11 26 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
3. New Staff Introduction: Steven Okey, Associate Planner
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.
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.
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.
5. Council Liaison Report
6. Staff Comments
7. Board Member Updates
8. Adjourn
November 26, 2024 – 7 pm
City Hall: Council Chamber
Hybrid Meeting: Teams/Phone
Date: November 26, 2024
To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
From: Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner
Subject: Request for Variance to Golden Valley City Code - 5509 Lindsay Street
SUMMARY
Vlad and Iryna Sivriver, the property owners, seek a variance from the City Code Section 113-
89(e)(1)a to reduce the required front yard setback along the east side of the property by 11
feet. The variance would allow construction of a new single-family house with a front yard
setback of 24 feet along the east side of the property.
RECOMMENDED MOTION
“I move to approve the variance request to reduce the front yard setback along Lilac Drive from
35 feet to 24 feet, subject to the findings in the November 26, 2024, staff report.”
SUBJECT PROPERTY
Location: 5509 Lindsay Street
Parcel ID Number: 3311821210060
Applicant/Property Owner: Vlad and Iryna Sivriver
Site Size: 0.3 acres / 13,179 square feet
Future Land Use: Moderate Density
Zoning District: Moderate Density Residential (R-2) Zoning District
Existing Use: Vacant lot
Proposed Use: Single-family residence
Adjacent Properties: North & West: duplexes; South: offices; East: Hwy 100
BACKGROUND
5509 Lindsay Street is an undeveloped parcel of land, originally platted for development as a
single-family home in 1959 as part of the Lindsay addition. The Department of Transportation
acquired the property as part of the expansion of Highway 100 and then re-platted and sold to
the current property owners in 2020.
2
SITE IMAGE
The lot is 0.3 acres and irregularly shaped. The north property line along Lindsay is slightly
under 83 feet wide and the south property line is 104 feet wide. The property is zoned R-2
Moderate Density Residential. Single-family homes, duplexes, and rowhouses are allowed in
this district by right; however, this lot does not meet the minimum lot width requirements for
anything other than a single-family home.
On August 25, 2020, the applicants received approval for a reduction of 11 feet of the front
yard setback along Lilac Drive. Construction was delayed and the variance approval expired
after one year, per Section 113-27(d)(5). The applicants applied for a 20-foot front yard (Lilac
Drive) setback variance in 2023, and the Board denied this variance request.
In 2024, the applicants met with city staff to review revised plans. The current building plans
meet the front yard (Lilac Drive) setback variance originally approved in 2020. The applicants
have now reapplied for that front yard setback variance.
Library Street Highway 100 3
APPLICATION REQUESTS
The R-2 zoning district, where the property is located, requires a 35-foot setback along all street
frontages. The applicants request a variance from the Golden Valley City Code for an 11-foot
reduction in the front yard setback along Lilac Drive. Relevant code section:
• 113-88 Moderate Density Residential (R-2) Zoning District, subsection (e)(1)a: “Front
Setback. The required minimum front setback for single-family and two-family dwellings
shall be 35 feet from any front lot line along the street right-of-way line.”
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 circumstances of the
application. For that reason, no variance sets a precedent because no two circumstances are
identical. 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 applicant proposes to build a new single-family home on the property. They
intend to use the home as their primary residence. The width of the lot prevents
the construction of duplexes or rowhouses. The surrounding neighborhood
includes both duplexes and 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 street east of the property, Lilac Drive, functions as
a frontage road to Highway 100, which is defined as an arterial road in the city’s
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed home would face north and there would be
no curb cuts along Lilac Drive. Other corner lots along this section of Lilac Drive
also do not have vehicular access to Lilac Drive. The applicants argue that only
4
the yard along Lindsay Street will function as a front yard, and the yard along
Lilac Drive will function as a side yard and thus should be allowed a smaller
setback.
The irregular shape of the lot limits the buildable area of the parcel. The
applicants propose placing the building on the lot in order to maximize open
space while still maintaining the 24-foot east side setback previously approved in
2020.
Staff finds that there are unique circumstances on the property that were not
caused by the landowner. Specifically, the property is a corner lot with frontage
along Highway 100, and the property is irregularly shaped due to the previous
re-platting.
c. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality.
Other parcels along Lindsay Street contain single-family residences and duplexes.
The construction of a single-family home on 5509 Lindsay Street would not alter
the character of the neighborhood. Along Lilac Drive there are other homes with
front setbacks smaller than the 35 feet required by code.
Staff finds that the 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 request is due to the two front yards, one abutting Highway 100,
and the irregular shape of the lot created by the replatting process.
Staff finds 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 Moderate-Density Residential (R-2) zoning
district. The applicant proposes building a single-family house on the property, which is
allowed in this district by right.
Staff finds the variance will permit a use that is 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. The construction of a new home by the applicant represents a clear reinvestment
in what is currently a disinvested-in and vacant property. Similarly, the home maintains
a significant amount of open space and pervious surfaces, in line with the City’s goals for
environmentally sustainable housing.
Staff finds that the variance is in line with both the purpose of the Zoning Code and the
regulations of the R-2 Moderate Density Residential Zoning District. It is in line with the
purpose of this district, which is “to provide for single-family and two-family dwellings at
5
a moderate density (up to eight units per acre) along with directly related and
complementary uses.”
Staff finds the variance request is in harmony with the general purposes and intents of
the R-2 Moderate Density Residential Zoning District and the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan.
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? The applicants have revised the project plans since
2023. The plans now meet the setback variance granted by the Board in 2020. Staff finds
there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning code. Given the findings and
the revisions the applicants have made to their building plans, staff finds the minimum
action necessary to eliminate the practical difficulty would be to re-approve the 2020
setback variance.
The Development Review Committee, which includes staff from planning, fire, building, public
works, engineering, and environmental resources, has reviewed the project plans. No concerns
have been raised from other city departments.
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, no comments were received from adjacent property owners.
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 an 11-foot reduction to
the front yard setback along Lilac Drive based on the finding that the variance standards have
been met as outlined in the Staff Report.
NEXT STEPS
If the Board approves the variance request, the applicant will finalize construction plans and
apply for 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.
ATTACHED EXHIBITS
1. Site map
2. Project plans
6
STAFF CONTACT INFORMATION
Prepared by:
Jacquelyn Kramer
Senior Planner
jkramer@goldenvalleymn.gov
Reviewed by:
Emily Goellner
Community & Economic Development Director
egoellner@goldenvalleymn.gov
7
8
ScaleProject numberDateDrawn byAVA STUDIO4332 BROOKSIDE AVE, ST LOUIS PARK, MN 55436PHONE 612 532 8159EMAIL AVASTUDIO.AB1@GMAIL.COM12" = 1'-0"10/24/2024 8:55:12 PMA100Cover Page5509Golden Valley5509 Lindsay St10/24/2024Alexander BocharnikovALL PLANS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE GENERALCONTRACTOR AND THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.AVA STUDIO LLC. IS NOT RESPONSIBLEFOR ANY PROBLEM AS A RESULT OF AN ERROROMISSION ON THESE PLANS.FRAMING NOTES:-ALL EXTERIOR WALLS TO BE 2X6 @ 16" O.C. WITH A DOUBLE TOP PLATE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.-WALL FRAMING SHALL BE S.P.F. STUD GRADE OR BETTER UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE (U.N.O.)-ALL HEADERS SHALL BE (2) -2X10 U.N.O.-EXTERIOR SHEATHING SHALL BE 7/16" MATERIAL CONSISTING OF ORIENTED STRAND BOARD (OSB).-ALL FLOOR AND CEILING SYSTEMS TO CHECKED AND DESIGNED BY THE DESIGNATED MANUFACTURER. TRUSS PLANS TO BE ON SITE @ TIME OF FRAMING-PRESSURE TREATED WOOD IS TO BE USED WHERE WOOD IS IN CONTACT WITH CONCRETE AND AT 2X6 MUD SILL. TREATED MEMBERS TO BE S.Y.P. #2 OR BETTER.-FOR OPENINGS IN EXTERIOR WALLS (OR WALLS WITH LATERAL LOADING:a) 0'-0" -4'-0" = 1 JACK STUD b) 4'-0" -8'-0" = 2 JACK STUDSc) 8'-0" -12'-0" = 3 JACK STUDSd) GREATER THEN 12' = CONSULT ENGINEER.-POSTS CALLED OUT ARE NUMBER OF KING STUDS REQUIRED PER SIDE OF OPENING.CONCRETE NOTES:-ALL CONCRETE FOOTINGS AND FOUNDATION SYSTEMS ARE DESIGNED FOR A 2000 P.S.F. SOIL-FOUNDATION WALLS SHALL BE FULL HEIGHT AT UNBALANCED FILL GREATER THEN 3'-4"-1/2" ANCHOR BOLTS EMBEDDED 7" MINIMUM @ 4' O.C. MAX. 12" MIN. FROM EACH END. MINIMUM OF 2 BOLTS IN EACH SILL PLATE-PAD FOOTINGS REINFORCEMENT IS TO BE LOCATED 3" FROM BOTTOM OF FOOTING TYP. (WHEN REQUIRED)-CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL STEEL REBAR SIZING PER STATE AND LOCAL BUILDING CODES-MIN. 5000 PSI CONCRETE @ ALL FOOTINGSINSULATION:-ALL EXTERIOR WALLS TO HAVE A MINIMUM RATING OF R-20-ALL ATTIC SPACES ARE TO HAVE A MINIMUM RATING OF R-49-ALL FLOOR SPACES OVER UNCONDITIONED SPACE OR CANTILEVERED ARE TO HAVE A MINIMUM RATING OF R-30SHEETROCK:-ALL CEILINGS ARE TO HAVE 5/8" NON-SAG GYPSUM BOARD U.N.O.-ALL WALLS ARE TO HAVE 1/2" GYPSUM BOARD U.N.O.-GARAGE CEILING AND WALLS THAT ADJOIN HOUSE WALLS ARE TO BE 5/8" TYPE "X" GYPSUM BOARD U.N.O.-ALL EXTERIOR WALLS OF GARAGE AND HOUSE THAT ARE WITHIN 5' SETBACK TO HAVE 5/8" TYPE "X" EXTERIOR GRADE GYPSUM BOARD ON EXTERIOR SIDE OF WALL AND 5/8" TYPE "X" ON INTERNAL SIDE OF WALL.DOORS AND WINDOWS:ALL WINDOWS AND DOORS TO NE DOUBLE GLASS PANELS WITH LOW-E RATINGS.-ANY WINDOW WITHIN 24" OF A DOOR SWING MUST BE TEMPERED -ANY WINDOW ABOVE A TUB MUST BE TEMPERED -ANY WINDOW WITHIN A STAIRWAY MUST BE TEMPERED-WINDOW GLAZING MUST BE AT LEAST 18" ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR WHEN WINDOW IS ABOVE 6' FROM GRADE.-ALL BEDROOMS TO HAVE AT LEAST ONE WINDOW THAT HAS A CLEAR EGRESS OPENING OF 5.7 SQ. FT. WITH MIN. DIMENSIONS OF 24" IN HEIGHT AND 20" IN WIDTH, SILL HEIGHT NOT TO BE GREATER THEN 44" ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR.-WINDOWS WITH SILLS WITHIN 3' OF THE FLOOR THEY SERVE AND ARE 72" ABOVE GRADE MUST EITHER HAVE A FALL PREVENTION OR OPENING LIMITER DEVICE PER CODE.MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL:-ALL ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE VERIFIED AND INSTALLED PER CODE BY APPROVED TRADES AND INSTALLERS.PLAN INFORMATIONCODE INFORMATIONSOIL TYPE:DESIGNED WITH 2000 PSF SOILS, ALL FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION MUST FACTOR IN THIS AT MINIMUMWIND EXPOSURE:DESIGNED WITH "EXPOSURE B" CLASSIFICATIONS AND WIND GUSTS OF 90 MPH PER 2015 MN IRC CODE REGULATIONS.GENERAL NOTES:-ALL FOUNDATION WALL STRUCTURAL INFORMATION USED TO CONSTRUCT THE FOUNDATION SYSTEM IS TO BE ON SITE WHEN POURING OR BUILDING WALLS.-ALL STRUCTURAL BEAMS, POSTS & TALL WALLS ARE TO BE BUILT PER I-LEVEL SPECIFICATIONS.-ALL MANUFACTURED FLOORS & ROOF TRUSSES ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS.-ALL MANUFACTURED FLOOR & ROOF TRUSS SPECIFICATIONS ARE TO BE ON SITE DURING INSTALLATION.WINDOW AND EXTERIOR DOOR U-FACTOR TO BE 0.30 OR BETTERGLASS SOLAR HEAT GAIN COEFFICIENT (SHGC) TO BE 0.28 OR BETTERSheet ListSheetNumberSheet NameA100 Cover PageA200 ElevationsA300 Foundation / BasementA400 Main LevelA500 Upper LevelA600 SectionA700 Detail PlanA800 Braced Wall NotesA900 Braced Wall PlansArea ScheduleArea Level Name2568 SF Foundation /Basement LevelUnfinishedBasement2693 SF Main Level Main Level749 SF Main Level Garage217 SF Main Level Deck2212 SF Upper Level Upper LevelSITE PLAN BY OTHERSWINDOW FALL PREVENTION DEVICES AND WINDOW GUARDS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM F 209012" = 1'-0"13D View 112" = 1'-0"23D View 29
Main Level891' -2 1/4"T.O. Main Level901' -3 3/8"Upper Level902' -10 1/8"T.O. Upper Level910' -11 1/4"T.O. Foundation889' -6"8' - 1 1/8"1' - 6 3/4"10' - 1 1/8"1' - 6 3/4"0' - 6"Average Grade886' -4"ScaleProject numberDateDrawn byAVA STUDIO4332 BROOKSIDE AVE, ST LOUIS PARK, MN 55436PHONE 612 532 8159EMAIL AVASTUDIO.AB1@GMAIL.COMAs indicated10/24/2024 8:55:14 PMA200Elevations5509Golden Valley5509 Lindsay St10/24/2024Alexander Bocharnikov1/4" = 1'-0"1FrontALL PLANS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE GENERALCONTRACTOR AND THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.AVA STUDIO LLC. IS NOT RESPONSIBLEFOR ANY PROBLEM AS A RESULT OF AN ERROROMISSION ON THESE PLANS.1/8" = 1'-0"2Rear1/8" = 1'-0"3Right1/8" = 1'-0"4Left10
Unfinished Basement UnexcavatedMech RoomUnexcavated15' - 0"9' - 0"32' - 0"60' - 0"2' - 0"2' - 0"4' - 0"20' - 4"44' - 8"69' - 0"4' - 0"17' - 9"19' - 9"18' - 2"55' - 8"11' - 0"10' - 0"9' - 10 1/2"9' - 10 1/2"8' - 10 1/2"8' - 10 1/2"9' - 0"9' - 2"68' - 0"24' - 0"25' - 0"19' - 0"6' - 4"2' - 0"34' - 0"Storage RoomScaleProject numberDateDrawn byAVA STUDIO4332 BROOKSIDE AVE, ST LOUIS PARK, MN 55436PHONE 612 532 8159EMAIL AVASTUDIO.AB1@GMAIL.COM1/4" = 1'-0"10/24/2024 8:55:15 PMA300Foundation /Basement5509Golden Valley5509 Lindsay St10/24/2024Alexander Bocharnikov1/4" = 1'-0"1Foundation / Basement LevelALL PLANS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE GENERALCONTRACTOR AND THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.AVA STUDIO LLC. IS NOT RESPONSIBLEFOR ANY PROBLEM AS A RESULT OF AN ERROROMISSION ON THESE PLANS.11
UPOVENREF.Great Roomopen to aboveFoyeropen to aboveLaundryHis closetHer closetMaster BathMudoomMaster Suite19' - 0"25' - 0"24' - 0"15' - 6"8' - 6"32' - 0"4' - 0"8' - 10 1/2"8' - 10 1/2"9' - 10 1/2"9' - 10 1/2"9' - 0"9' - 0"55' - 6"68' - 0"6' - 6"2' - 0"10' - 0"UPBENCHOfficePantryKitchenDN1/2 BathBUILT INDining RoomHEAT RISER6' - 0"2' - 0"4' - 0"17' - 9"19' - 9"18' - 0"11' - 0"2' - 4"3' - 0"16' - 0"2' - 0"8' - 0"3' - 0"FIREPLACE4' - 3"4' - 3"4 Season Porch7' - 7 1/2"5' - 3"5' - 9"60' - 0"7' - 9"7' - 9"9' - 2 1/4"8' - 2 1/4"3 Car Garage7' - 0"65' - 0"44' - 8"20' - 4"33' - 8"11' - 0"7' - 3 3/4"13' - 0 1/4"6' - 1"21' - 3"6' - 4"5' - 3"5' - 9"Deck5' - 0"5' - 0"9' - 0"4' - 0"ScaleProject numberDateDrawn byAVA STUDIO4332 BROOKSIDE AVE, ST LOUIS PARK, MN 55436PHONE 612 532 8159EMAIL AVASTUDIO.AB1@GMAIL.COM1/4" = 1'-0"10/24/2024 8:55:16 PMA400Main Level5509Golden Valley5509 Lindsay St10/24/2024Alexander Bocharnikov1/4" = 1'-0"1Main LevelALL PLANS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE GENERALCONTRACTOR AND THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.AVA STUDIO LLC. IS NOT RESPONSIBLEFOR ANY PROBLEM AS A RESULT OF AN ERROROMISSION ON THESE PLANS.12
OPEN TO BELOWBedroom 2Bedroom 3Bedroom 4Hall18' - 0"2' - 0"LoftDNOPEN TO BELOW17' - 9"19' - 9"9' - 0"9' - 0"5' - 11"13' - 1"Bedroom 18' - 8"8' - 10 1/2"8' - 10 1/2"BathWalk In Closet9' - 10 1/2"9' - 10 1/2"16' - 0"2' - 2"5' - 5"3' - 1"14' - 4"4' - 3"4' - 3"7' - 3 1/2"8' - 7 1/2"13' - 0"15' - 9"9' - 3"3' - 9"4' - 3"4' - 4 1/2"55' - 6"HallLaundry3' - 0"13' - 0"BathBathDeck above garage4' - 0"3' - 3 1/2"19' - 0"25' - 0"16' - 0"60' - 0"55' - 6"4' - 0"15' - 0"9' - 6"11' - 0"16' - 0"7' - 10"7' - 2"4' - 9"4' - 9"5' - 6"5' - 6"8' - 0"8' - 0"63' - 0"44' - 8"7' - 8"10' - 8"6' - 11 1/2"6' - 11 1/2"LINEN10' - 8"10' - 8"3' - 5 1/2"4' - 2 1/2"3' - 8"3' - 8"ScaleProject numberDateDrawn byAVA STUDIO4332 BROOKSIDE AVE, ST LOUIS PARK, MN 55436PHONE 612 532 8159EMAIL AVASTUDIO.AB1@GMAIL.COMAs indicated10/24/2024 8:55:19 PMA500Upper Level5509Golden Valley5509 Lindsay St10/24/2024Alexander BocharnikovALL PLANS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE GENERALCONTRACTOR AND THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.AVA STUDIO LLC. IS NOT RESPONSIBLEFOR ANY PROBLEM AS A RESULT OF AN ERROROMISSION ON THESE PLANS.1/4" = 1'-0"1Upper Level12" = 1'-0"23D View 313
Date: November 26, 2024
To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
From: Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner
Subject: Request for Variance to Golden Valley City Code – Arcata Apartments
SUMMARY
Imaginality Designs, LLC, on behalf of the property owner, seeks two variances from the City
Code Sections 105-10(d)(2)b and 105-10(j)(3)b allow an additional 176.54 square feet of sign
area, which would increase the total allowed sign area on the property from 50 square feet to
219.86 square feet. The variance would allow a second wall sign to be installed at Arcata
Apartments.
RECOMMENDED MOTION
“I move to approve the variance request to allow an additional 176.54 square footage of wall
signage at 901 Xenia Avenue, subject to the findings in the November 26, 2024, staff report.”
SUBJECT PROPERTY
Location: 901 Xenia Avenue
Parcel ID Number: 0411721240030
Applicant: Imaginality Designs, LLC
Property Owner: Centerspace
Site Size: 2.04 acres / 88,671 square feet
Future Land Use: High Density Residential
Zoning District: R-4 High Density Residential, I-394 Overlay District
Existing Use: Multi-family Residential
Adjacent Properties: Office, multi-family residential
BACKGROUND
Arcata Apartments opened in 2015. At the time of opening the city approved the installation of
one 43.32 square foot wall sign close to the entrance on Golden Hills Drive. The property owner
would like to install a second sign on the southwest corner of the building. This sign would have
two faces in order to capture both north- and southbound traffic along Xenia Avenue. The new
sign would also be visible to both directions of traffic on I-394.
14
SITE IMAGE
APPLICATION REQUESTS
The applicant requests variances from the Golden Valley City Code for a second sign that would
exceed the maximum 50 square feet of total sign area currently allowed by code. Relevant code
sections:
• 105-10 Sign Regulation by Zoning District, subsection (d)(2)b Medium and High Density
Residential (R-3 and R-4): Neighborhood identification sign or wall sign. Allowed at a
maximum of 50 square feet of total signs if there are at least six lots/dwellings.
• 105-10 Sign Regulation by Zoning District, subsection (j)(3)b I-394 Mixed Use Zoning
District: Permanent Signs. The maximum total sign area includes window signs and is
based on use and other factors. Three use categories are established: single use
residential, single use nonresidential, and mixed uses. The following limits apply:
Single Use Residential Maximum Total Sign Area
Less than six (lots or) dwellings 1 square foot per dwelling
Six or more (lots or) dwellings 50 square feet
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
Golden Hills Drive
Arcata
Apartments
Existing Sign
Proposed Sign
15
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 existing multi-family use is a reasonable use of the property. The site is a
corner lot with multiple street frontages. Other buildings in the I-394 overlay
district have multiple signs and are not restricted to 50 square feet. Other corner
lots, with buildings of similar scale, have signage along multiple street frontages.
Staff finds that the proposed addition of a second wall sign 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 I-394 overlay district was originally envisioned for smaller scale mixed-use
development, but over the past 20 years there has been significant investment in
single-use development. This has led to a mismatch between previous policy and
code requirements with the existing uses in the area. This variance application is
based in part on the current sign regulations of the R-4 and I-394 districts not
reflecting the current uses and scale of Arcata Apartments and similar multi-
family uses along the I-394 corridor.
The applicant argues the current sign regulations on multi-family developments
in these zoning districts, combined with the multiple street frontages of a corner
lot, create a unique circumstance that prevents this multi-family building from
having the amount signage allowed to other similar-scaled development along
the I-394 corridor.
Both the R-4 and the I-394 districts limit total sign area on residential buildings to
50 square feet. These limits do not take into account the height or scale of the
buildings. Nonresidential and mixed-use buildings in the I-394 district have twice
as much or more allowed signage, depending on parcel size, building floor area,
and building height.
16
Staff finds that there are 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.
Other buildings of a similar scale to Arcata Apartments along the I-394 corridor
contain similar-sized signage and multiple signs. Corner lots and buildings with
multiple street frontages, in particular, often have signage along each street.
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 request is due to the multiple street frontages of the building and
inconsistency of sign regulations for different uses in the I-394 overlay district. With
current limits on signage area, a second sign cannot be installed on the building. There is
currently no signage visible to westbound I-394 traffic and northbound Xenia Avenue
traffic until the vehicle passes the building.
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 existing multi-family residential use of the property is allowed by right in
the R-4 and I-394 zoning districts.
Staff finds the variance will permit a use that is 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.
Per Section 105-10(j)(1), the sign regulations in the I-394 overlay district are designed to
improve, or at least not detract from, visual coherence and attractiveness of the I-394
corridor, to complement colors and materials of the subject building while being visually
appealing, pedestrian oriented, and compatible with buildings, streetscape, public
views, and spaces.
Staff finds the proposed second sign maintains and enhances the visual coherence of
the area by allowing Arcata Apartments the same scale and number of signage that
other nearby uses are allowed. The proposed signage complements the existing building
in color and design.
Staff finds the variance request is in harmony with the general purposes and intents of
the I-394 overlay zoning district.
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? For over a year, the applicant has worked through
17
several iterations of the proposed signage design with city staff. Given the
inconsistencies with city code requirements and outdated I-394 corridor policy, staff
finds the minimum action necessary to eliminate the practical difficulty would be to
approve the variance.
The Development Review Committee, which includes staff from planning, fire, building, public
works, engineering, and environmental resources, has reviewed the project plans. No concerns
have been raised from other city departments.
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, no comments were received from adjacent property owners.
RECOMMENDATION
The Board should review the applicant’s request and the findings needed to grant the
variances.
Staff recommends the Board move to approve the variance requests to allow additional wall
sign area of 176.54 square feet at 901 Xenia Avenue, subject to the findings in the staff report.
NEXT STEPS
If the Board approves the variance request, the applicant will apply for an administrative PUD
amendment to update the site’s signage plan. The applicant may then finalize construction
plans and apply for a sign permit.
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 sign regulations on the property before applying
for an administrative PUD amendment and sign permit.
ATTACHED EXHIBITS
1. Existing sign exhibit
2. Proposed signage plan
STAFF CONTACT INFORMATION
Prepared by:
Jacquelyn Kramer
Senior Planner
jkramer@goldenvalleymn.gov
Reviewed by:
Emily Goellner
Community & Economic Development Director
egoellner@goldenvalleymn.gov
18
Attachment 1: Existing building signage at 901 Xenia Avenue
19
20
21
22
Date: November 26, 2024
To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
From: Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner
Subject: Request for Variance to Golden Valley City Code – 1130 Toledo Avenue North
SUMMARY
Gwen and Sean Mackey, the property owners of 1130 Toledo Avenue North, seek two variances
from the City Code Sections 113-88(e)(1)b and 113-88(f)(1)e to allow an existing pavilion and
shed in the rear yard. The variances would reduce the rear yard setback for a principal structure
by two feet from 25 feet to 23 feet; and reduce the required distance between a principal
structure and an accessory structure by eight feet, from 10 feet to 2 feet.
RECOMMENDED MOTION
“I move to approve the variance requests to reduce the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 23
feet, and to reduce the required distance between a principal structure and accessory structure
from 10 feet to 2 feet, subject to the findings in the November 26, 2024, staff report.”
SUBJECT PROPERTY
Location: 1130 Toledo Avenue North
Parcel ID Number: 1902924220027
Applicant/Property Owner: Gwen and Sean Mackey
Site Size: 0.29 acres / 12,498 square feet
Future Land Use: Low Density Residential
Zoning District: Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District
Existing Use: Single-family residence
Adjacent Properties: Single-family residences
BACKGROUND
In 2024, the applicants constructed an attached pavilion and detached shed in their rear yard.
The structures are sized in order to allow solar panel installation on south-facing roofs that, in
addition to solar panels planned to cover the roof of the principal structure, will generate
enough power to meet nearly all energy needs of the home. The shed will be used in part to
store equipment for the solar energy system. In summer 2024, City staff became aware of the
newly constructed pavilion and shed in the rear yard. The pavilion is adjacent to the house and
therefore must comply with the rear setback required for principal structures, which is 25 feet.
The pavilion as constructed is 23 feet from the rear property line. The shed was constructed
23
without a permit, is two feet away from the pavilion, and does not meet the 10-foot buffer
required between accessory structures and other structures.
The applicants have worked with City staff and discussed multiple options for resolving the
zoning code violations. The applicant has applied for after-the-fact variances to allow the new
pavilion and shed to remain in their current locations.
LOCATION MAP
24
SITE PLAN
APPLICATION REQUESTS
The applicants request two variances from the City Code to allow an existing pavilion and shed
in the rear yard. Relevant code sections:
• 113-88 Single-Family Residential (R-1), subsection (e)(1)b Principal Structure: Rear
Setback. The required rear setback shall be 25 feet.
• 113-88 Single Family Residential (R-1), subsection (f)(1)e Accessory Structures:
Separation Between Structures. Accessory structures shall be located no less than 10
feet from any principal structure and from any other accessory structure.
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.
Pavilion Shed House
Areas identified for solar panel installation
25
Each variance application must be reviewed based on the unique circumstances 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 pavilion meets the definition of a covered porch in the zoning code. Covered
porches and accessory structures are allowed and reasonable uses on the
property. Solar energy systems are also a permitted use in the R-1 district per
Section 113-156(c)(1).
Staff finds that the proposed use of the pavilion and shed for solar energy
generation 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 existing tree canopy on the property
limits the areas for solar panel installation. The trees on the property were
present when the applicants purchased the property in 2016. The pavilion and
shed are sized and placed to create enough roof area, along with the principal
structure, for installation of a solar energy system that will meet, or nearly meet,
the energy needs of the property.
Staff finds that there are 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.
While other single-family properties in the neighborhood and throughout the
city have back porches or pavilions, this particular structure is larger than what is
typically found in the city. The back yard is fully enclosed by a six-foot fence that
minimizes the visual impact of the pavilion. The shed has similar dimensions and
character to other sheds in the neighborhood.
Staff finds that variance, if granted, would not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood.
2. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Section 113-
27(c)(2) states: “Practical difficulties include but are not limited to, inadequate access to
direct sunlight for solar energy systems.” The applicants argue the size and location of
the pavilion and shed are necessary for generating enough solar energy to meet (or as
26
closely as possible to meet) the energy needs of the property. The applicants hired
professional arborists to prune and remove existing trees to optimize solar exposure.
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-Density Residential (R-1) zoning district.
Open porches, accessory structures, and solar energy systems are permitted in this
district.
Staff finds the variance will permit a use that is 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. The purpose of the R-1 district is “to provide for detached single-family dwelling
units at a low density along with directly related and complementary uses.” Back
porches or pavilions, sheds, and solar energy systems are all complementary uses to
single-family homes.
Chapter 7 of the Golden Valley Comprehensive Plan addresses resilience and
sustainability. Goal 1 of this chapter is to promote and develop clean, renewable energy.
The proposed solar energy system on this property meets Objective 2 in this section:
encourage new development, redevelopment, and retrofit projects to add renewable
energy capacity or infrastructure.
Staff finds the variance request is in harmony with the general purposes and intents of
the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District and the goals of the Comprehensive
Plan.
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?
One alternative city staff and the applicants discussed was to remove a portion of the
pavilion to meet rear setbacks and accessory structure separation requirements. This
would be costly, possibly compromise the structural integrity of the pavilion, and lessen
the potential solar energy generation of the site.
Alternatively, the Board could choose to grant the rear yard setback variance but not
the accessory structure separation variance. The applicants would then be required to
remove or relocate the shed, but the pavilion could remain as-is. Removing or relocating
the shed could negatively impact solar energy generation of the site by making storage
of equipment more difficult or costly.
27
The Development Review Committee, which includes staff from planning, fire, building, public
works, engineering, and environmental resources, has reviewed the project plans. Building
Inspections staff have worked with the applicant on their permits and will review any future
building permits for the solar panels.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATIONS
Notice was sent to all adjacent property owners as outlined in City Code Section 113-27(d)2.
The city has received one letter in opposition to the variance requests. Please see the letter
attached to the staff report.
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 requests to reduce the rear yard
setback from 25 feet to 23 feet, and to reduce the required distance between a principal
structure and accessory structure from 10 feet to 2 feet based on the finding that the variance
standards have been met as outlined in the Staff Report.
NEXT STEPS
If the Board approves the variance request, the applicant will apply for an after-the-fact
accessory structure permit and a building permit for the future solar panels.
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 applicants will need to
remove or relocate the structures to comply with current zoning requirements.
ATTACHED EXHIBITS
1. Site plan
2. Public comment letter
STAFF CONTACT INFORMATION
Prepared by:
Jacquelyn Kramer
Senior Planner
jkramer@goldenvalleymn.gov
Reviewed by:
Emily Goellner
Community & Economic Development Director
egoellner@goldenvalleymn.gov
28
29
November 18, 2024
Dear Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals,
We are writing to formally express our opposition to the variance request for the un-permitted
accessory structure completed earlier this year at 1130 Toledo Ave N.
According to Board rules, a “variance” should be considered only when there are “practical
difficulties” in complying with the code as written—that is not the case in this matter:
1.The purpose of the property proposed is unreasonable.
A new three-season structure (erected in summer 2024) already connects to the primary
principal structure which, in turn, now connects to the un-permitted accessory structure in
question. The setback requirements in Sudb. (e)(1)(b) and (f)(1)e are clear and would’ve
been earlier addressed if the homeowner had secured the appropriate building permit.
2.The variance request is not due to circumstances unique to the property.
The property owner is the direct cause of this matter due to their abject failure to seek
appropriate building permit(s) prior to construction. Additionally, we have learned in
speaking with senior city planner Jacquelyn Kramer that the homeowners ignored City
guidance to simply weatherize and instead proceeded with final construction.
Retroactively allowing such a variance on this structure because construction is complete
would set a troubling precedent in our community and encourage others to bypass zoning
regulations with a “build first, seek forgiveness later” mindset.
3.This structure alters the essential character of our neighborhood.
The density on the rear property now created by the new three-season structure and
separate accessory structure is simply too great for the existing neighborhood, and the Board
should carefully evaluate the amount of structure in relation to the lot size.
Specifically, the accessory structure imposes on adjacent properties, including ours, by
creating an undue sense of enclosure, which negatively impacts outdoor living—again, no
other property in our neighborhood has such a high disproportion of structure-to-yard.
Allowing this to remain unchallenged undermines the efforts of Golden Valley to maintain
orderly development and ensure that all properties conform to established codes that protect the
rights and wellbeing of all residents.
We respectfully urge the Board to take swift action in addressing this very avoidable violation,
and to require the removal or modification of the structure to comply with the appropriate
restrictions. Again, we ask the Board to give no favorable weight in its decision to the project’s
current state since final construction activities were undertaken by the homeowner against clear
City direction. If anything, the homeowners’ actions are an affront to City employees.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, and for your ongoing work in maintaining the
integrity of our community.
With thanks and appreciation for your consideration,
Lee Henderson & Matthew Holen
1131 Wills Place
Golden Valley, MN 55422
30