Loading...
BZA 09-23-2025 packet September 23, 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.August 26, 2025 Meeting Minutes 3.Public Hearings 3.A.410 Edgewood Avenue North 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 September 23, 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: Orenstein, Brookins, Tapio, Commissioner Van Oss b. Members Absent: Anthony Corrado c. Student Member: Vacant d. Staff Members Present: Chloe McGuire, Deputy Community Development Director, Steven Okey, Associate Planner e. Council Liaison: Not Present 2. Consent Agenda 2.a. Approval of Agenda 2.b. Approval of July 22, 2025 Meeting Minutes  Brookins made a motion to approve.  VanOss seconded.  Voted unanimously for approval. 3. Public Hearings 3.a. 500 Radisson Road Applicant: Kory Carlston Request: Request 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.  Okey presented the staff report.  Applicant Kory Calston spoke: o He stated that he misunderstood the zoning code when he originally built the structure. He apologized for this misunderstanding.  Orenstein opened the public hearing.  Maria Cisneros stated that she is a neighbor of the applicant. She noted that the shed is well-hidden by the trees and does not alter the character of the neighborhood.  Orenstein asked if there was anyone online who wished to speak.  McGuire confirmed no one was online who wished to speak.  Orenstein closed the public hearing.  Okey noted that they received 10 letters in favor of the variance request.  VanOss stated that he is in support of the staff’s analysis and sees no reason not to approve the request.  Brookins noted that he is not opposed to this. He stated that if it were not already built, he would suggest relocating it.  Tapio stated that he is in favor. August 26, 2025 – 7 pm City Hall: Council Chamber 2 City of Golden Valley BZA Meeting Minutes August 26, 2025 – 7 pm 2  Orenstein stated that he agrees with staff.  Orenstein asked for a motion.  Orenstein motioned to approve the variance request.  VanOss seconded  Vote was taken and approved unanimously. 3.b. 4625 Bassett Creek Lane Applicant: Robert McClain Request: Request for 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.  Okey presented the staff report.  Tapio asked for clarification on whether the eaves require the need for a variance either way.  Okey stated that they would have to move the garage far enough back that the eaves only encroach on the 30 inches to build it without a need for a variance.  Applicant Robert McClain spoke: o He stated that they could do the setback, but they would need to add 6 feet more of concrete, and that would cover greenery. He stated that this is the reason he would not like to do the setback.  Orenstein opened the public hearing.  Orenstein asked if there was anyone who wished to speak.  Orenstein closed the public hearing.  VanOss noted that he understands the need for the variance.  Brookins stated that he is not opposed to this variance request. He noted that he would not like to set the expectation that everyone should have a certain amount of storage space.  Tapio noted that he is in favor and agrees with staff’s evaluation.  Orenstein asked for a motion.  VanOss motioned to approve the variance request.  Brookins seconded  Vote was taken and approved unanimously. 4. Council Liaison Report  None. 5. Staff and Board Member Updates 5.a. Staff Comments  McGuire stated that the Council will be considering a co-naming policy for Haha Wakpadan/Bassett Creek to officially co-name the creek.  McGuire stated that staff are working on a few plans. They are working on a missing middle housing plan and a climate equity plan. 6. Adjourn  Chair Nelson adjourned the meeting at 7:32 p.m. 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Community Development 763-512-2345 / 763-512-2344 (fax) Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting September 23, 2025 Agenda Item 3.A. 410 Edgewood Avenue North Prepared By Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner Summary Anna Swenson and Peter Schwarz request a variance from Section 113-88(e)(1)b to reduce the rear yard setback for an attached deck more than eight inches from the ground level at 410 Edgewood Avenue. If the Board approves the variance request, the rear yard setback for an attached deck more than eight inches from the ground level would be reduced by 10.3 feet, from 25 feet to 14.7 feet. Recommended Action Motion to approve the variance request to reduce the rear yard setback for an attached deck by five feet at 410 Edgewood Avenue, subject to the findings and conditions in the September 23, 2025 staff report Recommended Motion Language “I move to recommend approval of the variance application to reduce the rear yard setback of an attached deck by 10.3 feet at 410 Edgewood Avenue, subject to the findings in the September 23, 2025 staff report." Supporting Documents Staff Report BZA Resolution No. 25-011 Survey & Proposed Site Plan Proposed Deck & Current Conditions Photo Alternatives Exhibit 4 1 Date: September 23, 2025 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner Subject: Variance Application for 410 Edgewood Avenue Subject Property Parcel ID Number: 3211821410030 Applicant/Property Owners: Anna Swenson and Peter Schwarz Site Size: 0.31 acres or 13,440 square feet Future Land Use: Low Density Residential Zoning District: R-1 Single Family Residential Existing Use: Single family home Adjacent Properties: Single family homes to the north and west, open space to the south and east Site Image 410 Edgewood Avenue Location of proposed deck 2018 aerial photo (Hennepin County) 5 Background The house was built in 1959 on a trapezoid lot, with the house parallel to the road and the eastern property line 21.5 feet from the southeast corner of the house. The minimum rear setback in the R-1 zoning district is 25 feet, so the house’s rear setback is legally nonconforming. An exterior door on the east (rear) side of the house leads from the garage to the backyard. Previously, a landing connected this door to the ground level, but the landing has been removed leaving this door inaccessible. The applicants would like to build a 12-foot by 12-foot elevated deck off the back of the eastern side of the house. The deck would connect to the garage door and an existing screened porch. Stairs would connect the deck to the ground level. The applicants submitted a building permit for the deck not knowing the rear setback was below the minimum. After meeting with staff and studying alternative layouts, the applicants applied for a variance to reduce the deck’s required rear year setback. Planning Analysis The applicants request a 10.3-foot reduction to the rear yard setback required of a deck more than eight inches off the ground The relevant code section is Section 113-88(e)(1)b. 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 applicants propose to build a deck attached to an existing single-family home. The adjacent properties are single-family homes. Staff finds that the proposed use 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. Staff finds the location of the house creates the unique circumstances causing the need for a variance. Due to the existing 6 nonconformity of the rear setback, it is impossible to build a deck in the rear yard that meets minimum setbacks. c. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposed deck would have little visibility to neighboring properties on the north and south due to the distance and tree coverage. The neighboring property to the east contains open space/parkland and a pond. 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 practical difficulty is due to the location and layout of the existing house, rather than any economic considerations related to construction of the deck. The rear side of the house is already out of compliance with minimum rear setbacks. 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 deck on a single family house, 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” 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 considered alternative locations, shown in the Alternatives Exhibit attached to this report. Locations B and C would negatively impact existing trees and be more visible to neighboring properties. These locations also don’t fix the problem of the inaccessible garage door. The applicants also considered a smaller deck but found that shrinking the footprint made it impossible to use furniture on the deck. Given the findings, staff finds the minimum action necessary to eliminate the practical difficulty would be to grant the variance. 7 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 property owners adjacent to the site. At the time of this report staff have received no comments on this application. Recommendation The Board should review the applicants’ request and the findings needed to grant a variance. Staff recommends the Board move to approve the waiver from Section 113-88 Single-Family Residential R-1 Zoning District, subsection (e)(1)(b) to reduce the required rear setback by 10.3 feet from 25 feet to 14.7 feet. Recommended motion language: “I move to approve the variance request to reduce the required rear yard setback by 10.3 feet from 25 feet to 14.7 feet, subject to the findings and conditions in the August 26, 2025, staff report.” Next Steps If the Board approves the variance request: the applicants will continue to work with staff on finalizing building permit plans. 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 8 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 re-applying for building permits. Staff Contact Information Prepared by: Jacquelyn Kramer Senior Planner jkramer@goldenvalleymn.gov Reviewed by: Chloe McGuire Deputy Community Development Director cmcguire@goldenvalleymn.gov 9 RESOLUTION NO. BZA-25-011 A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCE AT 410 EDGEWOOD AVENUE NORTH WHEREAS, Anna Swenson and Peter Schwarz request a variance to reduce the rear yard setback for a deck more than eight inches from the ground in the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District in order to construct a new deck; and WHEREAS, the proposed variance is situated upon lands in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as: Lot 1, Block 3, Westchester Addition WHEREAS, on September 23, 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 meets the requirements of City Code Section 113- 27(c) necessary to be met for the Board to grant variances, and makes the following findings: 1. City Code Section 113-88(e)(1)b requires principal structures in the R-1 zoning district maintain at minimum a 25-foot rear yard setback. Section 113-88(e)(5) requires decks over eight inches from ground level to meet the same side and rear setbacks as the principal structure. 2. The landowner proposes to build a deck in the rear yard and requests a variance to reduce the rear yard setback by 10.3 feet from 25 feet to 14.7 feet. 3. The landowner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. The existing principal use of the site is single family home and the applicants propose an attached deck in the rear yard which is a common and reasonable accessory structure to a single family home. 4. The landowner’s problem is due to circumstances unique to the property that are not caused by the landowner. Due to the existing nonconformity of the principal structure rear setback, it is impossible to build a deck in the rear yard that meets minimum setbacks. 5. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposed deck would have little visibility to neighboring properties on the north and south due to the distance and tree coverage. The neighboring property to the east contains open space/parkland and a pond. 6. The practical difficulty is due to the existing rear setback nonconformity of the house, rather than any economic considerations related to constructing the deck. 7. 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. Parking and storage of vehicles is an allowed accessory use in the R-1 zoning district. 8. The variance request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City Code and the Comprehensive Plan. The variance request 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.” 10 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA, that this Board adopts Resolution No. BZA-25-011 approving the variance request to reduce the rear yard setback for a deck more than eight inches from the ground at 410 Edgewood Avenue North based on the findings stated above. Adopted by the Board of Zoning Appeals this 23nd day of September, 2025. _____________________ Richard Orenstein, Chair ATTEST: _____________________________ Jacquelyn Kramer, Staff Liaison 11 MMBMPORCHSTAIRS HOUSE60' WIDE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAYFD RLS #UNKNOWN FD RLS #UNKNOWN FD RLS #UNKNOWN FD 1 /2" I .P .BITUMINOUS SURFACE46.6MBMMXXX0.7AB31.721.521.5GARAGEDRAINAGE AND UTILITYEASEMENTDRAINAGE AND UTILITYEASEMENTSHED4.1PROP.DECK12.012.014.7FOUND MONUMENTCOMPUTED POSITIONELECTRIC TRANSFORMER ELECTRIC METERAIR CONDITIONING UNITGAS METERkaleb.kadelbach@apex-landsurveying.com PH: (763) 388-0056APEX JOB NO. 25435CLIENT INFORMATION:ANNA SWENSON410 EDGEWOOD AVE NMINNEAPOLIS, MN 55427FIELD DATE:08/08/2025SURVEYORS CERTIFICATION:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY, PLAN, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME ORUNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LAND SURVEYORUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA_______________________________________________________KALEB J. KADELBACH (LICENSE NO. 57070) DATESURVEYOR NOTES:1. BEARING ARE BASED ON THE HENNEPIN COUNTY COORDINATE SYSTEM NAD83 2011 ADJUSTMENT2. APEX LAND SURVEYING, LLC PREPARED THIS SURVEY WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF CURRENT TITLEWORK. THE PROPERTY SHOWN IS BASED ON A LEGAL DESCRIPTION PROVIDED BY YOU THE CLIENT ORA GENERAL REQUEST AT THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE. EASEMENT, SITERESTRICTION OR ADJOINING DEED CONFLICTS MAY EXIST WHICH AFFECT SUBJECT PROPERTY AND ARENOT SHOWN BY THIS SURVEY. WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REVISE THE SURVEY UPON RECEIPT OF ACURRENT TITLE COMMITMENT OR TITLE OPINION.IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCS:TOTAL LOT AREA: 13,209± SQ. FT. (0.30 ACRES)CONCRETE: 730 SQ. FT.EXISTING PORCH: 92 SQ. FT.EXISTING HOUSE/GARAGE: 1,893 SQ. FT.TOTAL LOT COVERAGE: 2,715 SQ. FT. (20.6% COVERAGE)PROPOSED DECK/STAIRS: 211 SQ. FT.PROPOSED HARDCOVER: 2,926 SQ. FT. (22.1% COVERAGE)GRAPHIC SCALE01" = 30'15' 30'60'ADJACENT FENCE LINE CROSSES ON TO SUBJECT PROPERTY BY UP TO 4.1 FEETADJACENT SHED CROSSES ONTO SUBJECT PROPERTY BY UP TO 0.7 FEETAB8/15/202512 Rendering of Proposed Deck - 410 Edgewood Avenue Current Conditions 13 Alternatives Exhibit 14