09 24 24 BZA Packet
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:
o Streaming via Microsoft Teams (meeting ID 225 267 076 862 and passcode USdEgu)
o Calling 1-872-256-4160 and entering phone conference ID 801 290 16#.
1. Call to Order and Land Acknowledgement
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.
a. Agenda Approval or Modifications
b. Approve Board Minutes from May 28, 2024
3. Public Hearings
a. 5111 Golden Valley Road
Applicant: Annette Walen and Colin Evenson
Request: Request for two variances to allow accessory structures a five-foot front yard setback
along St. Croix Avenue.
b. 307 Edgewood Avenue North
Applicant: Mark Gunstad
Request: Request for two variances to reduce the side yard setbacks for a porch and deck.
4. Council Liaison Report
5. Staff Comments
6. Board Member Updates
7. Adjourn
September 24, 2024 – 7 pm
City Hall: Council Chamber
Hybrid Meeting: Teams/Phone
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
BZA MEETING MINUTES
Tuesday, August 27, 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 Sicotte
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.AGENDA APPROVAL:Nelson motioned to approve the consent agenda.
Orenstein seconded. Commission voted 4-0 to approve.
3.APPROVE MINUTES:Nelson motioned to approve the minutes from May 28, 2024.
Orenstein seconded. Commission 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.
4.STAFF INTRODUCTION
a.Senior Planner Jacquelyn Kramer was introduced to the board.
5.PUBLIC HEARINGS
a.Setback Variances, 1320 Fairlawn Way (PID 3002924420095)
At 7:06 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 two accessory structures in
the front yard that were constructed without permits. The variance would reduce the required front
yard setback from 35 feet to 10 feet to allow the structures in the front yard closer to the lot line
than the principal structure and out of the 10-foot Drainage and Utility (D&U) easement (DUE) along
Wayzata Blvd.
At 7:13 p.m., Chair Nelson opened the floor to board member questions and asked if Kramer could
pull up the slide with the aerial view of the site showing the locations where accessory structures DRAFT
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
BZA MEETING MINUTES
Tuesday, August 27, 2024 – 7 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber
7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427
could locate per City Code. Kramer showed the image and circled a small area on the screen in the
southwest corner of the lot.
Chair Nelson then opened the Q&A session to others and the following was the series of questions
asked with the respective staff responses.
• Orenstein: why the structure cannot be located behind the main structure. Kramer: highlighted
the image and explained that this is a corner lot.
• Orenstein: there are corner lots all over. Kramer: yes, but this specific location along Wayzata
Blvd makes this site unique.
• Nelson: can you show a picture of which way the home faces. Kramer: pulled up image.
Orenstein: house faces Fairlawn.
• Corrado: what’s the average home size in Golden Valley. Kramer: I don’t have the exact figures.
• Sicotte: what about following the curved line of the street along Wayzata. Kramer: by definition,
house placement determines yards.
• Orenstein if home faced north, then would the buildable area increase. Kramer: yes.
• Groth shared the reason for the variance and asked to focus the Q&A on specifics for this case
and not hypotheticals. Kramer restated the request before the board.
• Nelson: lots of corner lots in the city, does this one meet the Glenwood frontage condition for
fences. Groth: yes.
• Nelson: is the fence under consideration for tonight. Kramer: no.
• Corrado: does the variance apply to all structures. Kramer: yes, but still has to meet code.
• Corrado: does this apply to future buildings. Kramer: if it meets other parameters, then yes;
however, if it does not meet other code requirements, then no.
• Nelson: can we grant a variance for a specific structure. Groth: yes, if reflected in the motion.
• Corrado: does the tennis court across Fairlawn meet code. Groth: that’s not part of the agenda.
• Sicotte: code appears to allow corner lots to have a side yard. Kramer: yes, but that
consideration in the code is not contained within the section of code for accessory structures,
only primary structures.
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.
As Nelson wrapped his comments, 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. DRAFT
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
BZA MEETING MINUTES
Tuesday, August 27, 2024 – 7 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber
7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427
• 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.
At 7:38 p.m., Chair Nelson opened the public hearing. Noone was present to speak. Orenstein
mentioned that the board received a form from the applicant and asked if staff had a copy. Kramer
stated that it will be made a part of the record. At 7:40 p.m., Chair Nelson closed the public hearing
and asked board members about their thoughts.
Corrado stated that the request seems to fit the neighborhood, the circumstances of the request
were not clear to him coming in, the presentation provided clarity, and he appreciated that the
applicant did the legwork. Orenstein stated that he had no comments. Sicotte clarified the intent of
the front and side yard setbacks and noted that since this was a unique property abutting an arterial
street, he was generally supportive. Nelson shared that she was concerned about the request
coming into the meeting but understood the request more clearly now. Nelson also asked if the
board could limit the application of any variance to specific structures. Kramer responded yes, by
making that part of the motion. Nelson asked for a motion.
Orenstein made a motion to approve the variance request as written in the staff report with the
condition to limit the variance’s application to only those two structures shown on the submitted
plans. 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.
6. COUNCIL UPDATES
At 7:49 p.m., Councilmember La Mere-Anderson provided updates on various City of Golden Valley
happenings, including:
1. Noah Schuchman was hired as the new City Manager.
2. The new Community Development Director starts next week.
3. GIS Day will be November 20.
4. The City’s Building Official and a Building Inspector were granted state delegation for
plan review and inspections of state facilities.
5. Last week at City Council:
a. Approved proclamation declaring September 7, 2024 as “Be the change day”
b. Passed the Zane and Lindsey assessment.
6. Upcoming:
a. Market in the Valley ends on October 13.
b. On September 14, 2024, the Golden Valley Historical Society is hosting the city’s
Golden Jubilee. DRAFT
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
BZA MEETING MINUTES
Tuesday, August 27, 2024 – 7 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber
7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427
c. On September 18, 2024, the League of Women Voters will host a candidate forum in
the Council Chamber at City Hall.
d. On September 10, 2024, City Council will hold a work session meeting to discuss
the budget and a proposed cannabis ordinance.
7. ADJOURNMENT: Chair Nelson adjourned the meeting at 8:03 p.m.
Approved by:
Atest By: Chair
Darren Groth, AICP, CPM
Community Development Asst. Director
DRAFT
1
Date: September 24, 2024
To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
From: Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner
Subject: Request for Variances to Golden Valley Zoning Code
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
Property owners Annette Walen and Colin Evenson are seeking variances from the City Code to
locate accessory structures in their front yard along St. Croix Ave N with a setback of five feet.
RECOMMENDED MOTION
“I move to approve the variance requests to reduce the front yard setback of accessory
structures along St. Croix Avenue North from 35 feet to five feet and to approve the
variance request to allow accessory structures to be closer to the front setback line along
St. Croix Avenue North than a principal structure, subject to the findings and conditions
in the September 24, 2024, staff report presented to the BZA.”
MEETING DATE(S)
Board of Zoning Appeals: September 24, 2024
CASE INFORMATION
Applicant/property owners: Annette Walen and Colin Evenson
Site acreage: 0.35 acres
Application: Property Variances to Location and Setback
SUBJECT PROPERTY
Location: 5111 Golden Valley Road
Parcel ID Number: 1802924320032
Future land use: Low Density Residential
Zoning district: R-1 Single Family Residential
Existing use: Single Family Residential (SFR)
Adjacent Properties: Northwest – Guided parks and natural areas, zoned I-P
Institutional (Parks and Natural Areas), Scheid Park
All other adjacent parcels are guided Low Density
Residential, zoned R-1, and developed with SFR.
v
v
2
SITE IMAGE
Figure 1: 2023 aerial photo (Hennepin County)
BACKGROUND
The property is located on the east side of the intersection of Golden Valley Road and St. Croix
Avenue North. The house was constructed in 1960 and faces Golden Valley Road. There is a
fence along the south and west perimeter of the property. The northeast portion of the
property is encumbered by floodplain. There is a drainage and utility easement along the north
property line. The rear yard slopes down toward the northeastern corner of the property.
The property is a corner lot. The City Code 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.” Because the
property is a corner lot, the yard along St. Croix is considered a front yard. §113-88(f)(1)
describes the location and setback requirements for accessory structures in the R-1 zoning
district. A detached accessory structure must 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. Additionally, accessory structures
shall be located no less than 35 feet from the front lot line.
Shed
Floodplain
3
In summer 2024 city staff became aware of a newly constructed shed in the yard adjacent to St.
Croix Avenue. The new shed replaced an existing shed that was adjacent to the south side of
the house. The new shed is five feet from the south property line and does not conform with
the setback and location requirements for accessory structures in §113-88(f)(1). The shed
complies with accessory structure height and size restrictions found in §113-88(f)(2) and (3).
A letter outlining the zoning code violation was mailed to the applicant on July 24. The applicant
then applied for after-the-fact variances to allow the new shed to remain in its current location.
PRESENT APPLICATIONS
This application includes two separate, after-the-fact, variance requests:
1. Variance 1: A 30-foot reduction of the front yard setback to allow an accessory structure
to be in the front yard along St. Croix Avenue at a setback of five feet. Relevant code
sections:
a. 113-1. Definitions. “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.”
b. 113-88(f)(1)b “Front Setback. Accessory structures shall be located no less than
35 feet from the front lot line.”
c. 113-88(f)(1)c “Side and Rear Setbacks. Accessory structures shall be located no
less than five feet from a side or rear lot line.”
2. Variance 2: A request to allow an accessory structure located in the front yard along St.
Croix Avenue to be closer to the front setback than the principal building.
a. Relevant code section: 113-88(f)(1)a “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.”
If approved, these variances would apply to all existing and future accessory structures on this
property in the yard along St. Croix Avenue, unless specified otherwise in the approving motion.
If the variance requests are denied, the applicant would be required to move or remove the
shed to comply with existing setbacks.
4
PLANNING ANALYSIS
In reviewing this application, staff reviewed the requests 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.
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 §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 located on a corner lot with two front yards, as defined by §113-1 of the
city code. The home faces Golden Valley Road and has no vehicular access to St. Croix
Avenue. The applicant argues it is reasonable to treat the yard along St. Croix Avenue as
a side yard rather than a front yard, due to the location of the house on the corner lot.
However, the city code does not allow the option to treat a front yard as side yard when
determining the allowed locations of accessory structures.
The applicant located the new shed as far away as possible from the neighboring
property to minimize potential impacts. The applicant incorrectly assumed side yard
setbacks would apply to the new shed’s location based on conversations with city
officials during a fence replacement project in 2021.
Currently the city code has different standards for determining front and side yards on a
corner lot depending on the type of structure. §113-152(c)(1)a limits fences in the front
yard of properties in residential zoning districts to four feet in height; however, §113-
152 Subd. d(2) allows a fence not exceeding six feet in height in the front yard of all
properties “adjoining the frontage road of a principal arterial, freeway, or expressway;
as designated by the City.”
5
Additionally, §113-(e)(1)d allows the shorter of two corner yards to be considered
when calculating side yard setbacks for principal structures. §113.88(f)(1) governs
setbacks for accessory structures and does not call out specific setbacks for corner lots;
therefore, only accessory structures must follow the 35-foot front yard setback for yards
adjacent to streets.
The Board could find that, on this particular property, it is reasonable to treat the yard
adjacent to St. Croix Avenue as a side yard and the requested variances propose a
reasonable use of the property. Alternatively, the Board could find that using the yard
adjacent to St. Croix Avenue as a side yard is not a reasonable use of the property and
the shed should be moved out of this front yard.
Staff finds that the applicant’s proposal 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 a corner lot with access only on Golden Valley Road. Floodplain covers
the north portion of the rear yard, and accessory structure may not be built in the
floodplain. The portion of the rear yard east of the house is sloped and makes
placement of accessory structures difficult. The applicant argues these physical
characteristics of the lot create a unique circumstance, not caused by the landowner,
that has led to practical difficulties with complying with §113-88(f)(1)a, b, and c.
The Board could find that there are unique circumstances to the property that are not
caused by the landowner. Specifically, the property is a corner lot with no access to St.
Croix Avenue; a portion of the rear yard is encumbered by floodplain; and steep slopes
in the rear yard limit potential accessory structure locations.
Alternatively, the Board could find that these circumstances do not create a unique
hardship to comply with the zoning code. There are many corner lots throughout the
city. There are many properties encumbered by floodplain and/or steep slopes.
Staff finds that the variance requests are due to unique circumstances on the property that
were not caused by the landowner.
c. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality.
Many single-family homes throughout the neighborhood and city contain sheds and
other accessory structures. The shed is almost completely screen from view on the
street by the fence. The shed’s architectural style matches the primary structure.
6
Staff finds that variance, if granted, would not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood.
2. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The variance request
is due to the physical characteristics of the lot. The property is a corner lot encumbered by
floodplain and a steep slope in the rear yard that limits potential accessory structure
locations.
Staff finds that the practical difficulties in the variance requests 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 zoned Single-Family Residential (R-1). Currently the property is used
as a single-family residence, and no changes in use are proposed as part of the variance
applications. The variance requests apply to accessory structures, which are allowed in the
R-1 zoning district.
Staff finds the variance will not permit a use not allowed in the zoning district where the
property is located.
Finally, when reviewing a variance, the City first determines whether a practical difficulty exists
and if the requested variance is the minimum action necessary to eliminate that practical
difficulty. The applicant could relocate the shed to another part of the rear yard and comply
with existing setbacks. However, the applicant argues there is only one other location in the
rear yard for the shed and it is the location closest to the neighbor’s house. The applicant
argues relocating the shed to this location would have greater negative impact on the
neighbors than leaving the shed in its current location.
The Development Review Committee, which includes staff from planning, fire, building, public
works, engineering, and environmental resources, has reviewed this. Engineering staff
confirmed that accessory structures would not be allowed in the floodplain. No other
comments have been received.
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
7
The Board must review and act on each variance separately. Staff recommendations for each
variance are presented below.
1. Move to approve the variance request to reduce the required front setback of an accessory
structure on St. Croix Avenue from 35 feet to 5 feet, based on the finding that the variance
standards have been met as outlined in the staff report, subject to the condition that the
applicant must apply for an after-the-fact zoning permit for the shed. The application must
include an updated survey showing the exact locations and dimensions of the shed.
2. Move to approve the variance request to allow an accessory structure to be closer to the
front setback line along St. Croix Avenue than a principal structure, based on the finding
that the variance standards have been met as outlined in the Staff Report, subject to the
condition that the applicant must apply for an after-the-fact zoning permit for the shed. The
application must include an updated survey showing the exact locations and dimensions of
the shed.
NEXT STEPS
If approved, the applicant will need to submit the applicable zoning permit.
If denied, the applicant may appeal the decision to City Council in accordance with City Code
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 be required to apply for the applicable zoning
permit and relocate the shed to comply with setback and location requirements.
ATTACHED EXHIBITS
1. Variance application
2. Site plan
3. Site photos
STAFF CONTACT INFORMATION
Prepared by:
Jacquelyn Kramer
Senior Planner
jkramer@goldenvalleymn.gov
Reviewed by:
Darren Groth, AICP, CPM
Assistant Community Development Director
dgroth@goldenvalleymn.gov
Physical Development-Planning Department | 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427
763-593-8055 | FAX: 763-593-8109 | TTY: 763-593-3968 | www.goldenvalleymn.gov
Street address of property in this application: 5111 Golden Valley Road - Golden Valley, MN 55422
Applicant Information
Name (individual, or corporate entity) Annette Walen
Street address 5111 Golden Valley Road - Golden Valley, MN Zip 55422
Phone 612-760-1859 Email aewalen@gmail.com
Authorized Representative (if other than applicant)
Name Colin Evenson
Street address Zip
Phone 612-850-1206 Email colin_evenson@msn.com
Property Owner (if other than applicant)
Name
Street address Zip
Phone Email
Site Information
Provide a detailed description of the variance(s) being requested:
Homeowner requests a setback variance in south yard to allow for construction of a shed. Property is a single family corner lot
zoned R-1.
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:
1. Property is a corner lot encumbered by front yard setbacks adjacent to streets along the west and south property
lines.
2. Property is further encumbered by a flood overlay making the north yard and a portion of the east yard unbuildable.
3. Homeowner wishes to replace an aging existing shed adjacent to the proposed new shed location.
🠚 continued
5/1/20
Zoning Code Variance Page 2 of 3
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.
1. Homeowner wishes to erect a new shed for the purpose of storing tools and supplies normally used for yard and home
maintenance. The proposed new shed will be limited to 100 sq, ft. (10’X10’) and 8’ high to the top plate complying with
zoning requirements. The proposed shed will be constructed of materials and finishes that will match the principal
residential structure.
2. There is an aging existing shed (approx, 64 sq. ft.) erected prior to April 15, 2015 adjacent to the proposed new shed
location. Homeowner intends to remove the existing shed from property contingent on approval of this variance request.
3. The encumbrances listed below result in very limited options for buildable locations without variance relief. There is only
one other buildable location on the property not requiring a variance that will impede a neighbor’s view from their living
room window.
4. The proposed shed location is as far as possible away from adjacent property owners to avoid impacting the existing
sitelines they currently enjoy.
What is unique about your property and how do you feel that it necessitates a variance?
1. Property is a corner lot encumbered by front yard setbacks adjacent to streets along the west and south property
lines.
2. Property is further encumbered by a flood overlay making the north yard and a portion of the east yard unbuildable.
5. There is only one other buildable location on the property not requiring a variance that will impede a neighbor’s view
from their living room window.
6. Owner (incorrectly) assumed side yard setbacks apply to the proposed shed location based on conversations with city
officials during a fence replacement project in 2021. The proposed shed location will comply with side yard setback and
adjacent building separation requirements contingent on approval of this variance request
Explain how the need for a variance is based on circumstances that are not a result of a landowner action.
1. Zoning and setback requirements have changed over time since this house was built in 1964 limiting the owner’s options
for making improvements or additions to the property.
2. A flood overlay district further limits buildable area on the north and east sides of the property.
Explain how, if granted, the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of your neighborhood and Golden Valley
as a whole.
1. The proposed accessory building size and finishes matching the principal residence is common to many other
residential property sheds in the neighborhood and throughout the city of Golden Valley.
2. The proposed shed will comply with side yard setback requirements and be partially screened behind a newer
residential fence constructed in 2021.
3. The proposed shed is located adjacent to an aging existing shed, assumed to be approximately 26 years old, that will
be removed from the property.
🠚 continued
Zoning Code Variance Page 3 of 3
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.
1. Alternate #1: There is only one other possible buildable location on the property that complies with all property setback
requirements and separation from adjacent structure requirements. Building on this location would block the adjacent
property owner’s sitelines from their living room window(s).
Required Attachments
☐ Current survey of your property, including proposed addition and new proposed building and structure setbacks (a copy of
Golden Valley’s survey requirements is available upon request; application is considered incomplete without a current
property survey)
☐ One current color photograph of the area affected by the proposed variance (attach a printed photograph to this
application or email a digital image to planning@goldenvalleymn.gov; submit additional photographs as needed) ☐
Application fee: $200 for Single-Family Residential, $300 for all other Zoning Districts
☐ Legal description: Exact legal description of the land involved in this application (attach a separate sheet if
necessary) Signatures
To the best of my knowledge, the statements found in this application are true and correct. I also understand that unless con
struction of the action applicable to this variance request, if granted, is not taken within one year, the variance expires. I have
considered all options afforded to me through the City’s Zoning Code and feel there is no alternate way to achieve my
objective except to seek a variance to zoning rules and regulations. I give permission for Golden Valley staff, as well as
members of the Board of Zoning Appeals, to enter my property before the public hearing to inspect the area affected by this
request.
Applicant
Name (please print): _Annette Walen_________________________________________________
Signature: X________________________________________________________ Date: __08/12/2024____________
Authorized Representative (if other than applicant)
Name (please print): __Colin Evenson________________________________________________
Signature: X________________________________________________________ Date: __08/12/2024____________
Property Owner (if other than applicant)
Name (please print): __________________________________________________
Signature: X________________________________________________________ Date: ______________
Please note: The City of Golden Valley will send notice of your variance request to all adjoining property owners as well as owners of
proper ties directly across streets or alleys. Your neighbors have the right to address the Board of Zoning Appeals at your public hearing.
You are advised to personally contact your neighbors and explain your project to them before the public hearing.
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.
5111 Golden Valley Road
Backyard view of new & old sheds Shed screened by existing fence, St. Croix Ave.
Shed viewed from GV Rd side; St. Croix on right Shed screened by existing fence, St. Croix Ave.
Staked area of yard that is only possible alternative Alternative site which would block neighbor’s view
5111 Golden Valley Road
MEMORANDUM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
v
Date: September 24, 2024
To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
From: Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner
Subject: Request for Variances to Golden Valley Zoning Code
SUMMARY
Mark Gunstad, on behalf of the property owners, is seeking two variances to reduce the side
yard setbacks for a principal structure and a deck at 307 Edgewood Avenue.
RECOMMENDED MOTION
“I move to approve the variance request to reduce the side yard setback of a principal structure
from 15’ to 14’-1 ½” and to approve the variance request to reduce the side yard setback for a
deck from 8’-4” to 6’-8”, subject to the findings and conditions in the September 24, 2024, staff
report presented to the BZA.”
MEETING DATE(S)
Board of Zoning Appeals: September 24, 2024
CASE INFORMATION
Applicant: Mark Gunstad
Property Owners: Roger Friedell and Lynn Argetsinger
Site Acreage: 0.67 acres
Application: Property Variances to Setbacks
SUBJECT PROPERTY
General Location: 307 Edgewood Avenue North
Parcel ID Number: 3211821440001
Future Land Use: Residential, Low Density
Zoning: R-1 Single-Family Residential
Existing use: Single-Family Residential (SFR)
Adjacent Properties: All adjacent properties designated Residential, Low
Density, zoned R-1, developed with SFR
v
MEMORANDUM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
v
SITE IMAGE
Figure 1: 2023 aerial photo (Hennepin County)
BACKGROUND
In 2022 the applicant began the process of demolishing the old house on the property,
improving the site grade, and constructing a new house. On March 28, 2023, the Board of
Zoning Appeals approved a variance to allow a new deck with a side setback of 8’-4” rather
than the required 15” (see the attached meeting minutes). As part of the variance approval, the
Board required the applicant to screen the deck from the neighboring property to the south.
The applicant added a privacy screen to the deck and planted shrubs to create a landscape
screen along the south property line. Construction on the current single-family home was
completed in 2024.
The approved site plan in the building permit submittal shows the porch set 15’ off the
southern property line and the deck set 8’-4” off the southern property line. The property lines
are slightly off a true east-west orientation, but during construction the house was laid out true
east-west, starting with the northeast corner of the structure measured off the north property
line. This error resulted in a 15’ side setback on the north side of the property that meets code
Variance request location
MEMORANDUM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
v
requirements, but side setbacks that are less than the minimum required on the south side of
the property.
Once the error was discovered, the applicant looked at options for remedying the mistake and
ultimately applied for two variances in order to allow the porch and deck to remain as-is.
PRESENT APPLICATIONS
This application includes two separate, after-the-fact, variance requests:
1. Variance 1: A reduction of 10 ½” to the required side setback of the principal structure,
reducing the setback from 15’ from 14’-1 ½”.
a. Relevant code section: 113-88(e)(1)c1 “In the case of lots having a width of 100
feet or greater, the side setbacks for any portion of a structure 15 feet or less in
height shall be 15 feet.”
2. Variance 2: A reduction of 1’-8” to the required side setback for the deck, reducing the
setback from 8’-4” to 6’-8”.
If the Board approves the variance requests, no further action is needed from the applicant.
If the Board denies the variance requests, the applicant may either appeal the Board’s decision
to City Council or rebuild the porch and deck to comply with existing setbacks.
PLANNING ANALYSIS
In reviewing these applications, staff reviewed the requests 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
requests are 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:
MEMORANDUM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
v
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.
Both the porch and deck are common structures in residential zoning districts.
Both structures are in the side and rear yard of the property where accessory
structures are permitted. The Board could find that the variances allow a
reasonable use of the property to continue.
Alternatively, the Board could find that the setback reductions are not necessary
for the reasonable use of the property. The porch and deck could be rebuilt to
comply with existing setbacks.
Staff finds that the proposed setback reductions allow 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 applicant argues the variance requests are due to the house foundations not
laid parallel to the property lines. This discrepancy with the approved plans led
to smaller side yard setbacks on the south side of the property. The applicant did
not intend to construct the porch and deck with side setbacks in violation of the
zoning code.
The Board could find that the position of the house on the property creates a
unique circumstance not created by the landowner, since their intention was to
build the porch and deck to comply with the zoning code.
Alternatively, the Board could find that, as the homeowner of the property, the
applicant caused the circumstances that created the nonconformity with the
zoning code. Additionally, mistakes in construction are not necessarily unique to
this property or project. Unless variances are granted, landowners throughout
the city would be expected to correct construction mistakes that led to their
properties becoming out of compliance with the zoning code.
MEMORANDUM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
v
Staff finds that the variance requests are due to unique circumstances on the
property that were not caused by the landowner.
c. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality.
The porch and deck are similar is size and function to those on other properties
in the neighborhood and throughout the R-1 zoning district. The applicant
installed screening to minimize the deck’s impact on the neighboring property.
The neighbor south of the property submitted a letter with the variance
applications stating they are not negatively impacted by the current location of
the porch and deck. Please see the letter attached to this report.
The Board could find that the variances do not alter the character of the locality.
The requests are for small reductions in setback distance and do not change the
character or function of the property.
Alternatively, the Board could find that these variances change the character of
the neighborhood by allowing structures closer to the property line than what is
allowed on other properties in the area.
Staff finds that variance, if granted, would not alter the essential character of
the neighborhood.
2. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
The applicant argues the variance requests are due to the house foundations not laid
parallel to the property lines. This discrepancy with the approved plans led to smaller
side yard setbacks on the south side of the property.
The Board could agree with the applicant and find the practical difficulty is created by
the position and orientation of the house.
Alternatively, the Board could find the practical difficulty in complying with side setback
requirements is due only to economic considerations. Specifically, the cost of rebuilding
the porch and deck.
Staff finds that the practical difficulties in the variance requests are not solely due to
economic considerations.
MEMORANDUM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
v
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. Currently
the property is used as a single-family residence, and no changes in use are proposed as
part of the variance applications.
Staff finds the variance will not permit a use not allowed in the zoning district where
the property is located.
Finally, when reviewing a variance, the City first determines whether a practical difficulty exists
and if the requested variance is the minimum action necessary to eliminate that practical
difficulty. The applicant discussed purchasing a portion of the lot south of the property and
replatting their lot in order to comply with existing side setbacks with their neighbor. The
neighbor declined the offer and wrote a letter in support of the variance requests. The
applicant argues the minimum action to eliminate the practical difficulty is receiving approval of
their variance requests.
The Development Review Committee, which includes staff from planning, fire, building, public
works, engineering, and environmental resources, has reviewed these variance applications. No
comments have been received.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATIONS
Notice was sent to all adjacent property owners as outlined in City Code Section 113-27(d)(2).
At the time of this staff report, only the letter from the neighbor south of the property has been
received.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Board must review and act on each variance separately. The options for each variance are
presented below.
VARIANCE 1: A reduction of 10.5” to the required side setback of the principal structure,
reducing the setback from 15’ from 14’-1 ½”.
The Board should review the applicant’s request, and the findings needed to grant a variance.
The Board has two options:
MEMORANDUM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
v
1. Move to approve the variance request to reduce the required side setback of the
principal structure from 15’ to 14’-1 ½” feet, based on the finding that the variance
standards have been met as outlined in the staff report.
OR
2. Move to deny the variance request to reduce the required side setback of the principal
structure from 15’ to 14’-1 ½” feet, based on the finding that the variance standards
have not been met as outlined in the staff report. The porch must be removed or rebuilt
to comply with existing side setbacks of the R-1 zoning district.
Staff recommends approval of the variance request to reduce the required side setback of
principal structures from 15’ to 14’-1 ½” feet.
VARIANCE 2: A reduction of 1’-8” to the required side setback for the deck, reducing the
setback from 8’-4” to 6’-8”.
The Board should review the applicant’s request and the findings needed to grant a variance.
The Board has two options:
1. Move to approve the variance request to reduce the required side setback of the deck
from 8’-4” to 6’-8”, based on the finding that the variance standards have been met as
outlined in the Staff Report.
OR
2. Move to deny the variance request to reduce the required side setback of the deck from
8’-4” to 6’-8”, based on the finding that the variance standards have not been met as
outlined in the Staff Report. The deck must be removed or rebuilt to comply with the
side setback of 8’-4” that is allowed through the variance granted on March 28, 2023.
Staff recommends approval of the variance request to reduce the required side setback of the
accessory structure from 8’-4” to 6’-8”.
NEXT STEPS
If the Board approves the variance applications, the porch and deck may remain in their current
locations. The applicant will need to take no further action.
If the Board denies the variance application, the applicant may appeal the decision to the City
MEMORANDUM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
v
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 be required
to remove the porch and deck or rebuild the porch and deck to comply with existing side
setback requirements.
ATTACHED EXHIBITS
1. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes - March 28, 2022
2. Variance Application
3. Neighbor’s Letter
4. Property Photos
5. Survey
6. Approved Site Plan
7. As-Built Site Plan
STAFF CONTACT INFORMATION
Prepared by: Reviewed and edited by:
Jacquelyn Kramer Darren Groth, AICP, CPM
Senior Planner Assistant Comm. Dev. Director
Jkramer@goldenvalleymn.gov dgroth@goldenvalleymn.gov
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
This meeting was conducted in a hybrid format with in person and remote options for attending,
participating,and commenting.The City used Webex to conduct this meeting and members of the public
were able to monitor the meeting and provide comment by calling in.
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7 pm and the land acknowledgement was read by Chair Carlson.
Roll Call
Members present:Kade Arms Regenold,Chris Carlson,Nancy Nelson Richard Orenstein,Sophia
Ginis Planning Commissioner
Members absent:
Staff present:Myles Campbell Planner
Approval of Agenda
MOTION made by Orenstein,seconded by Carlson to approve the agenda of March 28,2023,as
submitted.
Motion carried.
Approval of Minutes
Nancy Nelson noted she was present at the December meeting but was marked absent.
MOTION made by Nelson,seconded by Orenstein to approve the December 27,2022
meeting minutes pending the noted edits.
Motion carried with one abstention from Commissioner Ginis.
1. Address:309 Edgewood
Applicant:Roger Friedell
Request:Variance of 6’8”off the required 15’to a total distance of 8’4”from the side property line
for a raised deck.
Myles Campbell,Planner,showed members the home’s location on a map in the City.He explained
the zoning of the home,the area,and the only exception to R 1 is Perpich School.Staff went on to
explain the grade and topography allows stormwater to run from the street towards the home.The
applicant would like to tear down the existing home,improve the site grade,and build a new home.
The applicant would like to include a walk out deck or patio to access outdoor landscaping.
Staff reviewed City Requirements,deck options vs patio options.
March 28,2022 7 pm
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
March 25,2023 7 pm
2
Environmental staff had comments:
Both plans account for stormwater,but the open deck would likely improve the site’s ability to
move stormwater runoff towards the rear of the parcel and away from the adjacent property.
In either scenario,a stormwater management permit would be required along with building
permits.Both will provide the opportunity to confirm the grading,as shown,is being followed.
Practical Difficulties
The deck is reasonably scaled and is a common and expected use in residential zoning districts,
overall staff finds this request reasonable.
The lots grading has previously presented unique challenges to construction.The need to route
stormwater to the rear of the home is a circumstance not created by the landowner,and based
on discussion with other staff,the deck option makes more sense to accomplish this over a
system of retaining walls and patio.Staff believes the site exhibits unique circumstances.
Given the existence of a by right option of a patio and retaining walls,staff feels that the deck is
no more intrusive or disruptive,and may be less impactful on the neighbor to the south given
its less developed appearance.Staff believes that the requested variances will not alter the
essential character of the neighborhood and city.
Other Considerations
Staff assesses whether the request represents the smallest feasible variance or if there are other
options available:
A deck to the rear west)of the home could be pursued without a variance,but would not
provide access as easily to the front of the home
The patio/retaining wall option is effectively the by right alternative in this location
Recommendations
Staff recommends approval of a variance of 6’8”off the required 15’to a total distance of 8’4”from
the side property line for a raised deck.
This approval is conditioned on the submittal of a suitable screening plan at time of building
permitting
Chair Carlson invited the applicant to speak.
Roger Friedell,Applicant,thanked staff for their presentation and noted the increase in large rain
events.The applicant spoke to neighbors and they support the plans,they will also stay in
communication and add screening if it seems necessary.Commissioner Ginis asked the applicant if
the deck could be more behind their home.The applicant noted a porch in the rear yard and the deck
couldn’t be placed on top of the porch.The goal was to add plantings to help in retention but will
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
March 25,2023 7 pm
3
also enhance the view from the street and for the neighbors.The deck and patio area are the same
size but the retaining wall will be closer to step up to the height.
Chair Carlson opened the public hearing 7:40pm.
Staff noted a written comment that was included in the agenda.
There were no in person comments.
There were no online/remote comments.
Chair Carlson closed the hearing at 7:42pm.
Commissioner Ginis noted the proposal of the retaining wall and patio stretches the intention of the
rules.The flexibility lies in what is allowed at grade and the by right option is violating the intention of the
code and manipulating a loophole to intend for something that wasn’t allowed.However,because this is
allowed by right,the deck is preferred for water management but it impacts the neighboring property.
This seems to be a non necessary request because there is a lot of flexibility in how you create outside
spaces.We are shrinking a setback for a desire instead of a constraining need,specifically because this is
a new build and there are a lot of options.If this was for an existing home I’d feel differently but this is a
new build,not using the site,and encroaching.All of this leads to a greater need for a screening plan
otherwise this sets a precedent.
Nelson asked if this group notes the screening in the request.Staff confirmed grading is a requirement for
City but screening requirements would need to come from BZA.The deck proposal is less imposing than a
retaining wall and patio.Staff did a good job,neighbors support it,and I’m in favor.Chair Carlson noted
the larger dip into the setback but added the request will improve the area.
MOTION made by Orenstein,seconded Nelson by to approve of a variance of 6’8”off the required 15’
to a total distance of 8’4”from the side property line for a raised deck.
This approval is conditioned on the submittal of a suitable screening plan at time of building
permitting
Motion carried
2. Address:5320 Dawnview Terrace
Applicant:Colleen Batty
Request:Variance of 2.5’off the required 15’to a total distance of 12.5’from the side property line
for a home addition
Myles Campbell,Planner,showed members the lot’s location in the city and provided a background.
The lot’s unique shape was pointed out,it’s shaped like a piece of pie with the rear of the lot being
narrower than the front.Additionally,the home is parallel to the road but does not line up with the
side yard property line,due to the lot shape.The home owner would like to convert a portion of the
existing garage to a living space and build a new addition to allow for a family room.This project will
include the removal of an existing non conforming shed.The homeowner could build an addition
without a variance,however there is a large mature tree in the rear yard and that would require the
tree’s removal;the homeowner would like to avoid that.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
March 25,2023 7 pm
4
Practical Difficulties
The garage and home additions are of a single story and reasonably scaled to what they are
trying to achieve,and the overall encroachment into the setback is minor.Overall staff finds
this request reasonable.
The lot’s narrowing shape and angled orientation from the roadway creates a unique
circumstance not created by the owner in regards to future additions.Additionally,a mature
maple to the rear of the home restricts the homeowner’s ability to push the home further
back into the lot without needing to remove the tree.Staff believes the site exhibits unique
circumstances.
The garage addition will be the more visible of the two proposed changes,and is being
completed by right,whereas the family room addition will be less visible from the street.The
existing shed to be removed is already closer to the neighbor.Staff believes that the
requested variances will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood and city.
Other Considerations
Staff assesses whether the request represents the smallest feasible variance or if there are other
options available:
A smaller addition or no addition on the rear could be pursued,however this would leave less
living space available for the interior remodel
Recommendations
Staff recommends approval of a variance of 2.5’off the required 15’to a total distance of 12.5’from
the side property line for a home addition.
Orenstein asked if the addition would impact the front yard setback,and staff confirmed it would
not.Nelson asked if shed removal needed to be a condition on approval,staff said its removal will be
the result of the variance.
Chair Carlson invited the applicant to speak.
The applicant noted staff presented all the information and had nothing to add but was available for
questions.Board members did not have questions for the applicant.
Chair Carlson opened the public hearing 8:02pm.
There were no in person comments.
There were no online/remote comments.
Chair Carlson closed the hearing at 8:04pm.
Arms Regenold noted the request is reasonable given the home’s location on the lot,lot shape,and
the small corner portion that will be in the side yard setback.Nelson added that the homes in the
area have the garages on the same property line so the potential for disturbance is decreased.She
added that she’d like to add a condition noting plans to be submitted to make sure the small area in
the setback stays that small.Orenstein and Chair Carlson echoed staff’s assessment.Commissioner
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
March 25,2023 7 pm
5
Ginis noted the request is reasonable and the visual appeal without the shed will be an
improvement.
MOTION made by Nelson,seconded by Orenstein to approve a variance of 2.5’off the required 15’to a
total distance of 12.5’from the side property line for a home addition per the submitted plans.
Motion carried
3. Discussion of Draft BZA Annual Report
Myles Campbell,Planner,presented the 2022 Draft Annual Report.The previous meeting was cancelled
so this report was presented to City Council prior to this presentation.Campbell noted the fence height
variance requests dropped and that may be due to a change in the ordinance along arterial roadways.
There was an increase in new build requests and there’s a noted grey area with grading and retaining
walls and staff will review that moving forward.One change for this year is that staff started tracking
variance locations and types to see if there are patterns.They will also start tracking decisions to make
sure there isn’t an area of bias.
The group and staff discussed some requests,appeals,and patterns.
4. Adjournment
MOTION made by Orenstein Carlson,seconded by Chair Carlson and the motion carried
unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:22 pm.
Motion carried.
Chris Carlson,Chair
Amie Kolesar,Planning Assistant