Loading...
11.25.25 BZA Agenda Packet November 25, 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.October 28, 2025, Meeting Minutes 3.Public Hearings 3.A.5000 Golden Valley Road 3.B.255 Louisiana Avenue South 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 November 25, 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: Tapio, Orenstein, Brookins, Corrado, Commissioner VanOss b. Student Member: Vacant c. Staff Members Present: Chloe McGuire, Deputy Community Development Director, Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner, Steven Okey, Associate Planner d. Council Liaison: Councilor La Mere-Anderson 2. Consent Agenda 2.a. Approval of Agenda 2.b. Approval of September 23, 2025 Meeting Minutes • Corrado made a motion to approve. • Brookins seconded. • Voted unanimously for approval. 3. Public Hearings 3.a. 7345 Country Club Drive Applicant: Paul Jacob on behalf of Schuller’s Tavern 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 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. • Okey presented the staff report. • Corrado asked how tall the walk-in cooler/freezer would be. • Okey stated that it will be 96in tall. • Corrado asked if they would be able to have access to it from the east side. • Okey stated that they would not be able to punch through the kitchen to put a door on that side. • Brookins asked if the addition of the cooler would help with the external storage issues. • Corrado asked if there are any extra considerations they should take since this restaurant is in a residential zone. • Okey stated that he does not think there are any additional considerations. • Tapio asked if the cooler is considered a secondary structure. • Okey stated that it is considered mechanical equipment. • Applicant Paul and Mark Jacob spoke: o He stated that he and his brother operate the restaurant. He noted that since the business has expanded, they are in need of additional space. He stated that they would like to keep the food cooler and the beer cooler separate from each October 28, 2025 – 7 pm City Hall: Council Chamber Hybrid Meeting: Teams/Phone 2 City of Golden Valley BZA Meeting Minutes October 28, 2025 – 7 pm 2 other. He provided further information on the fence surrounding the cooler. He explained the current process for storing beer kegs. • Corrado asked what would happen with the existing interior cooler. • Paul Jacob stated that it will be used for beer and wine storage. • Orenstein opened the public hearing. • Megan Palkert stated that she lives across the street from the property. She stated that there is a lot of traffic in and out of the side door of the building. She asked if the addition of the cooler would affect that in any way. • Okey stated that the side door will remain there, because that is the EDA accessible entrance. • Palkert also asked what maintenance this will require. She noted that a few months ago, the kitchen was being cleaned late at night, and it kept her family up due to the noise. • Paul Jacob stated that maintenance is very minimal and just requires light cleaning. • 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. • Orenstein stated that all requirements seem to be met, and he has no issues with the request. • Corrado noted that his only concern was that the interior was going to be expanded, but he noted that this does not seem to be the case. He stated that he sees no issues with what they are requesting. • Tapio stated that he is in favor, and it seems like it will alleviate food safety concerns. • Brookins stated that he has no issues with the request. • Van Oss asked if the ADA accessibility would still be clear with the addition of the cooler. • Okey noted that they measured, and it still leaves ample room for access. • Van Oss stated that he has no issues. • Orenstein asked for a motion. • Corrado motioned to approve the variance request. • Orenstein seconded • Vote was taken and approved unanimously. 4. Council Liaison Report • None. 5. Staff and Board Member Updates 5.a. Staff Comments • None. 6. Adjourn • Chair Orenstein adjourned the meeting at 7:28 p.m. 3 Date: November 25 2025 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) From: Steven Okey, Associate Planner Subject: Request for Variance to Golden Valley City Code – 5000 Golden Valley Road Subject Property Location: 5000 Golden Valley Road Parcel ID Number: 1802924310006 Applicant(s)/Property Owner(s): Blanca Sinchi Site Size: 0.38 acres, 16,591 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 a park to the west. Background The property is a triangular-shaped lot situated between Golden Valley Road, Duluth Street and Regent Avenue North. The standard setbacks for the lot are: 35 feet on the street facing frontages of which there are three (Golden Valley Road, Duluth Street and Regent Avenue North), and due to the unusual shape of the lot and the fact it is bordered by three roadways there are no side or rear setbacks. In the Summer of 2025 city staff became aware of a newly constructed six-foot-high fence at 5000 Golden Valley Road in the yard adjacent to Regent Avenue North. The new fence was located in the right of way and the homeowner was notified that the fence needed to be moved out of the right of way by 12.5 feet on the west side of the lot and 20 feet on the southern side. They have since complied with the request and the fence was moved out of the right of way. The homeowner was also notified that the six-foot height was not allowed on the front yard located along Regent Avenue North. The homeowner has a four-foot fence along the Golden Valley Road side of the property. There is a six-foot-high fence along the Duluth Street side of the property which is allowed when the street classification is a minor arterial or higher. Duluth street is classified as a minor arterial. 4 An email outlining the zoning code violation was sent to the applicant on June 16, 2025. The applicant responded and apologized for their error in not applying for a fence permit. They then applied for a fence permit and for an after-the-fact variance to allow the new fence to be six feet high in its current location. The applicant is applying for a variance from the City Code Section 113-152 Screening and Outdoor Storage, Subdivision. (c)(1)a to allow a six-foot-high fence in the front yard along Regent Avenue North of a triangular lot. 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. 5000 Golden Valley Road Location of Fence 5 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 has constructed a six-foot-high fence which is allowed in residential zoning districts. The applicant located the new wood privacy fence along the front yard along Regent Avenue North in such a way to allow for privacy, being located across from a park. The fence also shields their dogs view of the people coming and going from the park and helps minimize their barking. Staff finds that the six-foot-high fence in single-family dwelling residential zoning district 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 with three street frontages was not the result of any action by the homeowner and is a unique characteristic of the lot. Staff finds that the triangular shape of the lot as platted 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 six- foot-high fences, some along their front yard. The privacy fence was constructed of wood and is of a high quality and visually appealing. It was also constructed in a location in such a way as it does not impede visibility at the corner for vehicle traveling southwest on Golden Valley Road and south on Regent Avenue North. Staff finds that the construction of the fence does not alter the essential character of the locality. 2. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. 6 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 a four- foot height fence maximum. 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. The current single family residential use will not change. 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 by street frontages that limit a fence height to four feet and this limits the privacy that would be afforded other property owners on lots with only on or two street frontages. Allowing the six-foot-high fence is the minimum action necessary. 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 from City Code Section 113-152 Screening and Outdoor Storage, Subdivision. (c)(1)a to allow a six-foot-high fence in the front yard along Regent Avenue North of a triangular lot, 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 allow a six foot high fence in the front yard along Regent Avenue North of a triangular lot, based on the finding that the variance standards have been met as outlined in the staff report, subject to the findings in the November 24, 2025, staff report.” 7 Next Steps If the Board approves the variance request: If approved, the next step is getting the fence 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 rebuild the fence to comply with height requirements. 8 4’ High Fence Duluth Street Regent Avenue North 9 Photos: 5000 Golden Valley Road. 1. Looking west at corner. Note four foot fence height along on the southwest property line. 2. Looking south along Regent Ave N toward Golden Valley Road. 10 3. Looking west on Golden Valley Road, four foot high fence. 11 Date: November 25, 2025 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) From: Steven Okey, Associate Planner Subject: Request for Variance to Golden Valley City Code – 255 Louisiana Avenue South Subject Property Location: 255 Louisiana Avenue South Parcel ID Number: 0511721120035 Applicant(s)/Property Owner(s): Matt Burton on behalf of property owner Nicole Delahanty Site Size: 0.32 acres, 13,821 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 corner lot platted, situated at the corner of Louisiana Avenue South and Colonial Road. The standard setbacks for the lot are: 35 feet on the street facing frontages of which there are two (Louisiana Avenue South and Colonial Road), 25 feet in the rear, and the side setback is 15 feet. The applicant it proposing to construct a 15 foot by 33 foot in-ground pool in their rear yard on the eastern side of the existing home. The applicant is applying for a variance from the City Code Section 113-88 Single-Family Residential R-1 Zoning District, subsection (f)(1)e to reduce the required setback from the principal structure from ten feet to seven feet to allow a proposed 15 foot by 33 foot in-ground pool. 12 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. Staff considered the following requirements in Section 113-27(c) when evaluating the variance requests: Location of proposed in-ground pool 255 Louisiana Avenue S 13 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 proposed an in-ground pool which is an allowed accessory use to a single-detached dwelling. Staff finds that the proposed in-ground pool 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 the corner lot with two street frontages was not the result of any action by the homeowner and is a unique characteristic of the lot. The platted easements on the lot also further limit the pool’s location. Staff finds that the shape of the lot as platted 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 pools. The in-ground pool is designed to be 15 foot by 33 foot, which is smaller than a standard in-ground pool and it is the minimum size needed for a pool with diving board. This size was arrived at in an effort to best minimize the encroachments into said setbacks and easements, while allowing the homeowner to enjoy the intended use of the swimming pool. A five-foot fence will be installed around the pool with self-closing gates for safety as per building code. Staff finds that the construction of a pool in the rear yard 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 fact that the property is a corner lot that . The property is a corner lot encumbered by street frontages the west and south side with 35 foot setbacks which would not allow the pool to be located anywhere else on the lot without a variance. Staff finds that the practical difficulties in the variance requests are not solely due to economic considerations. 14 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 proposed to build a 15 foot by 33 foot in-ground pool 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 corner lot surrounded on two sides by street frontages which require a 35-foot setback. The applicant cannot locate the in-ground pool to any other part of the yard and comply with required setbacks. The applicant cannot locate the pool any farther to the east in the rear yard due to a six foot easement. In addition, locating the pool to the south side of the home would require a variance to the setback distance to the primary structure as well and a variance to the front yard setback. Locating the proposed in-ground pool to the chosen location only requires one variance versus two variances. Staff also finds that this is the minimum action necessary to eliminate the practical difficulty. Staff from the Building Inspections division reviewed the preliminary project plans and there are no issues with the distance to the primary structure. 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 request from the City Code Section 113-88 Single-Family Residential R-1 Zoning District, subsection (f)(1)e to reduce the required setback from the principal structure from ten feet to seven feet to allow a proposed 15 foot by 33 foot in-ground pool, 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 required setback from the principal structure from ten feet to seven feet to allow a proposed 15 foot by 33 foot in-ground pool, subject to the findings in the November 25, 2025, staff report.” 15 Next Steps If the Board approves the variance request: If approved, the next step is submitting complete building permits and stormwater permits for review. 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. 16 17 Photo looking north towards backyard. 18