BZA packet_08-26-25 August 26, 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 July 22, 2025 Meeting Minutes
3.Public Hearings
3.A.500 Radisson Road
3.B.4625 Bassett Creek Lane
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 August 26, 2025 — 7:00 PM
1
MEETING MINUTES
1. Call to Order and Land Acknowledgement
• Chair Orenstein called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. and read the Land Acknowledgement.
a. Members Present: Corrado, Orenstein, Tapio, Commissioner Sicotte
b. Member Absent: Brookins
c. Student Member: Vacant
d. Staff Members Present: Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner, Steven Okey, Associate Planner
e. Council Liaison: Denise LaMere-Anderson
2. Consent Agenda
2.a. Approval of the agenda
2.b. Approval of May 27, 2025 Meeting Minutes
• Corrado made a motion to approve.
• Tapio seconded.
• Voted unanimously for approval.
3. Public Hearings
3.a. 521 Indiana Avenue
Applicant: Jon Miskowiec on behalf of property owner Paul Johnson
Request: Request 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 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 inches. The
variance, if approved, would allow for construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling.
• Okey presented the staff report.
• Corrado asked for clarification on the soil study.
• Okey stated that a full study was done, but they just didn’t include it in the packet.
• Architect Austin Watanabe spoke on behalf of the applicant:
o He stated his relation to the applicant.
o He discussed the sidewall requirements and the issues they are having with this
property.
o He explained the soil report. He noted that the soil report speaks to the
practical difficulty of this request.
o He presented the diagrams of the property.
• Orenstein noted that since this is a new build, they could explore other options.
• Austin Watanabe explained that there are issues they run into with other options.
• Tapio asked what accommodations this build will provide and if they need all 2250 sf for
this property.
• Austin Watanabe stated that design is custom to what the property owner likes. He
noted that they are not doing anything palatial on this property.
July 22, 2025 – 7 pm
City Hall: Council Chamber
2
City of Golden Valley BZA Meeting Minutes
July 22, 2025 – 7 pm
2
• Orenstein asked if they could make any adjustments to the layout of the home to better
fit the kitchen.
• Austin Watanabe stated that they could make those adjustments, but it would not be
ideal in a new build.
• Okey clarified that setbacks are measured to the exterior wall, not the framing.
• Orenstein opened the public hearing.
• Orenstein stated that the applicant provided a letter from the neighbors in support (see
attachment A).
• Orenstein asked if there was anyone online who wished to speak.
• Kramer confirmed no one was online who wished to speak.
• Orenstein closed the public hearing.
• Orenstein asked staff for feedback to adjust the setback as mentioned.
• Kramer noted that staff have discussed this as a path forward. She reviewed the options
that they have when moving forward with the application.
• Orenstein noted that this property does not meet the criteria in many places.
• Corrado stated that he understands many of the points that the applicant has brought
up, but he does not see that this property meets the criteria enough to recommend
approval.
• Orenstein noted that this is a tough decision, and they usually like to find a solution for
each application.
• Builder Jon Miskowiec spoke on behalf of the applicant:
o He explained the issues with the foundation of the home that increase the risk
of flooding on the current property.
o He also noted that digging into the basement creates a risk that is unnecessary
and creates hardship.
• Sicotte stated that he does not see an issue with enlarging the building to the west. He
added that there should be a planning solution that could keep the overall idea.
• Kramer provided further information on other paths they could take on this item
without approval or denial tonight.
• Orenstein stated that he is not comfortable approving this item.
• Sicotte stated agreement on not moving forward with approval.
• Tapio asked staff for details on the reasons why the 13-foot rules might be
implemented.
• Okey explained that this is due to concerns from the public about narrow properties and
getting very tall walls next to them.
• Orenstein asked for a motion.
• Orenstein motioned to deny the variance request.
• Corrado seconded.
• Voted unanimously for denial.
4. Commissioner Updates: LaMere-Anderson
• LaMere-Anderson updated the Board on the recent City Council action.
• LaMere-Anderson stated that the City is the recipient of a Step 5 GreenStep City Award.
She explained what the award recognizes in each City.
• LaMere-Anderson noted that the City has declared August 5 as National Night Out.
3
City of Golden Valley BZA Meeting Minutes
July 22, 2025 – 7 pm
3
• LaMere-Anderson provided an update on a recent water pressure system issue in the
City.
• LaMere-Anderson noted that the window for running for City Council is open from July
29-August 12. She stated that two seats will be open. The election is on November 4th.
5. Staff Comments
None.
6. Adjourn
• Chair Orenstein adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m.
4
Attachment A
5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Community Development
763-512-2345 / 763-512-2344 (fax)
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting
August 26, 2025
Agenda Item
3.A. 500 Radisson Road
Prepared By
Steven Okey, Associate Planner
Chloe McGuire, Deputy Community Development Director
Summary
Property owners Kory Carlston & Martha Lopez Ibarra are applying for a variance from the City Code
Section 113-88 Single-Family Residential R-1 Zoning District, subsection (f)(1)a and b to reduce the
front setback for an accessory structure on the western lot line from 35 feet to 4 feet 1 inch and to
allow it to be located closer to the front setback line along Radisson Road than a principal structure.
Legal Considerations
N/A
Equity Considerations
N/A
Recommended Action
Staff recommends the Board move to approve the variance request to reduce the front yard setback
of accessory structures along Turners Crossroad South from 35 feet to four feet one inch and to
approve the variance request to allow accessory structures to be closer to the front setback line along
Radisson Road than the principal structure.
Supporting Documents
Staff Report
Survey
Photos
Written Testimony
6
Date: August 26, 2025
To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
From: Steven Okey, Associate Planner
Subject: Request for Variance to Golden Valley City Code – 500 Radisson Road
Subject Property
Location: 500 Radisson Road
Parcel ID Number: 3002924220082
Applicant(s)/Property Owner(s): Kory Carlston & Martha Lopez Ibarra
Site Size: 0.48 acres, 21,018 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 and an office building to the west.
The property is an irregular shaped lot platted in 1941, situated between Radisson Road and
Turners Crossroad South. The standard setbacks for the lot are: 35 feet on the street facing
frontages of which there are two (Turners Crossroads South and Radisson Road), 25 feet in the
rear, and due to the unusual shape of the lot and the fact it is bordered by two roadways there
are no side setbacks.
In the spring of 2025 city staff became aware of a newly constructed shed at 500 Radisson Road
in the yard adjacent to Turners Crossroads South. The new shed is four feet one inch from the
western property line and does not conform with the setback and location requirements for
accessory structures in section 113-88(f)(1). The shed complies with accessory structure height
and size restrictions found in section 113-88(f)(2) and (3).
An email outlining the zoning code violation was sent to the applicant on May 21, 2025. The
applicant responded and apologized for their error in not applying for a zoning permit. They
then applied for a zoning permit and for an after-the-fact variance to allow the new shed to
remain in its current location.
The applicant is applying for a variance from the City Code Section 113-88 Single-Family
Residential R-1 Zoning District, subsection (f)(1)a and b to reduce the front setback on the
7
western lot line from 35 feet to 4 feet 1 inch and to allow the shed to be located closer to the
front setback line along Radisson Road than a principal structure.
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.
500 Radisson Road
Shed
Location
8
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 has built a 12x16 Shed which is an allowed accessory use to a
single-detached dwelling. The applicant located the new shed in such a way as to
minimize potential impacts. It was located next to a stand of shrubs and trees
that block its view from most vantage points of surrounding properties.
Staff finds that the built shed in conjunction with 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 irregular triangularly shaped lot as platted in 1941
with two street frontages was not the result of any action by the homeowner
and is a unique characteristic of the lot.
Staff finds that the shape of the lot as platted in 1941 is unique to this property
and is not a circumstance caused by the homeowner.
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 was constructed to match the
architectural style of the existing home. It was also constructed in a location in
such a way as it minimizes its visibility from the surrounding streets and
properties, as well as in such a way as to preserve an existing apple tree.
Staff finds that the construction of the shed does not alter the essential
character of the locality.
2. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
The variance request is due to the unusual shape of the platted lot. The property is a
triangularly shaped lot encumbered by street frontages on all but one side with 35-foot
setbacks on each.
Staff finds that the practical difficulties in the variance requests are not solely due to
economic considerations.
9
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 has built a shed which is a permitted accessory 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 accessory 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 there is a practical difficulty due to the unusually shaped lot surrounded
on all sides but one by street frontages that require a 35-foot setback. The applicant
cannot relocate the shed to any other part of the rear yard and comply with existing
setbacks (see Figure 1). The applicant argues relocating the shed to any other location
would have greater negative impact on the neighbors than leaving the shed in its
current location and in its current location the shed blends in well on the site.
Figure 1. Setback areas shown in red
10
Staff Recommendation
The Board should review the applicants’ request and the findings needed to grant a variance.
Staff recommends the Board move to approve the variance requests to reduce the required
front setback of an accessory structure on Turners Crossroad Avenue from 35 feet to 4.1 feet
and to allow accessory structures to be closer to the front setback line along Radisson Road
than a principal structure, based on the finding that the variance standards have been met as
outlined in the staff report.
Recommended motion language: “I move to approve the variance request to reduce the front
yard setback of accessory structures along Turners Crossroad South from 35 feet to four feet
one inch and to approve the variance request to allow accessory structures to be closer to the
front setback line along Radisson Road than the principal structure, subject to the findings in
the August 26, 2025, staff report.”
Next Steps
If the Board approves the variance request: If approved, the next step is getting the zoning
permit approved and issued.
If the Board denies the variance request: 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.
11
500 Radisson RdBLOCK 6
Radisson RdTurners Crossroad S
S89°11'15"E 198.14N31°05'15"W 82.63N54°37'22"W 194.35S00°57'22"E 180.50
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SURVEYEDBlock 6 of Spring Green, Hennepin county, MinnesotaSurvey Notes1.Bearings are based on the Hennepin County Coordinate System.2.Client Name: Kory Carlston3.Site Address: 500 Radisson Road Golden Valley, MN 554164.This survey is based on the legal description as provided by the Client5.This Surveyor has not abstracted the land shown hereon for easements, rightsof way or restrictions of record which may affect the title or use of the land6.Do not reconstruct property lines from building ties7.Only visible utilities located8.Impervious areas include: House, ancillary structures, proposed structures,proposed decks, driveway, concrete pads, paths and decks.8.1.Building impervious category covers main residence onlyFOUND IRON MONUMENTLinetype & Symbol Legend MINNESOTA LAND SURVEYOR CERTIFICATIONI hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared byme or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly LicensedLand Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota.Dated this 23rd day of July, 2025.___________________________________________________Kelly D Ness Minnesota License No. 45847SET IRON MONUMENTCertificate ofSurvey5775 Wayzata Blvd #700St Louis Park, MN 55416info@skysurv.us20250717_500_RadissonRd SkySURV-500_RadissonRd.dwg
Draft copy - not for submittal12
Views from Northwest Corner Facing South
13
Views from Radisson Road Facing West
14
Views of Shed from West View of Shed from East
View of Shed from Neighbor to South
15
16
From:Ellen Lasner
To:Planning
Subject:Variance request for shed at 500 Radisson Road
Date:Monday, August 18, 2025 2:39:07 PM
EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This message originated from outside the City of Golden Valley. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To whom it may concern,
I am writing to encourage you to grant a variance to Kory Carlston for his shed at 500
Radisson Road. I find the shed to be quite charming and attractive, and not at all obtrusive. As
it is a very large corner lot, the shed makes perfect sense where it is placed, and I would be
hard pressed to say that the accessory structure sits in the “front yard”.
I know that others in our neighborhood feel the same way. Kory and his family are
wonderful neighbors and all of us support his decision to build a shed on his property.
It is my sincere hope that you will grant the variance at the hearing on 8/26, and this
issue will be resolved.
Sincerely,
Ellen Lasner
101 Turnpike Road
Golden Valley, MN 55416
17
From:susanbcera@aol.com
To:Planning
Subject:Waiver for 500 Radisson Road
Date:Tuesday, August 19, 2025 11:19:51 AM
EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This message originated from outside the City of Golden Valley. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
This email is in response to the hearing notice 8/26 to allow an accessory structure at 500
Radisson Road.
I live kitty-corner from Kory Carlson. I support extending the waiver. The structure
is attractive and is a complimentary to the residence.
I would also like to add Kory and his family are an asset to our neighborhood. He is always
ready to assist neighbors. Additionally, his family has hosted our neighborhood night out for
the last several years.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
I do hope you will approve the waiver.
Susan Cera
535 Radisson Road
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
18
You don't often get email from planning@goldenvalleymn.gov. Learn why this is important
From:Brant Wilczek
To:Planning
Subject:RE: 500 Radisson Road | Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting
Date:Tuesday, August 19, 2025 12:44:41 PM
Attachments:image001.png
EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This message originated from outside the City of Golden Valley. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Steven.
Sure thing. 340 Turnpike Rd.
Best,
Brant
From: Planning <planning@goldenvalleymn.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 12:43 PM
To: Brant Wilczek <brant.wilczek@lakest.com>
Subject: RE: 500 Radisson Road | Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting
Hello Brant,
Thank you for your email. Are you willing to provide me with our address?
Best Regards,
Steven
Steven Okey | Associate Planner | City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road | Golden Valley, MN 55427 | 763-593-3992
sokey@goldenvalleymn.gov
Pronouns: he/him/his
From: Brant Wilczek <brant.wilczek@lakest.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 12:40 PM
To: Planning <planning@goldenvalleymn.gov>
Subject: 500 Radisson Road | Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting
EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This message originated from outside the City of Golden Valley. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello – I am writing this email in connection to a letter a neighbor of ours recently received
regarding a shed they installed on their property.
Their address is 500 Radisson Road, Golden Valley, MN.
We are simply writing in support of their appeal to maintain the shed. While we understand the
19
zoning ordinance for such structures to not be in the front yard or on corner lots, we do believe the
structure installed is attractive and aesthetically appealing. For this particular instance, we would be
proponents of granting an exception.
To the extent helpful, we live in the development but on a different street (Turnpike Rd) but do pass
the property quite frequently as we drive into our neighborhood / have family walks.
Best,
Brant
Brant W. Wilczek
Direct: 312.620.1576
Mobile: 612.518.3764
Email: brant.wilczek@lakest.com
www.lakestcap.com
This email is intended for the recipient and it may not be copied or distributed. Incoming and outgoing email is electronically
archived, recorded and is subject to review, monitoring and or disclosure to someone other than the sender and the
recipient. Without the use of encryption, email is not a secure medium and privacy cannot be ensured.
20
From:Sarah Hanson
To:Planning
Subject:Testimony for 500 Radisson Road
Date:Tuesday, August 19, 2025 2:00:01 PM
EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This message originated from outside the City of Golden Valley. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I live near 500 Radisson Road and support the shed structure to remain where it is. Based on
the layout of this lot, the shed was placed very reasonably. I support the shed staying put and I
support this wonderful family who give so much to our neighborhood.
21
From:Rosanna Hoganson
To:Planning
Subject:Shed on 500 Radisson Road
Date:Tuesday, August 19, 2025 2:54:52 PM
Attachments:image001.png
EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This message originated from outside the City of Golden Valley. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good afternoon,
I live at 616 Turnpike Road and would like to express my hope for the shed on 500
Radisson Road to stay as-is. It should not be moved, especially due to the shape of their
lot. If you have any questions, let me know!
Thank you,
Rosie
Rosanna Hoganson
Sr. Client Success Manager | Learn to Live, Inc. | 651-233-7718
pronouns: she, her, hers
Website | LinkedIn | X (Twitter)
This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose,
and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message. Any disclosure, copying, or
distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.
22
From:Blaine Balow
To:Steven Okey
Subject:Re: Support for Retention of Shed – Kory Carlston Property
Date:Wednesday, August 20, 2025 3:09:27 PM
EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This message originated from outside the City of Golden Valley. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I'm at 621 Turners Xrd S.
Thanks,
Blaine
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 3:03 PM Steven Okey <sokey@goldenvalleymn.gov> wrote:
Hello Blaine,
Thank you for your email. Would you mind sharing your address? I will include this in the
packet for the meeting.
Best Regards,
Steven
Steven Okey | Associate Planner | City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road | Golden Valley, MN 55427 | 763-593-3992
sokey@goldenvalleymn.gov
Pronouns: he/him/his
From: Blaine Balow <balowbm@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2025 3:00 PM
To: Steven Okey <sokey@goldenvalleymn.gov>
Subject: Support for Retention of Shed – Kory Carlston Property
EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This message originated from outside the City of Golden Valley. Do not click
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
23
Dear Members of the Zoning Board,
I am writing to express my support for my neighbor, Kory Carlston, in his request to retain
the shed currently located in his yard.
The shed has been thoughtfully placed so that it is outside of my driveway sight lines,
ensuring no obstruction to traffic visibility or safety. Its exterior finishes match Kory’s home
exactly, contributing to a cohesive and visually appealing appearance that enhances, rather
than detracts from, the character of our neighborhood.
In my view, the shed’s location and design are considerate of all surrounding properties. It
does not impose on any neighbor’s space, views, or enjoyment of their property. Instead, it
reflects a level of care and attention that benefits the neighborhood’s overall look and feel.
I respectfully urge the Board to allow Kory to keep his shed in its current location. I believe
its presence is entirely consistent with the spirit and intent of our community standards.
Sincerely,
Blaine Balow
24
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Community Development
763-512-2345 / 763-512-2344 (fax)
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting
August 26, 2025
Agenda Item
3.B. 4625 Bassett Creek Lane
Prepared By
Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner
Summary
Steven Mooney, on behalf of the property owners, requests variances from Section 113-88 Single-
Family Residential R-1 Zoning District, subsection (e)(1)(a) to reduce the required front setback by 5
feet 10 inches from 35 feet to 29 feet 2 inches and subsection (e)(1)(e)1 to increase the allowed
encroachment of the eaves into the setback from 30 inches to 42 inches. The variances would allow
the construction of a one-stall addition to a two-stall, attached garage at 4625 Bassett Creek Lane.
Recommended Action
Motion to approve Resolution No. x granting variances from Section 113-88 Single-Family Residential
R-1 Zoning District, subsection (e)(1)(a) to reduce the required front setback by 5 feet 10 inches from
35 feet to 29 feet 2 inches and subsection (e)(1)(e)1 to increase the allowed encroachment of the
eaves into the setback from 30 inches to 42 inches.
Supporting Documents
Staff Report
Survey
Project Plans
25
1
Date: August 26, 2025
To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
From: Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner
Subject: Request for Variance to Golden Valley City Code – 4625 Bassett Creek
Subject Property
Location: 4625 Bassett Creek Lane
Parcel ID Number: 1802924120061
Applicant/Property Owner: Robert McClain
Site Size: 0.93 acres, 40,319 square feet
Future Land Use: Low Density Residential
Zoning District: R-1 Single Family Residential
Existing Use: Single-family residence
Adjacent Properties: Single family homes
Site Image
v
v
4625 Bassett
Creek Lane
2018 aerial photo (Hennepin County)
26
The property is an irregular shaped lot on a cul-de-sac on Bassett Creek Lane with an existing
single-family dwelling built in 1967. The principal building front setback is 35’, rear setback is
25’, and side setbacks are 15’. A two-stall garage is attached to the east side of the house.
Floodplain overlays the southern portion of lot, which abuts Ȟaȟá Wakpádaŋ (Bassett Creek).
Proposal
The applicant would like to build a one-stall garage addition on the northeast corner of the
house. In order for the north side of the garage addition to be even the existing building, the
applicant asks for two variances:
1. Reduce the required front setback by 5 feet 10 inches, from 35 feet to 29 feet 2 inches.
2. Increase the allowed encroachment of the eaves into the setback by 8 inches, from 30
inches to 42 inches.
Planning Analysis
In reviewing this application, staff reviewed the request against the standards in Section 113-
27(c) of the Code, which provides the variance standards in compliance with Minnesota State
Statute Section 462.357. The burden of proof is on the applicant to show that the request is in
harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter and consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Each variance application must be reviewed based on the unique circumstance of the
application. For that reason, no variance sets a precedent because no two circumstances are
identical. However, if the city finds itself granting numerous similar variances, the City could
consider amendments to the city code.
Staff considered the following requirements in Section 113-27(c) when evaluating the variance
requests:
1. A variance may only be granted when the petitioner for the variance establishes that
there are practical difficulties in complying with this chapter. The term "practical
difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means the applicant
shows compliance with the following:
a. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner.
The applicant proposes to build a garage addition on an existing single-family
home on the property. The nearby properties are single-family homes with two
or three stall garages.
Staff finds that the proposed use of a garage addition to 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 applicant argues existing conditions on
the property cause practical difficulties with complying with existing zoning
regulations. A large tree is located in the backyard southeast of the house. The
applicant designed the garage addition to minimally impact the tree’s root
system and canopy. The applicant provided exhibits showing that if the garage
27
addition was constructed to meet existing setbacks, the footprint would need to
be moved south to such an extent as to endanger the tree. Moving the addition
south would also block existing windows on the house.
Staff finds that there are unique circumstances of the property that were not
caused by the landowner that lead to a practical difficulty
c. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality.
The cul-de-sac consists of single-family mid-century modern homes built in the
1960’s. The proposed garage addition is in keeping with the existing home’s
design by continuing the architecture, including the deep eaves. The house to
the east of the property, and closest to the proposed addition, is over 90 feet
away from the shared property line. The nearest neighbors will not be impacted
by the garage addition.
Staff finds that variance, if granted, would not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood. The use is consistent with the rest of the neighborhood, and the
variance would allow construction of an addition consistent with the design and
style of the neighborhood.
2. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The practical
difficulty is due to existing conditions on the property, rather than any economic
considerations related to expanding the garage.
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 an addition on a single-family house on the property,
which is a permitted use.
Staff finds the variance will not permit a use not allowed in the zoning district where the
property is located.
4. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of this chapter and when the variances are consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. Staff finds that the variance is in line with the purpose of the R-1 district, which is
“to provide for detached single-family dwelling units at a low density along with directly
related and complementary uses.” The variance is also in line with the goal of the 2040
Comprehensive Plan’s Housing Section objective to “Support the rehabilitation and
reinvestment of the housing stock as structures continue to age.” Protecting the existing
tree also supports the Comprehensive Plan’s goal of protecting and enhancing The
natural environment through Objective 4: “Establish a diverse urban forest and, at a
minimum, maintain the present level of tree canopy coverage citywide.”
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 applicant explored shifting the garage addition
south to comply with current setbacks. This plan endangers the existing tree and blocks
28
an existing window. Reducing the eave overhang on the addition would eliminate the
need for one of the variances, but is not in keeping with the mid-century architectural
style of the rest of the house.
Given the findings, staff finds the minimum action necessary to eliminate the practical
difficulty would be to grant the variance.
Findings of Fact
Criteria Finding Met?
Practical Difficulty - The property owner must propose to use the property
in a reasonable manner.
Yes
Practical Difficulty - The landowners’ problem must be due to
circumstances unique to the property that is not caused by the
landowner.
Yes
Practical Difficulty - The variance, if granted, must not alter the essential
character of the locality.
Yes
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.
Yes
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.
Yes
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?
Yes
Public Notification
To comply with State law and the City’s public hearing notice requirements, notices were
mailed to all adjacent property owners. At the time of this report, Staff has received no public
comments on the application.
Recommendation
The Board should review the applicants’ request and the findings needed to grant a variance.
Staff recommends the Board move to approve waiver from Section 113-88 Single-Family
Residential R-1 Zoning District, subsection (e)(1)(a) to reduce the required front setback by 5
feet 10 inches from 35 feet to 29 feet 2 inches and subsection (e)(1)(e)1 to increase the allowed
encroachment of the eaves into the setback from 30 inches to 42 inches.
29
Recommended motion language: “I move to approve the variance request to reduce the
required front setback by 5 feet 10 inches from 35 feet to 29 feet 2 inches and to increase the
allowed encroachment of the eaves into the setback from 30 inches to 42 inches, subject to the
findings and conditions in the August 26, 2025, 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.
Staff Contact Information
Prepared by:
Steven Okey
Associate Planner
sokey@goldenvalleymn.gov
Jacquelyn Kramer
Senior Planner
jkramer@goldenvalleymn.gov
Reviewed by:
Chloe McGuire
Deputy Community Development Director
cmcguire@goldenvalleymn.gov
30
31
DESCRIPTION
FLOOR AREA
NATURAL GRADE AT
FOUNDATION
MAX HEIGHT (FT)
ALLOWED
___
35' - 0"
PROPOSED SETBACKS
FRONT YARD
(EAST)
SIDE YARD
(NORTH)
-
ZONING PROPOSED
-
PARCEL ID:
18-029-24-12-0061
LOT AREA:
0.93 ACRES
STREET FRONTAGE:
NASSET CREEK LN
LOT DEPTH
___
4625 BASSET CREEK LANE, GOLDEN VALLEY MN 55422
___
-
__' - __"
__' - __"
ADDRESS:
FIRST FLOOR
ELEVATION
MAX HEIGHT
(ELEVATION)___
CODE #
NOTES:
___
KEY BUILDING HEIGHT ELEVATIONS:
ZONING INFORMATION
R-RESIDENTIAL
SHORELAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
___
OTHER:
--___
ZONING:
GOLDEN VALLEY
MUNICIPALITY:
LOT DEPTH
HARDCOVER (%)______
HARDCOVER (SF)______
ACCESSORY
BUILDINGS N/A ___
___
___
__' - __" - Max building height
__' - __" - Peak height of highest roof
__' - __" - Main level subfloor
__' - __" - Highest grade at foundation
__' - __" - Natural grade at front of home
__' - __" - Lower level slab elevation
__' - __"
UPDATED __-__-____
______
___
___
BACK YARD
(WEST)
BUILDING COVER (%)______
______BUILDING COVER (SF)
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
1. THE INTENT OF THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATION IS
TO PROVIDE FOR A WATERTIGHT & WEATHERTIGHT
BUILDING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW ALL DETAILS
RELATING TO THIS INTENT AND BY BIDDING OR ENTERING
INTO THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WARRANTS FOR
ONE FULL YEAR THE ADEQUACY OF THESE DETAILS.
SHOULD THE CONTRACTOR TAKE EXCEPTION TO THESE
DETAILS, THEY SHALL NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO
BIDDING. ANY DEVIATION FROM THIS GENERAL INTENT
SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO THE ARCHITECT FOR
CLARIFICATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
2. THE INTENT OF THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS IS
TO PROVIDE FOR A PLUMB, LEVEL AND SQUARE
STRUCTURE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. ANY DEVIATION
FROM THIS GENERAL INTENT SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT FOR CLARIFICATION
PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
3. THE BUILDING SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN FULL
COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODES, ORDINANCES
AND REGULATIONS AS WELL AS THE DRAWING AND
SPECIFICATIONS. ANY CODE DEFICIENCIES IN THE
DRAWINGS RECOGNIZED BY THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD
BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT FOR
CLARIFICATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
4.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
ACCURATE PLACEMENT OF THE BUILDING ON THE SITE
AND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND EXISTING CONDITIONS.
DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN DRAWINGS AND ACTUAL SITE
CONDITIONS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF
THE ARCHITECT BEFORE BIDDING THE PROJECT OR THE
COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. THE OWNER SHALL NOT BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR CHANGES TO THE WORK DUE TO THE
FAILURE OF THE CONTRACTOR TO FAMILIARIZE HIMSELF
WITH EXISTING CONDITIONS.
5. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS: ALL DIMENSIONS SHALL
HAVE PREFERENCE OVER SCALE AND BE FIELD VERIFIED
AND COORDINATED WITH WORK OF ALL TRADES. IF NO
DIMENSIONS ARE GIVEN OR DISCREPANCIES FOUND, THE
CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT FOR
CLARIFICATION BEFORE BIDDING OR COMMENCING THE
WORK.
6.DETAILS ARE INTENDED TO SHOW METHOD AND
MANNER OF ACCOMPLISHING WORK. MINOR
MODIFICATIONS MAY BE REQUIRED TO SUIT JOB
DIMENSIONS OR CONDITIONS, ALL INCLUDED AS PART OF
THE WORK.
7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL PERMITS AND
INSPECTIONS NECESSARY FOR THE PROPER EXECUTION
OF THE WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE CODES
AND GOVERNING REGULATIONS.
8.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE SIZES AND
LOCATIONS OF ALL MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL
EQUIPMENT PADS AND BASES, AS WELL AS POWER,
WATER AND DRAIN REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCH
EQUIPMENT WITH EQUIPMENT MFG. DEVIATION OF THE
AFOREMENTIONED REQUIREMENTS SHOULD BE
BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT FOR
CLARIFICATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
9. ALL WALL WIDTHS ARE SHOWN AND DIMENSIONED
WITH NOMINAL DIMENSIONS. GRIDS AND DIMENSIONS
FOR FRAMED WALL ARE SHOWN TO FACE OF STUDS AND
OR FACE OF FOUNDATION.
GENERAL NOTES
SIDE YARD
(SOUTH)
-__' - __"
(13.3.2)
(13.2.2(i)
(13.2.2(i)
(13.2.2(i)
PROJECT REVISION SCHEDULE
NO.DATE DISCRIPTION
-1 __-__-____
ONLY USE CURRENT DRAWING
SET FOR CONSTRUCTION
TAG #
-
-2 __-__-____-
PROPOSED
GARAGE
ADDITION
FOOTPRINT
PROPOSED ROOF
OVERHANG TO
MATCH EXISTING
HOUSE18' - 0"25' - 2 7/8"3' - 6"3' - 6"3' - 6"ALIGNA2
2
21' - 2 3/8"EXIST.
CONC.
DRIVEWAY
A2
1
PROPOSED NEW CONC.
DRIVEWAY EXPANSION
EXISTING CURB CUT
REMAIN - NO WORK
I HEREBY CERTIFIY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTASIGNATURE:TYPED OR PRINT NAME: STEVEN J MOONEYDATE: LICENSE NUMBER:22907LOONPROJECT3608 15th Ave S Minneapolis MN 55407 612-827-8988 sjm@LoonArchitects.comDateThese documents were prepared by the Architect and are instruments of service for use solely with respect to this project. The Architect shall retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including the copyright. The owner shall not reuse or permit the reuse of the Architects's documents except by mutual agreement in writing. ArchitectsFOR REVIEW ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONJUNE 26, 2026NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONE:\SynologyDrive\2025 Projects\Northrup Remodeling - McClain - 4625 Basset Creek Lane, Golden Valley\1_Revit\4625 Basset Creek Ln - Garage Addition.rvt08-05-2025ROBERT KEYS MCLAINA1VARIANCE SETGARAGE ADDITION4625 BASSET CREEK LNGOLDEN VALLEY MN 55422SHEET INDEX
A1 TITLE SHEET & SITE PLAN
A2 PROPOSED PLAN, ALTERNATE PLAN
1/16" = 1'-0"A1
1ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN
EXISTING
TREE 32
2' - 0 3/8"3' - 6"25' - 3"3' - 6"18' - 0"
3' - 6"
15' SIDE SET BACK
35' CUL-DE-SAC
SETBACK
PROPOSED GARAGE ADDITION FOOTPRINTPROPOSED ROOF
OVERHANG TO
MATCH EXISTING
HOUSE
15' - 0"PROPERTY LINEAREA OF
PROPOSED
GARAGE OVER
SETBACK
ALIGN NEW
GARAGE
WITH EXISTING
GARAGE WALL
ALIGN NEW
GARAGE
WITH EXISTING
GARAGE WALL PROPOSED GARAGE
OVERHANG TO MATCH
EXISTING HOUSE
OVERHANG DETAIL TO
MAINTAIN EXISTING HOME
CHARACTER &
NEIGHBORHOOD INTEGRITY
21' - 2 3/8"FLOOD PLAIN LINE
EXISTING WINDOW
19' - 11 1/
2
"46' - 0"R 13' - 2 1/
2
"
R 22' - 6"
PROPOSED NEW CONC.
DRIVEWAY EXPANSION
EXISTING CURB CUT
REMAIN - NO WORK
EXISTING TREE CANOPY R 26' - 0"ALIGN NEW
GARAGE
WITH EXISTING
GARAGE WALL
STAIR DOWN
TO BASEMENT
STAIR UP
TO HOUSE
EXISTING TREE
30" ALLOWABLE
ROOF OVERHANG
30"30"25' - 3"3' - 6"18' - 0"
3' - 6"
15' SIDE
SET BACK
35' CUL-DE-SAC
SETBACK
PROPOSED GARAGE ADDITION FOOTPRINTPROPOSED ROOF
OVERHANG TO
MATCH EXISTING
HOUSE
15' - 0"PROPERTY LINEALIGN NEW
GARAGE
WITH EXISTING
GARAGE WALL
13' - 11 7/8"7' - 3"COMPLAINT NEW GARAGE ADDITION
WILL BLOCK EXISTING WINDOW VIEW
COMPLAINT GARAGE
CLOSER TO FLOOD
PLAIN7' - 2 1/2"PROPOSED GARAGE
OVERHANG
NOT MORE THAN 30"
OVER SETBACK2' - 2"2' - 7"46' - 0"19' - 11 1/
2
"
R 13' - 2 1/2"
R 22' - 6"
1' - 11 1/2"
EXISTING CURB CUT
REMAIN - NO WORK
PROPOSED NEW CONC.
DRIVEWAY EXPANSION
EXISTING TREE CANOPYR 26' - 0"STAIR DOWN
TO BASEMENT
STAIR UP
TO HOUSE
OVERHEAD
GARAGE
DOOR
EXISTING
TREE
I HEREBY CERTIFIY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTASIGNATURE:TYPED OR PRINT NAME: STEVEN J MOONEYDATE: LICENSE NUMBER:22907LOONPROJECT3608 15th Ave S Minneapolis MN 55407 612-827-8988 sjm@LoonArchitects.comDateThese documents were prepared by the Architect and are instruments of service for use solely with respect to this project. The Architect shall retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including the copyright. The owner shall not reuse or permit the reuse of the Architects's documents except by mutual agreement in writing. ArchitectsFOR REVIEW ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONJUNE 26, 2026NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONE:\SynologyDrive\2025 Projects\Northrup Remodeling - McClain - 4625 Basset Creek Lane, Golden Valley\1_Revit\4625 Basset Creek Ln - Garage Addition.rvt08-05-2025ROBERT KEYS MCLAINA2VARIANCE SETGARAGE ADDITION4625 BASSET CREEK LNGOLDEN VALLEY MN 55422 1/8" = 1'-0"A2
2 SITE PLAN - PROPOSED
1/8" = 1'-0"A2
1SITE PLAN - ALTERNATE
EXISTING TREE
ON THE BACK
OF GARAGE
EXISTING TREE
ON THE BACK
OF GARAGE
EXISTING
BASEMENT
WINDOW
EXISTING TREE
ON THE BACK
OF GARAGE
EXISTING
GARAGE
CORNER
EXISTING
GARAGE
CORNER
EXISTING
GARAGE
CORNER
33