The deck as it currently exists.
2. A design concept that was deemed approvable by city planning but which fails to provide good
features.
3. The previous requested variance which was reviewed by the zoning board in September 2022.
Denial was recommended by city planning and the variance was unanimously rejected by the
zoning board.
4. The design for this currently requested variance.
5. The additional area vs. the approvable concept of item 2 above.
6. A comparison of the rejected 2022 request and the current request.
This is followed by supplemental information, an illustration of the additions and changes overlayed on
an image of the survey, and a final section summarizing the features of the requested variance.
29
Page 2 of 12 6601 Plymouth Ave N. – 3 Season Porch 1/2/25
Variance6601_2024_Supplement
1.1. Existing deck:
The existing deck is shown above in relationship to the house. It is accessed via a sliding door in the
dining area at the top right. The stairs go from the deck down to the walk-out basement level.
The existing deck was built in 2000 to be compliant with the shoreland setback from Bassett Creek. A
survey in 1999 for the purpose of building the deck shows the setback at that time as it is illustrated
above. It was defined as a measurement from the Ordinary High-Water Level (OHWL) of the creek and,
as it is today, the required distance was 50 feet. The distance to the OHWL has not changed in the past
25 years.
Currently, the setback is defined as measured from the top of the bank and this new line is shown
according to a survey done in 2020.
30
Page 3 of 12 6601 Plymouth Ave N. – 3 Season Porch 1/2/25
Variance6601_2024_Supplement
1.2. An approvable design with bad features:
In documents for the denied 2022 variance and also in a recent meeting (June 26th 2024), city planners
said they could recommend approval of a 3-season porch if it is built within the outline of the existing
deck. We do want a portion of the outdoor deck to be preserved as illustrated on the left of this drawing
above. One consequence of this design is a screen porch that is a cramped space for ordinary furniture.
But more important: The primary appeal of adding this feature to our house is to extend the living space
in a gracious and attractive way, as a small room that is inviting just outside the door. If it is built strictly
within the outline of the current deck then the cross-hatched area is neither practical nor attractive: it is
either an enclosed hallway just outside the house, or it is an outdoor space where we exit the house onto
a remnant of the existing deck and then go in through another door to the screen porch such that it
functions as a semi-connected gazebo. All of the square footage that is cross hatched above becomes
“hallway” space that is non-functional except as a place to walk.
31
Page 4 of 12 6601 Plymouth Ave N. – 3 Season Porch 1/2/25
Variance6601_2024_Supplement
1.3. Rejected in 2022:
In September of 2022 a variance was requested to build a new screen porch in the rectangular space
shown above. City planners recommended that it should not be granted and the board voted
unanimously to deny the variance.
32
Page 5 of 12 6601 Plymouth Ave N. – 3 Season Porch 1/2/25
Variance6601_2024_Supplement
1.4. The new variance request:
The screen porch area requested by this variance allows the space just outside of the door to be
somewhat more attractive, kind of unique, and more functional than a hallway. It’s an odd shape but
there are some furniture arrangements that will work. It is a more difficult and expensive design than a
simple rectangle and thus, regarding both the geometry and the cost, it is a significant compromise for
the homeowners.
The vertical dashed line on the left side of the porch outline indicates that this wall might shift left by a
foot or two, reducing the open deck on the left and somewhat increasing the screen porch. The other
sides are final as proposed and they are specifically defined in the last section of this supplement.
33
Page 6 of 12 6601 Plymouth Ave N. – 3 Season Porch 1/2/25
Variance6601_2024_Supplement
1.5. Added area:
The shading shows the area that is beyond the outline of the current deck. Note that it does not increase
the amount by which the deck intrudes upon the 2020 survey’s setback line. Thus, the new screen porch
is within the outline of the current deck in spirit, if not in exact detail.
Also shown: the bottom flight of the stairway will be rebuilt to come down at an angle parallel to the
wall of the screen porch. This is necessary: leaving the stair as-is would mean ducking low and bumping
your head as you come down the lower flight.
34
Page 7 of 12 6601 Plymouth Ave N. – 3 Season Porch 1/2/25
Variance6601_2024_Supplement
1.6. Compared to the rejected 2022 variance request:
The new proposed screen porch requires a variance of 4 feet whereas the 2022 request asked for more
than 10 feet beyond the 2020 survey setback line.
35
Page 8 of 12 6601 Plymouth Ave N. – 3 Season Porch 1/2/25
Variance6601_2024_Supplement
Supplemental Information cited in the variance application form:
2. Unique Conditions
There are multiple conditions that are unique for this variance and serve to distinguish it. Thus, the granting of
this variance will not erode zoning interpretations for other applications by setting a bad precedent.
Briefly:
1. The amount of setback intrusion will not increase.
2. The proposed porch is elevated one story above the ground.
3. The ecology of the creek will be preserved and improved.
4. The appearance of/from the creek and adjacent properties is not affected.
5. The essential character and appearance of the neighborhood is compatible.
6. It is not within the 100-year flood plain.
Details about each of these points:
2.1. Amount of setback intrusion does not change.
The proposed 3 season porch does not increase the amount by which the deck or porch is over the 50-
foot setback line.
2.2. New porch is elevated.
The 3-season porch is not a ground level addition. The new porch will be elevated on posts by one story
to put it up on the main level. Thus, the only new features at ground level within the setback area are
post footings, posts, and the change in angle of the stairway.
2.3. New porch will not degrade the creek. This project also includes improvements.
Because of its placement and elevation, the new porch will not negatively affect the runoff, drainage,
nearby vegetation, or any other aspect that would alter the creek's ecology and habitat, appearance, or
environment vs. what is present now. Improvements to these will also be part of this project; thus, the
net result is positive, not negative.
• Drainage and Filtering: Currently rain is filtered by the lawn and the restored creek bank. The new
porch will not alter the amount of rain reaching this area nor change the runoff pattern.
• Ecology and Habitat: The proposed porch area does not currently contribute to the natural ecology of
the creek shore and the new porch will neither improve nor degrade the part of our property that is
directly involved in creek habitat.
• Runoff: The proposed porch will be partly above an existing patio; thus, with no change to existing
surfaces the additional hard surface/runoff area would be slightly increased. However, a
compensation will offset this impact by the removal of a hard-surface patio area that is beyond the
shadow of the porch – this is illustrated below in section 4. The variance may stipulate this hard
surface reduction as described in the final section of this document.
• Rain Garden: This variance request includes the establishment of a new rain garden or catch basin
area to the east of the porch – this is illustrated below in section 4. The rain garden is intended and
included in this variance as a compensating offset for concerns about runoff impact. The variance
may stipulate this rain garden as described in the final section of this document.
36
Page 9 of 12 6601 Plymouth Ave N. – 3 Season Porch 1/2/25
Variance6601_2024_Supplement
2.4. The view is not degraded.
In the past city planners have said that a concern we must address regarding the Shoreland Overlay
setback is the preservation of the view from the water and from adjacent property.
View from the water:
Our proposed screen porch would not have a significant impact on the view from the water and in fact
the screen porch would not have ANY effect on the view from the water except to someone who
managed to stand up in their canoe or kayak to look up and over the bank behind them as they go
downstream. In that case they might see a nice-looking porch well back from the creek. They are very
unlikely to say, “That porch is only 56 feet away from me, it surely would be better if it was 60 feet
away.”
Why “56” feet?
Today a creek has a different setback definition than a lake or pond: the top of the bank
vs. the ordinary high water level. There are ecological reasons for that, but none of these
apply to the view. The view is from the water, not the top of the bank, and the proposed
porch will be 56 feet from the water. Neither the deck nor the proposed porch intrudes at
all upon the original 50 foot setback from the Ordinary High Water Level.
Additionally, the “top of the bank” is quite arbitrary for an urban creek, for example the
grading of our neighbor’s yard puts the top of the bank only a few feet from the water’s
edge whereas the grading of our back yard puts the top of the bank about 9 feet from the
water. Our setback is 7 feet more restrictive than his. If our back yard was graded like our
neighbor’s yard we would not need this variance at all.
View for our neighbors:
If the view from the neighbor’s back yard were impacted that suggests that they might say “That porch
is only 80 feet away, it would be better if it was 84 feet.”
View is completely dominated by other factors:
Also note that the house itself extends 20 feet into the setback: the easternmost corner is about 30 feet
from the creek. This existing intrusion dates from when the house was originally built in 1955.
Moreover, the view is dominated by two more houses immediately downstream (east of our house) that
are within 20 feet of the water’s edge and about 10 feet from the top of the bank, and the second one has
a bridge to connect the house to their back yard.
A screen porch 56 feet from the water’s edge will not degrade anybody’s view.
2.5. Neighborhood character and appearance.
In the immediate neighborhood: Our existing house and the two downstream houses (described in 2.4
just above) preclude any character or appearance negatives caused by the screen porch. These three
existing intrusions all are at ground level and much closer to the creek than the elevated porch will be.
Thus, the appearance of the creekside area is entirely due to these existing ground level conditions; the
new elevated porch will not be at all noticeable as an additional intrusion.
37
Page 10 of 12 6601 Plymouth Ave N. – 3 Season Porch 1/2/25
Variance6601_2024_Supplement
For the wider neighborhood: As mentioned within the variance application, a screen porch is a very
common feature of Golden Valley homes.
2.6. No part of the porch is in the flood plain.
The creek will not surround the closest posts supporting the porch even during a 100-year flood. The
closest post of the porch will be 15 feet beyond and 2 feet above the location and elevation of a 100-year
flood as described by this reference:
BCMWC 2015 Watershed Management Plan (revised 2017)
https://www.bassettcreekwmo.org/application/files/7515/0825/5162/FINAL_REVISED_BCWMC_Section_2_August_2017_Rev3.pdf
The 100-year flood elevation is shown in "Table 2-9 BCWMC Flood Profiles" as 873 at Florida
(1/2 block east) and 874 at Hampshire (1/2 block west).
The elevation used is the higher of these: 874. This elevation line is shown on the 2020 survey of the
property and can be seen in the illustration in section 4 of this document.
3. Alternatives
The proposed porch is located as far from the creek as it can be and still provide its purpose. There is no good
alternative location; that is, moving it to the west to entirely replace the current deck does not significantly alter
the intrusion and has several drawbacks:
3.1. Replace the current deck with the new screen porch.
1) On the west end it would then impose upon the side setback,
2) A structure there would be a much greater intrusion upon sightlines from the street and from our
west neighbor's yard than the proposed design. These concerns are best served by putting the new
screen porch as proposed, nearer the center behind the house.
3) If the screen porch replaced the deck then it would be adjacent to a bedroom and bathroom. Access
would be via an outdoor or enclosed “hallway” from the main living area. A three-season porch is by
its nature an extension of the main living area and thus should be connected to that area. As
proposed, it will be outside of the living/dining area and the door can be left open to use it as part of
the house.
4) As shown by the illustrations the overall intrusion upon the modern definition of the Shoreland
Overlay setback would not be changed; that is, it still would intrude in this location too.
3.2. Make it smaller.
As proposed the porch is a triangle-shaped room and because of this the square footage is less usable
than it would be in a rectangular space. It is as small as possible while still fulfilling its purpose. Making
it even smaller would remove the possiblity of enjoying it as an area that would seat 4 people. It is
smaller than we prefer, the shape is less workable than we prefer, and the cost is more than we want to
spend. (This additional cost includes hiring an engineering firm to design the oddly-shaped support
structure that is required and also the cost of non-standard, custom-made elements.) However, with all of
this considered the design as-requested is a compromise that remains acceptable.
38
Page 11 of 12 6601 Plymouth Ave N. – 3 Season Porch 1/2/25
Variance6601_2024_Supplement
4. Changes Superimposed on the Survey
The illustration below uses the 2020 survey as the underlying layer. On top of this other features are shown.
• The New Screen Porch
• The Changed Stairway shows the bottom flight of stairs coming down from the deck altered to a
different angle vs. the current stairway.
• Patio Fill – shows a small area of the existing patio filled in because the bottom of the revised stairway
will be too close to an existing step down to the lawn.
• Patio Section Removed is compensation to help offset ecological impact of the new porch. This
removal includes at least 100 square feet of existing patio, repaired as a permeable surface such as grass
or a native/pollinator plant area. (As shown, a native/pollinator area is planned to also replace a large
amount of existing lawn.)
• The New Rain Garden addition also is compensation to improve the drainage ecology and offset the
new screen porch. It is shown below in the eastern part of the back yard, but the final landscape design
may place it elsewhere such as more centered behind the house. In any case it will be at least 80 square
feet and will be built to professional standards for this type of feature.
• At the far Eastern edge, the Pavers Removed are shown. The survey determined that pavers were too
close to the lot line. They originally were placed to manage a muddy area outside of a walk-out door on
the east side of the SE corner of the basement.
39
Page 12 of 12 6601 Plymouth Ave N. – 3 Season Porch 1/2/25
Variance6601_2024_Supplement
5. Summary
5.1. It is fair and reasonable to allow this variance.
It is both fair and reasonable to allow a property owner to add a 3-season porch to their home. At this
address there are special concerns, and a property that adjoins public waters does include responsibility
to preserve this for others. The Shoreland Overlay setback is part of that responsibility. Each of the
points above is about how this porch addition will not affect or subvert that responsibility.
This property does not comply with modern setback standards on all four sides, but that does not revoke
the owner’s expectation of a right to use their property in a way that is fair and reasonable. That is, of
course, why there is such a thing as a variance: to preserve that right when there are mitigating and
exceptional conditions. Our proposal includes choices specifically to abide by the intent and purpose of
the Shoreland Overlay setback. This plan does not – indeed it cannot – meet those setback requirements
exactly. A variance for this fair and reasonable use is appropriate and should be granted.
5.2. Therefore:
Please grant a variance that will allow the construction of a new 3 season porch with the following
stipulations:
• The building envelope of the new porch will be no larger than 22 feet east-to-west and no larger than
11 feet 6 inches north-to-south.
[The illustrations in this document all show the triangular shaped porch as 20 feet by 11 feet. The 22 foot maximum
of this request will allow the western wall to perhaps be somewhat farther into the existing deck as shown by the
dashed line and described in section 1.4. The north-south dimension is limited by the existing stairs because the top
flight will remain as it is: about an inch more than 11 feet from the house wall, thus the extra 6 inches is merely to
allow the finished design to perhaps slightly exceed 11 feet by a few inches.]
• The building envelope of the new porch will extend beyond the 50-foot Shoreland Overlay setback
line as shown by the certified survey by no more than 4 feet.
• Neither the new porch nor its stairway will increase the intrusion into the setback that is currently
present due to the existing deck.
• The porch will be elevated up to the main level of the house. The only new intrusions within the 50-
foot setback at ground level will be the porch's supporting posts and post footings (buried concrete
pillars).
• The lower flight of stairs from the existing deck will be modified to descend at a different angle
parallel to the south wall of the new porch.
• The building envelope of the new porch will not extend at all into the side setback.
• This variance may include a requirement that, as part of this project, at least 100 square feet of
existing patio paving will be removed and replaced with a permeable, planted area.
• This variance may include a requirement that, as part of this project, at least 80 square feet of
existing lawn will be converted to become a catch basin / rain garden, built according to professional
standards.
• Unrelated to the porch itself: this variance may include a requirement that pavers on the east side of
the house are removed such that the paver area is 3 feet from the lot line.
40