Loading...
BZA Agenda Packet_10.28.25 October 28, 2025 — 7:00 PM Council Chambers Hybrid Meeting 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.September 23, 2025, Meeting Minutes 3.Public Hearings 3.A.7345 Country Club Drive 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 October 28, 2025 — 7:00 PM 1 MEETING MINUTES 1. Call to Order and Land Acknowledgement  Acting Chair Corrado called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. and read the Land Acknowledgement. a. Members Present: Corrado, Tapio, Brookins b. Planning Commissioner Present: Amy Barnstorff c. Student Member: Vacant d. Staff Members Present: Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner, Steven Okey, Associate Planner e. Council Liaison: Councilor La Mere-Anderson 2. Consent Agenda 2.a. Approval of Agenda 2.b. Approval of September 23, 2025 Meeting Minutes  Brookins made a motion to approve.  Tapio seconded.  Voted unanimously for approval. 3. Public Hearings 3.a. 410 Edgewood Avenue North Applicant: Anna Swenson and Peter Schwarz Request: Request for a variance from the City Code 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.  Kramer presented the staff report.  Brookins asked staff for clarification regarding the joining property. He asked if the stormwater pond creates any concern for the setback.  Kramer stated that there isn’t any flood plan on the property, and the setback is standard.  Corrado asked for more information regarding the negative impact of the existing trees.  Kramer explained that the applicant provided pictures showing how robust the trees are. She noted that if they were to build the deck, they would either have to cut back on the branches of the trees or possibly damage the root system. This would also reduce the natural screening that the trees provide the property.  Applicant Anna Swenson spoke: o She stated that their neighbor sent in a letter of support for this variance. She read aloud the letter of support received.  Corrado asked if the City received this letter.  Kramer stated that the City did not receive this letter, but they can add it to the files for the application.  Corrado opened the public hearing. September 23, 2025 – 7 pm City Hall: Council Chamber Hybrid Meeting: Teams/Phone 2 City of Golden Valley BZA Meeting Minutes August 26, 2025 – 7 pm 2  Robert Bialozynski Stated that he is the contractor for the project. He explained that with the alternative locations for the deck placement, they would have to cut a door to the master bedroom. He also noted that he would not be able to put steps from the existing porch down to the ground without violating the setback.  Corrado closed the public hearing.  Barnstorff stated that the request makes a lot of sense and meets the criteria.  Brookins stated he agrees.  Corrado shared his agreement.  Tapio stated that he agrees with staff’s evaluation.  Kramer stated that there was an error made on page one of the staff report. The variance was for 10.3 feet reduction.  Corrado asked for a motion.  Brookins motioned to approve the variance request.  Tapio seconded.  Vote was taken and approved unanimously. 4. Council Liaison Report  La Mere-Anderson provided an update on recent Council action.  La Mere-Anderson stated that at the Council meeting last week, they voted to move forward in acquiring property for the East Side Fire Station. She stated that in 2016, they decided that they needed to make improvements to fire safety in the City. She noted that the property they decided was best for the new station is at the 100 and Duluth St. intersection. She noted that they are in negotiation with the current owner of the property at this location. She added that they have received $3M in bonding from the State to build the station. She stated that they have until the end of the year to move forward on the project, or the State will take the funding away. She stated that at the last City Council meeting, they voted that the City would use eminent domain to acquire the property if necessary.  La Mere-Anderson updated that they are actively engaging with the community to shape the climate equity plan. She stated that this will guide the approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, prepare for climate impacts, and ensure equitable benefits across neighborhoods.  La Mere-Anderson updated on upcoming community engagement events. She stated that the EV and electrification showcase will be on September 30th. This will promote sustainable transportation and energy solutions. She noted that on September 25th, the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Commission has a session.  La Mere-Anderson stated that the Planning Commission meeting for the week has been cancelled.  Corrado asked if the negotiations for the fire station location are close to being resolved.  La Mere-Anderson stated that the business owner has become ill in the years since they have been negotiating, and that has stalled the negotiations. She noted that she can’t speak to how close they are to finishing negotiations. 3 City of Golden Valley BZA Meeting Minutes August 26, 2025 – 7 pm 3 5. Staff and Board Member Updates 5.a. Staff Comments  Kramer stated that they are unsure if they will hold the October and November meetings, depending on whether they receive any applications. She stated that the December meeting is cancelled. She stated that they will most likely have annual training in January. She also mentioned that they would like to conduct safety training with the Police Department when they are available. 6. Adjourn  Acting Chair Corrado adjourned the meeting at 7:32 p.m. 4 Date: October 28, 2025 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) From: Steven Okey, Associate Planner Subject: Request for Variance to Golden Valley City Code – 7345 Country Club Drive Subject Property Location: 7345 Country Club Drive Parcel ID Number: 3211821310027 Applicant(s)/Property Owner(s): Paul Jacob on behalf of Schuller’s Tavern Site Size: 1.52 acres, 66,423 square feet Future Land Use: Low Density Residential Zoning District: R-1 Single Family Residential Existing Use: Restaurant/Bar Adjacent Properties: Single family homes and a golf course to the north. The property is an irregular shaped lot platted in 1954, situated between Country Club Drive and Glenwood Avenue. The building that houses Schuler’s Tavern was constructed in 1926 and the tavern was established in 1929. The plat and zoning were established long after that date. The standard setbacks for the lot are: 35 feet on the street facing frontages of which there are two (Country Club Drive and Glenwood Avenue), 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. 1940 Historic Aerial v v 5 The building itself does not meet current setbacks requirements. When the property was platted in 1954 it created a nonconforming structure. Current Setbacks for Existing Building 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 southern lot line from 35 feet to 4 feet to allow for the installation of a 16-foot by 7-foot exterior walk-in cooler/freezer. Site Image 7345 Country Club Drive Location of proposed walk-in cooler 6 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 add a 16-foot by 7-foot walk-in cooler/freezer on the south side of the building. The applicant will also be installing an eight foot wooden fence to screen the cooler as required by City Code section 113-152. This height of fencing is allowed by-right in the commercial district. While this property is not zoned commercial, it is non-conforming. Staff will approve this fencing administratively as required screening for this equipment with the finding that the fencing is not increasing a non- conformity and is required for this variance. The fence will extend around to the east side of the building to replace the existing fencing that screens garbage containers. Staff finds that the walk-in cooler is a reasonable use in conjunction with the existing nonconforming use of the restaurant in a residential zoning district. 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 irregular triangularly shaped lot as platted in 1954 with two street frontages was not the result of any action by the property and is a unique characteristic of the lot. Staff finds that the shape of the lot as platted in 1954 is unique to this property and is not a circumstance caused by the property owner. c. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. The applicant states that they will put a privacy fence surrounding the new cooler and paint it the same color as the existing building. They also stated the sound generated by the cooler will not be a significant factor as the new unit will add very little noise. 7 Staff finds that he existing restaurant building has been in the location since 1929 and the addition of the walk-in cooler with the fence screening will 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. 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. At the time the zoning was put in place the restaurant was existing and it is currently considered a nonconforming use. Staff determined that the addition of the exterior walk-in cooler does not constitute an expansion of the existing use but an improvement to the existing use and as such does not violate the regulations of Zoning Code section 113-26 Nonconforming uses. 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 an existing nonconforming use as regulated in Zoning Code section 113-26 Nonconforming uses. Any nonconformity existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control under this chapter, including the lawful use or occupation of land or premises, may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but not including expansion. Staff finds the proposed cooler to be a replacement or improvement, since it’s replacing an interior, inferior cooler. 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 argues that the addition of the exterior walk-in cooler is necessary to keep up with their increase in business and to eliminate using a beer cooler for the storage of food. The use of the current beer cooler creates space issues and requires that the kitchen staff run food through the restaurant from the current cooler to the kitchen which is operationally very inefficient. Additionally, locating the walk-in cooler to the east side of the building would require they move the garbage enclosure to the parking lot which would reduce parking. This could potentially have a greater effect to the surrounding neighborhood by shifting some of the parking to the street. Staff finds that the best location is on the south side of the building and with the addition of the fence for screening it will have no impact on the surrounding neighborhood and that the variance is the minimum action necessary. 8 Staff Recommendation The Board should review the applicants’ request and the findings needed to grant a variance. Staff recommend s the Board move to approve the variance requests to reduce the required front setback along Glenwood Avenue from 35 feet to 4 feet to allow the addition of a walk-in cooler/freezer on the south side of the building, 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 along Glenwood Avenue from 35 feet to four feet to allow for the installation of an exterior walk-in cooler/freezer, subject to the findings in the October 28, 2025, staff report.” Next Steps If the Board approves the variance request: If approved, the next step is submitting a building permit for the new cooler and for the fence. 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. 9 10 11 Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLC13605 1st Avenue North,Suite 100Plymouth, MN 55441763-412-4000 (o) 763-412-4090 (f)www.ae-mn.comENGINEERINGARCHITECTURELAND SURVEYINGENVIRONMENTAL SERVICESLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE12 Photo: Proposed location for new walk-in cooler/freezer Photo: East side of building 13 Photo: Interior of Beer/Food Cooler 14