bza-minutes-nov-24-20
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
This meeting was held via Webex in accordance with the local emergency declaration made by
the City under Minn. Stat. § 12.37. In accordance with that declaration, beginning on March 16,
2020, all Board of Zoning Appeals meetings held during the emergency were conducted
electronically. The City used Webex to conduct this meeting and members of the public were
able to monitor the meeting by calling in.
Call To Order
The meeting was called to order at 7 pm by Chair Orenstein.
Roll Call
Members present: Chris Carlson, Sophia Ginis, Nancy Nelson, Richard Orenstein, Kade Arms‐
Regenold, Chuck Segelbaum– Planning Commissioner
Staff present: Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman and Planner Myles Campbell
Approval of Agenda
MOTION made by Nelson, seconded by Carlson to approve the agenda of November 24, 2020, as
submitted. Staff took a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously.
Approval of Minutes
MOTION made by Carlson, seconded by Orenstein to approve the October 27, 2020, meeting minutes.
Staff took a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously.
1. 832 Meadow Lane South
Peter Prudden, Applicant
Request: § 113‐89, Moderate Density Residential (R‐2) Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(a) Front Yard
Setback Requirements: 6 ft. off of the required 30 ft. to a distance of 24 ft. at its closest point to
the front yard (east) property line.
Jason Zimmerman Planning Manager, started by stating the applicant’s request, and reminded the
group that a similar request but for 8 feet off the required 30 ft. was denied at the previous meeting.
Zimmerman displayed a map of the lot and its proximity in the neighborhood. The lot is a corner lot
and a regular shape, the applicant would like to expand living space by adding a large open porch to
the east. Zimmerman summarized the request; the home is conforming on the lot but requests a
variance to reduce the setback in order to build a front porch. City code states a setback of 30 feet
for open porches, this addition would result in a setback of 24 feet from the east property line. The
November 24, 2020 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
November 24, 2020 – 7 pm
2
area of the porch is approximately 45 square feet. Plans and diagrams were presented to illustrate
the lot, house location on the lot, and updated plans for the proposed porch.
Staff analyzes a variance by following three principles:
1. Consistency with Zoning Code
2. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
3. Property exhibits “practical difficulties”
• Reasonable use
• Unique circumstances not created by the landowner
• Does not alter the essential character
Staff found the variance to be generally in line with both the zoning code and regulations of the R‐1
district. The project also fits in with the 2040 Comp plan to support rehabilitation and reinvestment
of the housing stock as they continue to age.
Analysis of practical difficulties was harder; while the addition of a front porch is reasonable, this
proposed addition is quite large and staff feels that a similar effect could be achieved with a smaller
porch. Staff feels the updated proposal is not reasonable.
Corner lots are common, the house is positioned on the lot in a way that would allow for a significant
expansion without the need for a variance. The variance request does not appear to be due to a
circumstance unique to the property.
A number of other lots in the area have setbacks less than 35 ft. and many utilize that space for a
garage. The construction of a porch, in this instance, will not alter the essential character of the area.
Zimmerman stated there is room in the front yard setback to construct a smaller yet conforming
open porch. He added that a smaller porch that aligns with the front plane of the home would still
require a variance but a much smaller one, approximately 3 feet. Staff displayed diagrams to
illustrate the porch in sections. While the plan does align with two of the three items for analyzing a
variance request, staff did not find that the property exhibited practical difficulty.
Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the variance request of 6 ft. off of the required 30 ft. to a distance
of 24 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line for an open front porch.
Chair Orenstein opened the floor for Board questions, Chuck Segelbaum, Planning Commissioner,
asked staff if the request is granted, is the applicant required to follow the plans as submitted to the
City. Zimmerman responded that it depends on the Board’s language when approving the variance. If
the language remains general, the applicant may be able to adjust the plan and utilize the approved
setback variance along the entire front yard. If the approval language is more specific, it can be
limited to the plans as proposed.
Chair Orenstein invited the applicant to speak.
John Tadewald, architect, spoke and is acting as an independent architect for the applicant.
Peter Prudden, applicant, stated they met with the architect since the last meeting to discuss
alternatives to the original variance in October. He added that they weren’t willing to agree to
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
November 24, 2020 – 7 pm
3
compromises without consulting their architect and that’s why they’re before the BZA again.
Prudden added that while they reduced the variance request by 2 feet, it reduces the variance by
50% in terms of area. Prudden said that he doesn’t want to use ambiguous terms like “excessive” or
“large” and would like to use the actual numbers. Prudden then deferred to the architect. John
Tadewald, architect, added that the applicants don’t feel the porch is excessive and need a porch
this large to accommodate the seating they require for the porch. The applicant and his wife are
business owners and networking is important to them, they would like to entertain more than two
guests. The porch they are seeking a variance for will help them comfortably entertain six adults.
Tadewald echoed the applicant on size reduction and added that they looked at alternatives for the
porch. In other areas, the massing would be more obtrusive to the neighbors and neighborhood. The
proposed porch will provide them with the square footage they need and will be aesthetically
pleasing for the neighborhood. Prudden added that new refreshed drawings were provided and he
didn’t see them in the slide show. Jessica Prudden, applicant, added that the porch would be their
outdoor space. Their backyard is full of trees and overlooks their neighbors’ yards, they don’t want to
entertain in their front yard, and they have an elderly parent who lives with them. All of these
reasons are why they want a front porch.
Nancy Nelson, said the porch seems to be 15x16 and recalls the French doors being a concern at the
last meeting. She asked if the architect could add sliding glass doors and that would free up space.
Prudden responded that those changes were made. He added that documentation he provided to
the Planning Assistant isn’t present at the meeting. He states the floorplan shows a sofa, two chairs,
and a walkway. Zimmerman added that any images received by staff are what are being shown. If
updated drawings show a different arrangement, staff didn’t receive them. The plans attached to the
application show the updated size but do still show French doors. Orenstein confirmed which doors
are sliding and no longer French doors. Tadewald stated the seating area is 12x16 and the sliding
doors allow for more usable space to accommodate more than four people. Orenstein asked staff to
display the rendering of the porch that aligns with the house, and he asked the architect why that
rendering is unacceptable. Tadewald stated it could accommodate seating for four but would
eliminate the ability for more. He added there are architectural reasons why it should extend beyond
the dining but aesthetically it’s more pleasing with the massing of the house. Jessica Prudden
jumped in and stated that on November 16th, they received an email from the Planning Assistant
stating they were missing part of the application. 20 minutes after the receipt of that email, the
applicant sent the full application to staff. She continued by asking what was fair for outdoor space,
what amount of space is fair for use for a backyard. She added that the porch will essentially be their
backyard. Zimmerman asked if they’re wondering what usable space they’d have in the backyard vs
the front. Jessica Prudden added that she would like the useable space quantified. Zimmerman
responded that the number varies by lot and there are regulations to keep structures out of setbacks.
He continued that there is no regulation that would prohibit a front patio and that it could extend
almost to the street. The code regulates massing of the house and any other attached porch. A
homeowner is allowed to use their outdoor space to entertain by using pavers, garden beds, etc.
Prudden added that adding a patio to the front of the house has zero common sense for the
neighborhood. Tadewald added that no other house has a front yard patio but a number of them
have covered porches. He added the applicant wants to use the space if the weather is less than
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
November 24, 2020 – 7 pm
4
ideal. Orenstein clarified that no one was suggesting a patio on this property but staff was citing code
to answer the question posed to them by the applicant.
The conversation moved on to the responsibility of the Board and practical difficulty.
Chair Orenstein opened the public comment portion.
824 Meadow Lane
Voiced support of the porch
Tom Lockhart,
909 Parkview Terrace,
Caller stated his support for the proposed plan, the design matches the integrity of the
neighborhood. He added he likes the design because the alternative is that the house will be torn
down and a new build will be erected.
Seeing no further callers, the Chair closed the public comment.
Carlson stated the neighbor input is swaying his opinion/decision. Segelbaum reviewed the city
analysis standards and stated their importance. He added that he agreed with the first two analysis
items however the house and lot may be conforming but the house is on the lot at a 45‐degree angle.
He added that it’s a difficult layout for a lot. Nelson echoed this statement and reiterated her
sympathy for corner lots. Ginis suggested the variance be granted but by square footage of the
triangle that encroachs the setback, not a blanket 6 feet. She also challenged the idea of useable
space. Ginis added that granting the variance is at the edge of her comfort level and understands the
applicant wants an aesthetic but doesn’t feel the request is completely justified. Orenstein stated
he’d be in favor of approval but would like to subject it to the plans as given to staff.
Chair asked for a motion.
A MOTION was made by Chuck Segelbaum and seconded by Nelson approve the request for 6 ft.
off of the required 30 ft. to a distance of 24 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property
line and limited to the site plans as submitted to the City by the date of this meeting.
Staff took a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously
2.Adjournment
MOTION made by Carlson, seconded by Nelson and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the
meeting at 8:00 pm.
Staff called a roll call vote and the motion passed unanimously.
________________________________
Richard Orenstein, Chair
_________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant