BZA Agenda Packet_07.14.2025 July 22, 2025 — 7:00 PM
Council Chambers
1.Call to Order, Land Acknowledgement, and Attendance
Attendance by presence, not roll call
2.Consent Agenda
All matters listed under item 2 are considered routine in nature and will be enacted by one
motion. Individual discussion of these items is not planned. A member, however, may remove
any item to discuss as an item for separate consideration under New Business.
2.A.Approval of Agenda
2.B.Approval of May 27, 2025 Meeting Minutes
3.Public Hearings
3.A.521 Indiana Avenue
4.Council Liaison Report
5.Staff and Board Member Updates
6.Adjourn
BZA REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
The public can make statements in this meeting during the planned public comment sections.
Individuals may also provide public hearing testimony remotely by emailing
planning@goldenvalleymn.gov by 3 p.m. on the day of the meeting.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting July 22, 2025 — 7:00 PM
1
MEETING MINUTES
1. Call to Order and Land Acknowledgement
Chair Orenstein called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and read the Land Acknowledgement.
a. Members Present: Brookins, Corrado, Tapio, Orenstein, Commissioner Ruby
b. Student Member: Vacant
c. Staff Members Present: Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner, Steven Okey, Associate Planner
d. Council Liaison: LaMere-Anderson
Tapio took the oath of office for new board members.
Brookins made a motion to elect Orenstein as Chair.
Corrado seconded.
Voted unanimously.
Orenstein made a motion to elect Corrado as Vice Chair.
Brookins seconded.
Voted unanimously.
2. Consent Agenda
2.a. Approval of agenda
2.b. Approval of April 22, 2025, meeting minutes
Brookins made a motion to approve.
Corrado seconded.
Voted unanimously for approval.
3. Public Hearings
3.a. 4124 Beverly Avenue
Applicant: Angela and Andrew Varpness.
Request: Request for a variance from Section 113-88 Single-Family Residential R-1 Zoning
District, subsection (e)(1)(c) to reduce the required side setback by 1 foot 3 inches for a portion
of the structure above 15 feet from the 13 foot 9 inch requirement to 12 feet 6 inch.
Okey presented the staff report.
Orenstein stated that he will abstain from discussion due to proximity to the property.
Okey presented an email sent in by Christian Seacrest, 4127 Beverly Avenue. The email
stated that they have no objection to the request by his neighbor.
Corrado asked if the proposed landscape walls have any effect on the setback.
Okey stated that there are no issues with the proposed walls.
Corrado noted that the deck is symmetrical with the addition in one plan, but is not in
the site plan. He asked if this was a mistake or if the deck is actually smaller than the
addition.
Applicant Angela Varpness spoke:
o She explained the site plan and landscaping for the project.
May 27, 2025 – 7:00 pm
City Hall: Council Chamber
Hybrid Meeting: Teams/Phone
2
City of Golden Valley BZA Meeting Minutes
May 27, 2025 – 7 pm
2
o She noted they will fill in with gravel if the deck size is slightly smaller than the
addition.
Corrado opened the public hearing.
Corrado asked if there was anyone online who wished to speak.
Okey confirmed no one was online who wished to speak.
Corrado closed the public hearing.
Ruby noted that he agrees with staff and will most likely be voting yes.
Corrado also added that he agrees with staff's suggestion.
Brookins noted that this seems like the best solution for the property.
Brookins made a motion to approve the variance request.
Ruby seconded
Corrado, Ruby, Tapio, and Brookins voted aye, Orenstein abstained
Vote was taken and approved with Orenstein abstaining.
4. New Business
4.a. Review of Board of Zoning Appeals Bylaws
Kramer explained the Bylaws process.
Kramer stated that she planned to remove the section related to the specific agenda
order and asked for an opinion.
Orenstein stated that everything else looks fine.
Corrado noted that they could add AI protection or rules into the bylaws.
Kramer stated that she will bring the final language to the next meeting for approval.
Orenstein noted that the student seat seems unnecessary and might need to be
removed from the bylaws.
Kramer noted that this is a Council decision. She added that most boards have not filled
the student seat.
5. Commissioner Updates: Councilor Rosenquist
LaMere-Anderson explained why the boards don’t usually have any student seats filled.
She noted that they should still actively look for student members.
LaMere-Anderson updated the Board that the City conducted an engagement pulse
survey. She explained what the survey asked and what the scores were. She noted that
the scores were very poor a year ago. She added that over the last 12 months, they have
improved staff engagement scores and improvement in 21 of 24 areas as well.
LaMere-Anderson stated that the City Pride event is on June 7.
LaMere-Anderson updated that there will be a safety/security training held for the BZA
and PC on June 9.
LaMere-Anderson updated on July events.
6. Staff Comments
Kramer explained the training on June 7.
7. Adjourn
Chair Orenstein adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m.
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Community Development
763-512-2345 / 763-512-2344 (fax)
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting
July 22, 2025
Agenda Item
3.A. 521 Indiana Avenue
Prepared By
Steven Okey, Associate Planner
Chloe McGuire, Deputy Community Development Director
Summary
Jonathan Miskowiec on behalf of property owner Paul Johnson, seeks a variance from the City Code
Section 113-88 Single-Family Residential R-1 Zoning District, subsection (e).(1).c.3 to reduce the
required side setback by 2 feet 6 inches for a portion of the structure above 13 feet from the 8-foot
requirement to 5 feet 6 inch. The variance, if approved, would allow for construction of a new two-
story single-family dwelling.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends the Board move to deny a variance from the City Code Section 113-88 Single-Family
Residential R-1 Zoning District, subsection (e).(1).c.3 to reduce the required side setback by 2 feet 6
inches for a portion of the structure above 13 feet from the 8-foot requirement to 5 feet 6 inch.
Supporting Documents
Staff Report
Variance Narrative
Site Plan
Floor Plans and Elevations
Massing and Shadow Diagrams
Resolution 25-0008 Denying Variance
4
Date: July 22, 2025
To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
From: Steven Okey, Associate Planner
Subject: Request for Variance to Golden Valley City Code – 521 Indiana Ave
Subject Property
Location: 521 Indiana Ave
Parcel ID Number: 1902924410044
Applicant/Property Owner: Jonathan Miskowiec on behalf of owner Paul Johnson
Site Size: 0.12 acres, 5336 square feet
Future Land Use: Low Density Residential
Zoning District: R-1 Single Family Residential
Existing Use: Single-family residence
Adjacent Properties: Single family homes
The property is an approximately 40 x 133.7’ vacant lot on Indiana Avenue North. Standard
setbacks for a 40-foot-wide lot are: 35 feet in the front, 25 feet in the rear, and side setbacks
vary based on the proposed height of the home. The applicant is applying for a variance from
the City Code Section 113-88 Single-Family Residential R-1 Zoning District, subsection (e).(1).c.3
to reduce the side setback on the northern lot line for the portion of the structure over 13 feet
in height.
Required Setback Proposed Setback Meets/Not Meets
Front – 35 feet 35 feet Meets
Side (south) – 8 feet 8.5 feet Meets
Side (north) – 8 feet* 5.5 feet Does not meet
Rear – 25 feet 43 feet Meets
*For a 13 foot-tall wall, this setback would be 5 feet. The applicant has proposed an 18-foot-tall wall,
which requires a step back to 8 feet.
5
Staff has identified all of the proposed setbacks for the new home in order to provide context
on where there is additional space to build within conforming setbacks.
Code Section 113-88.(e).(1).c. 3 Excerpt
c. Side Setbacks. Side yard setbacks are determined by the lot width at the minimum required
front setback line. The distance between a structure and the side lot lines shall be governed by
the following requirements:
In the case of lots having a width of 65 feet or less, the side setbacks for any portion of a
structure 13 feet or less in height along the north or west side shall be 10 percent of the
lot width and along the south or east side shall be 20 percent of the lot width (up to
12.5 feet). In no case shall a side setback be less than 5 feet. The side setback for any
portion of a structure greater than 13 feet in height measured to an inwardly sloping
plane at a ratio of 2:1 beginning at a point 13 feet directly above the side setback line
(see figure below).
6
Site Image
Planning Analysis
In reviewing this application, staff reviewed the request against the standards in Section 113-
27(c) of the Code, which provides the variance standards in compliance with Minnesota State
Statute Section 462.357. The burden of proof is on the applicant to show that the request is in
harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter and consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Each variance application must be reviewed based on the unique circumstance of the
application. For that reason, no variance sets a precedent because no two circumstances are
identical. However, if the City finds itself granting numerous similar variances, the City could
consider amendments to the City Code.
Highway 55 frontage road
7
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 dwelling on the property.
The adjacent properties are single-family dwellings.
Staff finds that the proposed use of a single-family dwelling 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 applicant has stated that the narrow lot as platted was not the result of any
action by the homeowner and is a unique characteristic of the lot. The applicant
has also stated in their application that the poor soils are a unique characteristic
of the lot. They state that to conform with the code section and get the desired
square footage they would need to excavate a basement. Due to the poor soils,
they would have to incur triple the costs for excavation of a full basement. This is
why they are proposing the two-story house.
Staff finds that there are multiple lots in the surrounding area that are also 40-
foot-wide lots, including lots with existing dwellings and recently constructed
dwellings and that this is not unique to the subject property. In fact, the
applicant constructed the home directly to the west (on Ardmore) which is a
very similar property without any variances.
Staff finds that while the soils may be unique to this lot there are options to
create the desired square footage. This may lead to increased costs, but
economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties as also
stated in point two of the Planning Analysis.
Additionally, Staff believes that the variance request is due to the property
owner. The variance for this vacant lot is difficult to support, given that there are
alternatives for building the home that do not require a variance.
c. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality.
The surrounding area consists of single-family dwellings of varying types such as
single-story, story and a half, and two-story.
Staff finds that the construction of a two-story single-family dwelling would not
alter the essential character of the locality.
8
2. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
The applicant stated the side setback requirement on a 40-foot-wide lot restricts the
buildability of the desired square footage. In order to create the desired square footage
and keep within the required setbacks it would necessitate excavation of a basement.
The applicant stated that the site has poor soil quality and would require tremendous
costs to properly make soil corrections below grade.
Staff finds that the higher costs due to soil conditions is an economic consideration and
does not constitute a practical difficulty. Additionally, the applicant should be able to
revise the home plans to meet the setback criteria. This is a minimal cost and a standard
part of the building permit review process.
3. The Board of Zoning Appeals may not grant a variance that would allow any use that is
not allowed under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land
is located.
The property is located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) zoning district. The
applicant proposes building a single-family dwelling on the property, which is a
permitted use.
Staff finds the variance would permit a use allowed in the zoning district where the
property is located.
4. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of this chapter and when the variances are consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
Staff finds that the variance is in line with the purpose of the R-1 district, which is “to
provide for detached single-family dwelling units at a low density along with directly
related and complementary uses.”
5. Finally, when reviewing a variance, the City must first determine whether or not there is
a practical difficulty and, if so, is the requested variance the minimum action necessary
to eliminate the practical difficulty?
Staff finds that the arguments made by the applicant are not unique to the property and
that there are possible alternatives to achieve the desired outcome for the construction
of the new single-family dwelling. These may be more expensive but economic
considerations alone do not constitute a practical difficulty.
Staff met with the applicant and their architect and provided solutions that removed the
need for a variance request while still maintaining their desired square footage. These
included redesigning the home with a larger first floor footprint to achieve the desired
square footage as well as redesigning the second floor layout to accommodate the
kitchen design within a lower side wall height that could have met the side setback
requirement. Staff also suggested that they reposition the proposed dwelling further
back on the lot to lessen the impact on the property to the north. The proposed
dwelling is situated on the lot in such a way that they have an approximately 43-foot
9
rear setback and the code requirement is for a 25-foot setback which leaves open the
possibility of repositioning the dwelling. Ultimately the applicant did not revise their
floor plan and provided very little additional information in their narrative to justify not
making the changes suggested by staff.
Additionally, a new home was recently built in close proximity on a similar sized lot
which met all requirements.
Variance Process
During the variance process, staff works behind-the-scenes with applicants to bring forward
clean applications to the BZA. Typically, staff does not recommend applications move forward
that end with a recommendation for denial in order to save the applicant both time and money
in the process.
Staff has been communicating with this applicant on various options that would have lessened
or removed the impact of the variance, but the plans have never been revised to show changes:
- Push the dwelling further back to lessen impacts on the property to the north. There is
an additional 18 feet of rear yard space that could be utilized.
- Revise square footage of the home.
- Revise the layout of the home. The applicant has indicated that the refrigerator that
they want won’t work within the existing roof slope. There are numerous other
locations for a kitchen on this property, as well as other roof pitches that would
accommodate their proposed refrigerator.
Summary of Planning Analysis
Criteria Meet/Not Meet
Practical Difficulty - The property
owner must propose to use the
property in a reasonable manner.
Meets criteria.
Practical Difficulty - The landowners’
problem must be due to circumstances
unique to the property that is not
caused by the landowner.
Does not meet criteria. The property owner is requesting a
side yard setback variance for a new home, while
maintaining a larger-than-necessary rear yard setback.
The living space could be shifted to the rear of the home,
but the applicant did not revise the proposed home plans.
Practical Difficulty - The variance, if
granted, must not alter the essential
character of the locality.
Meets criteria.
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.
Meets criteria.
10
Economic considerations alone do not
constitute practical difficulties.
Does not meet criteria.
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.
Meets criteria.
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?
Does not constitute a practical difficulty – therefore, this
does not meet criteria. There are other actions, such as
revising the home plans to meet setbacks, that eliminate
the need for a variance request.
Staff Recommendation
The Board should review the applicants’ request and the findings needed to grant a variance.
Staff recommends the Board move to deny a variance from the City Code Section 113-88 Single-
Family Residential R-1 Zoning District, subsection (e).(1).c.3 to reduce the required side setback
by 2 feet 6 inches for a portion of the structure above 13 feet from the 8-foot requirement to 5
feet 6 inch.
Recommended motion language: “I move to deny the variance request to reduce the side yard
setback along the northern lot line by 2 feet 6 inches for a portion of the structure above 13
feet from the 8-foot requirement to 5 feet 6 inch, subject to the findings and conditions in the
July 22, 2025, staff report.”
Next Steps
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.
If the Board wishes to approve the variance request: the BZA must make findings to support
approval of the variance for each of the listed criteria above. Please refer to the table above
which indicates in red the three findings that the BZA would need to amend in order to approve
this request.
11
keep + MN Lifestyles
Variance Narrative for 521 Indiana Ave N
2025.07.09
Variance Request:
Raise maximum sidewall requirement from 13 ft to 18 ft.
Site specific constraints:
Zoning Code requires small lots to have a 13 ft. side wall maximum (whereas larger lots are
allowed higher side walls at the same distance from their property lines). This height constraint
on lots below 40 ft in width practically prohibits two-story homes- despite two story homes being
the typical housing type in the neighborhood. The obvious way to conform to this constraint
would be to excavate a basement to account for lost square footage.
Furthermore, a very large single story structure could be constructed but would not provide the
same square footage desired by our client and provided by a two story structure.
However, our lot specifically has poor soil quality (see provided Geotechnical Report) and would
require tremendous effort to properly make soil corrections below grade. Therefore, we are
requesting raising the sidewall height constraint to 18 ft. to allow a typical two story house to be
built at grade.
Provide a detailed description of need for a variance from the Zoning Code, including
description of building(s), description of proposed additions), and description of
proposed alteration(s) to property:
The variance would increase the side wall requirements for lot 521 Indiana Ave N, to 18 ft
maximum (with standard roof slope of 2:1 beginning at a point 18 feet directly above the side
setback line) to allow for a two-story single family home that fits both the character and
surrounding heights.
The maximum height of 28 feet shall remain in place and our proposed structure conforms to
this limitation.
Our proposed house design is for a shed roof design sloping to the North side of the lot and a
drawn.deck on the South side of the home. The variance only impacts the North setback and
removes the limitation of a 13 foot side wall.
Notably, the shadow cast by this proposed structure is considerably less than the maximum roof
height allowed per Golden Valley zoning. See diagrams for shadow study, single level
alternative, and similar neighboring structures for reference.
12
842.2848.3845.1844.7847.8844.7843.3842.7843.4843.2842.9843.4843.7843.5847.2847.6848.4849.2845.1844.3843.6843.4FFE845.8FFE845.1843.5843.2843.2843.2843.9844.6845.8845.9846.1844.2843.6844.2843.8843.5846.3845.0842.6845.5844.7847.4847.1847.7851.1851.3852.3N 00°03'31" E 40.00
N 00°03'31" E 40.00846
844844844850848S 89°59'35" E 133.90S 89°59'35" E 133.9026.28.1
34.4DeckAboveD r i v e w a y19'0"10'0"28'8"7'0"
7'0"16'4"19'0"55'0"8.5
5.5
35.043.92%±8528488
4
6844844846842845.0
844.8 843.3tw847.4bw845.5ResidenceNo. 525ResidenceNo. 517WoodFenceINDIANA AVENUE NORTHStepsTimber PilePowerPole845.23.6
walkRetaining wall
Proposed Residence521Dimensions shown per gridlines (foundation)844844Proposed-HardcoverLot Area5,356 sq ftProp-Residence1,246 sq ftProp-Deck114 sq ftProp-Walk42 sq ftProp-Driveway595 sq ftTotal1,997 sq ftPercentage37.29%F:\survey\glenwood - hennepin\120 glenwood\01 Surveying - 90952\01 CAD\01 Source\01 Survey Base.dwgBasis forbearings isassumedSurveyors Certificate000.0x000.0Denotes Wood Hub Set for excavation onlyDenotes Existing ElevationDenotes Proposed ElevationDenotes Surface DrainageDenotes Iron MonumentDenotes Found Iron MonumentDenotes Proposed ContoursDenotes Existing ContoursDrawn BySignedGregory R. Prasch, Minn. Reg. No. 24992Scale: 1" = 20'F.B.No.Project No.I certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under thelaws of the State of Minnesota.revAddress:Legal Description7601 73rd Avenue NorthMinneapolis, Minnesota 55428(763) 560-3093DemarcInc.com90952A-Site Plan Survey For:521 Indiana Avenue NorthGolden Valley, MNSurveyed this 20th day of February 2025. JON MISKOWIEC Lot 120, GLENWOOD, together with Half ofthe adjoining vacated Alley,Hennepin County, MinnesotaProperty located in Section19, Township 29, Range 24,Hennepin County, MinnesotaDenotes Overhead WireBENCHMARKS:Benchmark: Top Nut Hydrant S.W Corner of IndianaAvenue North and North of Woodstock AvenueElevation = 844.81Top nut of hydrant at NW corner of Indiana Avenue Northand South of Olson Memorial Highway.Elevation = 858.90 feetSURVEY NOTES:1. Bearings are assumed.Property Zoned R-1, Single Family ResidentialBuilding Setback Requirements Front - 35 feet main structure 30 feet for decks Side - 10% of the lot width for the North & West side 20% of the lot width for South & East side Rear - 25 feetRefer to City Code for additional restrictions orallowances.Existing Impervious SurfaceLot Area5,356 sq ftConcrete508 sq ftTotal508 sq ftPercentage9.48%NOTE: Proposed grades are subject to results of soil tests.Proposed building information must be checked withapproved building plan and development or gradingplan before excavation and construction.Proposed grades shown on this survey areinterpolations of proposed contours from thedrainage, grading and/or development plans.NOTE: The relationship between proposed floorelevations to be verified by builder.NOTE: The only easements shown are from plats ofrecord or information provided by client.Proposed Top of FoundationProposed Garage FloorType of Building845.3845.0Slab on Grade "Proposed Elevations" 13
SCALE:DATE:1/8 = 1'-0"02/05/2025INDIANA521 INDIANA AVE NGOLDEN VALLEY, MN 554221.0PLANS REVISION
2800 36TH AVE S.
MINNEAPOLIS
MN, 5 5 4 0 6
608.395.4347
#DATE
IF PRINTED ON 24X361" MARGIN LEFT BLANKIF PRINTED ON 24X36keepEXTERIOR DOOR AND WINDOW SCHEDULE
QTY MANUFACTURER UNIT NO.TYPE UNIT SIZE (W x H)HEAD HT AFF EXT. FINISH INT. FINISH HARDWARE HARDWARE FINISH NOTES
E-01 1 Anderson A Series FULL LITE GLASS WHITESwing In 3'0"x 6'11"Black Black Stainless Stainless -
E-02 1 Anderson A Series SLAB PRE-FINISHED WHITESwing In 6'0"x 6'11"Black Black Stainless Stainless -
E-03 1 MARVIN ELEVATE GLIDING PATIO 10'0"x 6'10 1/2"BLACK PINE Stainless Stainless TEMPERED
E-04 1 MARVIN ELEVATE GLIDING PATIO 10'0"x 6'10 1/2"BLACK PINE Stainless Stainless TEMPERED
E-05 1 MARVIN ELEVATE GLIDING PATIO 10'0"x 6'10 1/2"BLACK PINE Stainless Stainless TEMPERED
W-01 6 MARVIN ELEVATE Casement 3'1"x 2'11 5/8"8'3"BLACK PINE Contemporary Folding - Black Contemporary Folding - Black
W-02 6 MARVIN ELEVATE Fixed Glass 5'1"x 5'3 5/8"8'0"BLACK PINE Contemporary Folding - Black Contemporary Folding - Black
W-03 1 MARVIN ELEVATE Fixed Glass 4'9"x 3'11 5/8"6'8"BLACK PINE Contemporary Folding - Black Contemporary Folding - Black TEMPERED
W-04 1 MARVIN ELEVATE Casement 3'1"x 3'11 5/8"6'8"BLACK WHITE Contemporary Folding - Black Contemporary Folding - Black TEMPERED
INTERIOR DOOR SCHEDULE
#DOOR SIZE (W x H)TYPE FINISH HARDWARE / NOTES
I-01 3'0"x 6'11"Swing OAK SCHERER OR SIM.
I-02 3'0"x 6'11"Swing OAK SCHERER OR SIM.
I-03 3'0"x 6'11"Swing OAK SCHERER OR SIM.
I-04 3'0"x 6'11"Swing OAK SCHERER OR SIM.
I-05 3'0"x 6'11"Pocket OAK SCHERER OR SIM.
I-05 2'6"x 6'11"Swing OAK SCHERER OR SIM.
I-06 2'6"x 6'11"Swing OAK SCHERER OR SIM.
I-07 16'0"x 6'11"Overhead OAK SCHERER OR SIM.
I-08 3'0"x 6'11"Pocket OAK SCHERER OR SIM.
I-06
E-01
I-07
32 FEET MAXIMUMW-01W-01W-01E-02
I-05
W-01 W-01
W-01 MECHI-01I-02I-08
I-05
7'-0"55'-0"3'-0"5'-9"26'-0"11'-0 1/2"4'-11 1/2"7'-2"10'-0"10'-0"5'-9"16'-4"4'-6" TO FRAMING (TUB)3
A
1
4
5
GEC
2
B D FW-02W-04W-02E-05 E-04
W-03
E-03
W-02
W-02W-02
I-04
I-03
LIGHT WELL
W-02
7'-0"55'-0"3'-0"5'-9"26'-0"11'-0 1/2"4'-11 1/2"7'-2"10'-0"10'-0"5'-9"16'-4"4'-6" TO FRAMING (TUB)3
A
1
4
5
GEC
2
B D F
PER MANUFACTURER: U-FACTOR = .27 FOR LOW E2 ARGON FOR ALL WINDOWS. PATIO DOORS .31 AND ENTRY SWING DOOR: .26
W-02
7'-0"3'-0"
26'-0"
11'-0 1/2"4'-11 1/2"
4'-6"
TO FRAMING (TUB)
3 1452
AVG ROOF 28'
SIDEWALL 13'
GRADE 0'16'-8"6'-8"10'-4"18'-0"STANDARD FRIDGEISLAND
9'-4"1'-0"14
13 ft. eave
2:1 ratio
28 ft. max height73 ft. long: 1970sf single level.
keep
1.Maximum Zoning Requirements 521 Indiana Ave N
2025.07.07
15
518 Ardmore designed by keep
18 ft. eave
keep
2. 518 Ardmore Reference 521 Indiana Ave N
2025.07.07
16
“13 ft. eave”
5 ft. grade
518 Ardmore designed by keep
keep
3. 518 Ardmore with Added Grade 521 Indiana Ave N
2025.07.07
17
18 ft. eave
56 ft. long: 2250sf two level
keep
4. Proposed Shed Roof Variance 521 Indiana Ave N
2025.07.07
18
18 ft. eave
note shadow location
keep
5. Flipped Shed Roof 521 Indiana Ave N
2025.07.07
19
RESOLUTION NO. 25-0008
A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE AT 521 Indiana Avenue North
WHEREAS Jonathan Miskowiec on behalf of property owner Paul Johnson, seeks a
variance from the City Code Section 113-88 Single-Family Residential R-1 Zoning District,
subsection (e).(1).c.3 to reduce the required side setback by 2 feet 6 inches for a portion of
the structure above 13 feet from the 8-foot requirement to 5 feet 6 inch in order to construct
a new two-story single-family dwelling.
WHEREAS, the proposed variance is situated upon lands in Hennepin County, Minnesota,
legally described in “Exhibit A”; and
WHEREAS, on July 22, 2025, the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals held a public
hearing on the application; and
WHEREAS, based on the testimony, evidence presented, and files and records, the Board
of Zoning Appeals determined that the requested variance does not meet the requirements
of City Code Section 113-27(c) necessary to be met for the Board of Zoning Appeals to
grant variances, and makes the following findings:
1. The property is currently a single-family residence. The proposed single-family
dwelling is a reasonable use for this type of property.
2. The circumstances on the property are caused by the landowner’s preferred design
rather than intrinsic physical characteristics of the site.
3. The variance, if granted, would not alter the essential character of the locality.
4. The practical difficulties in the applicant’s request are solely due to economic
considerations.
5. The variance will not permit a use not allowed in the zoning district where the
property is located.
6. The variance is in line with the purpose of the R-1 district, which is “to provide for
detached single-family dwelling units at a low density along with directly related and
complementary uses.”
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF THE
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA that this Board adopts Resolution No. 25-0008
denying the variance request to reduce the side yard setback along the northern lot line by
2 feet 6 inches for a portion of the structure above 13 feet from the 8-foot requirement to 5
feet 6 inch at 521 Indiana Avenue North.
Adopted by the Board of Zoning Appeals this 22nd day of July, 2025.
ATTEST:
_____________________________ _____________________________
Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner Richard Orenstein, Chair
Exhibit A: Legal Description
Lot 120, GLENWOOD ADDITION, together with Half of the adjoining vacated Alley,
Hennepin County, Minnesota
20