bza-agenda-may-26-20
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
This meeting will be held via Webex in accordance with the local emergency declaration made by the
City under Minn. Stat. § 12.37. The public may monitor this meeting by calling 1‐415‐655‐0001 and
entering the meeting code 287 526 927. If you incur costs to call into the meeting, you may submit the
costs to the City for reimbursement consideration. The public may participate in this meeting by using
the number and code listed above. Members of the public wishing to address the BZA during a Webex
meeting are encouraged to contact Amie Kolesar at 763‐593‐3992 or akolesar@goldenvalleymn.gov
prior to the meeting to sign up to speak. For technical assistance, please contact the City at 763‐593‐
8007 or webexsupport@goldenvalleymn.gov.
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Agenda
3. Approval of Minutes
April 28, Regular Meeting
4. 1421 Rhode Island Ave North
Taylor Ward, Applicant
Requests:
Section 113‐88, Subd. (f)(1)(a) – 10 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 25 feet at its closest
point to the front yard (east) property line.
Section 113‐88, Subd. (g)(3) – 11 square feet off the maximum allowed 1,000 square feet of
accessory space to a total area of 1,011 square feet
Section 113‐88, Subd. (n)(4) – Wavier to allow a second curb cut without a second legal garage
Section 113‐88, Subd. (n)(2) – 3 feet off the required 3 feet to a distance of 0 feet at a paved area’s
closest point to a side yard line
5. 4725 Olson Memorial Highway
Mike Olson, Applicant
Requests:
Section 113‐95, Subd. (g)(10)(c) – 10 feet off the required 30 feet to a distance of 20 feet at its closest
point to the wide yard (west) property line
May 26, 2020 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
May 26, 2020 – 7 pm
2
Section 113‐95, Subd. (f)(10)(b)(2) – 10 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 25 feet at its
closest point to the front yard (west) property line
Section 113‐151 – Waiver of the prohibition on parking within the front yard landscaped area
Section 113‐151, Subd. (c) – 3 spaces off the 36 parking spaces required for a total of 33 parking
spaces on the property
6. Adjournment
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 1‐415‐655‐0001 and entering the meeting code 806 533
109.
Call To Order
The meeting was called to order at 7 pm by Chair Nelson.
Roll Call
Members present: Nancy Nelson, Richard Orenstein, Chris Carlson, Sophia Ginis, Kade Arms‐
Regenold
Board Members absent:
Staff present: Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman and Planner Myles Campbell
Approval of Agenda
MOTION made by Nelson, seconded by Orenstein to approve the agenda of April 28, 2020, as submitted
and the motion carried unanimously.
Approval of Minutes
MOTION made by Nelson, seconded by Orenstein to approve the December 16, 2019, meeting minutes
as submitted and the motion carried unanimously.
Councilmember Larry Fonnest greeted all members and introduced himself to the new BZA members.
He gave a brief review, what to expect, and congratulated the BZA on their continued hard work.
Annual Board of Zoning Appeals Orientation
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, started orientation with an introduction to the City of Golden
Valley’s demographics, the City Council, the City Manager, and City Leadership. Zimmerman continued
on to describe the Boards and Commissions, discuss bylaws and city code, the annual calendar,
meetings, and member terms. Zimmerman expanded on Board and Commissioner roles and
responsibilities, guiding principles and code of conduct, written record, and adhering to the state statute.
Variance Training for Board Members
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, gave a presentation on what a variance is, what types of
variances are allowed, and what ordinance criteria leads to approval. Zimmerman expanded on the
previously mentioned state statute and the legal standard for variances. Member Carlson asked about
April 28, 2020 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
December 16, 2019 – 7 pm
2
the application and review process prior to an applicant presenting to the BZA. Myles Campbell,
Planner, illustrated the process, analysis, and potential alternatives to applying for a variance.
Presentation of 2019 Board of Zoning Appeals Annual Report
Myles Campbell, Planner, presented the annual report:
In 2019:
33 Variances were considered
o 30 variances were in the Residential (R‐1) Zoning District
o Top three types of requests were for front setbacks, side setbacks and fence height.
o 21/33 Variances Approved
o 2/33 Variances were approved with Modifications
o 1/33 Variances were tables
o 9/33 Variances were denied
Campbell expanded on the variances based on project type and then gave a 5‐year summary of
variances considered and their type.
Officer Elections
Nancy Nelson nominated Richard Orenstein for Chair and it was seconded by Sophia Ginis. Richard
Orenstein nominated Sophia Ginis for Vice Chair and it was seconded by Nancy Nelson.
Staff took a roll call vote and both nominations passed unanimously.
Adjournment
MOTION made by Chair Nelson, seconded by Orenstein and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn
the meeting at 7:50 pm.
________________________________
Nancy Nelson, Chair
_________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant
Date: May 26, 2019
To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
From: Myles Campbell, Planner
Subject: 1421 and 1435 Rhode Island Ave N
Taylor Ward, Applicant
Introduction
Taylor, Charlie and Linda Ward, the property owners, are seeking four variances from the City Code
to make a series of improvements at a pair of recently subdivided lots, 1421 Rhode Island Ave N and
1435 Rhode Island Ave N. The applicant is seeking the following variances from City Code:
Variance Request City Code Requirement
The applicant is requesting a variance of
10 feet off the required 35 feet to a
distance of 25 feet at its closest point to
the front yard (east) property line.
§ Section 113‐88, Single Family Zoning District,
Subd. (f)(1)(a) Front Yard Setback.
The required minimum front setback shall be 35
feet from any front lot line along a street right‐of‐
way line. Decks and open front porches, with no
screens, may be built to within 30 feet of a front lot
line along a street right‐of‐way line.
The applicant is requesting a variance of
11 feet off the maximum allowed
accessory structure area of 1,000 to a total
area of 1,011.
§ Section 113‐88, Single Family Zoning District,
Subd. (g)(3) Accessory Structure Area
Each lot is limited to a total of 1,000 square feet of
the following accessory structures: detached and
attached garages, detached sheds, greenhouses,
and gazebos.
The applicant is requesting a waiver of the
second garage requirement in order to
keep an existing secondary curb cut.
§ 113‐113‐88, Single Family Zoning District, Subd.
(n)(4) Street Access
Each lot may have only one street curb cut access,
except the following lots may have up to two street
curb cut accesses:
2
a. A lot that contains two legally constructed
garages.
b. A lot of a resident who requires additional
driveway access qualifying for a reduced
class rate for homestead property as
defined by Minn. Stats. § 273.13, subd. 22,
Class 1b.
The applicant is requesting a variance of 3
feet off the required 3 feet to a distance of
0 feet at the paved area’s closest point to
the side yard property line.
§ 113‐88, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. (n)(2)
Paved Area Setbacks. Paved areas shall be set back
three feet from a lot line, except for shared
driveways used by multiple property owners
pursuant to a private easement.
Background
In 2008, the subject property consisted of three lots that were combined for tax purposes. Two lots were
60 feet wide and the third was 40 feet wide (with the last 20 feet owned by the property directly to the
north). An existing home on the property was being demolished and in order to legally construct a new
home, the three platted lots needed to be formally combined. This was approved by the City Council late
in the year and in 2009 a new home was constructed on the south portion of this lot, leaving sufficient
room for a future second home to be constructed on the north portion.
Seeking to utilize this north portion, the property owners recently sought and were approved to
subdivide the combined lot into two smaller lots of roughly 80 feet in width – 1421 Rhode Island to
the south and 1435 Rhode Island to the north. The two lots are 10,715 sq. ft. and 10,687 sq. ft.
respectively. The existing two‐car garage on 1435 Rhode Island was part of a variance approval in
2002, and measures approximately 787 total sq. ft. Typically when subdividing to create a new lot,
accessory structures would not be allowed to exist without the presence of a principal structure.
Given the property owners plan to begin construction this summer however, City Staff felt
comfortable in allowing the garage to remain in place so long as the home itself was built in a timely
manner.
Summary of Requests
The variances requested by the applicant are either for the purpose of constructing a new home on
1435 Rhode Island Ave N, or are related to the conditions of subdivision approval, which required
that items such as the extra curb cut either be removed or brought into conformity via a variance
approval.
The applicant is requesting a reduction in the front setback requirement of 10 feet off of the
required 35 feet from the front property line. At the time of its replatting in 2008 the City obtained
10 feet of additional right‐of‐way from the combined parcel at the time, effectively moving the front
property line in by 10 feet. By reducing the setback requirement, the applicant is hoping to
maintain a consistent distance from the roadway when compared to neighbors along the street,
maintaining the character of the view shed from the street.
3
In the City’s Single-Family Zoning District, the code allows for up to 1,000 sq. ft. of attached and
detached accessory structures such as a garage or shed. The applicant is showing on their
preliminary site plan for 1435 Rhode Island a new attached single‐car garage in addition to the
existing detached garage to the rear. The existing garage measures 32.2x24.5 from its exterior walls,
or 787 sq. ft. The proposed single‐car garage would be approximately 14x16 ft. with width measured
from the exterior wall closest to the side property line to the interior side wall, or 224 sq. ft. The
resulting 1,011 sq. ft. of combined accessory structure space would exceed the maximum allowed
by the zoning code by 11 feet.
During the subdivision process, City Engineers identified a second curb cut and driveway located at
the side property line shared between the two new lots being created. The curb cut itself was
primarily located on the 1421 lot, with the driveway being located across both lots. The applicant
has stated he would like to cut the driveway such that it does not cross over onto the northern lot,
but it would still run along the property line. The purpose of the second curb cut is to provide access
to the rear of the home on 1421 Rhode Island, to a fenced area where the property owners store a
boat and other recreational vehicles. Additionally, the applicant and neighbors have noted that the
additional curb cut helps to alleviate some of the parking demand on the street.
City Code requires that single‐family homes have only a single curb cut, with the exception of homes
that have multiple legal garages requiring access. Additionally the City requires a 3‐foot setback
between paved areas and side property lines, except for shared driveways used by multiple
property owners pursuant to a private easement. The initial recommendation from Engineering staff
was the removal of this curb cut and associated driveway, and this was made a condition of the
subdivision approval. The applicant requested to pursue a variance that would make both the
driveway and curb cut conforming structures on the two lots, and if approved then move forward
with the subdivision process without their removal. Staff agreed that if the two items were
approved and brought into conformance with zoning code, they would no longer need to meet the
condition of removing the two items from either lot.
Analysis
In reviewing this application, staff has maintained the points of examination to the considerations
outlined in Minnesota State Statute 462.357 – that the requested variance is in harmony with the
general purposes and intent of the Zoning Chapter, that it is consistent with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan, and that a property exhibit “practical difficulties” in order for a variance to be
granted.
Staff finds that the variances are, generally speaking, in line with both the purpose of the Zoning
Code as well as the purpose of the Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, which is “to
provide for detached single‐family dwelling units at a low density along with directly related and
complementary uses.” The requests would not allow for additional unit density in the
neighborhood, although the additional curb cut would be a more significant deviation from what is
typically allowed in the district.
4
In the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, one of the stated objectives of the Land Use Chapter is to
protect existing residential neighborhoods (p. 2‐35) and one of the policy actions to that end is to
“Enforce subdivision regulations to reduce potential impacts to neighborhood character.” As a
condition of its subdivision, these two lots were required to address the curb cut and shared
driveway in order to receive approval from the Planning Commission and City Council. This can
either be accomplished via their removal, or the approval of a variance. Additionally, in its Housing
Chapter, the City lists a number of objectives relating to the larger goal of maintaining the quality of
housing in the city (p. 3‐21). With an infill development project like this one, staff is happy to see the
reinvestment going back into the property and the creation of new housing stock, with the caveat
that this new housing must meet the high standards established by the City for its single‐family
homes.
In order to constitute practical difficulties:
1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner.
Front Setback: Staff finds the request to keep the home in line with others along the block
reasonable.
Accessory Structures: It is reasonable for a homeowner to want an indoor garage, however
given the existing two‐car garage on the site, additional covered parking may be more of a
luxury than a reasonable need.
Curb cut and Driveway: Storage of recreational vehicles is allowed in the side and rear yards
of residential homes when properly screened, however secondary curb cuts and accesses are
rarely supported by the City’s Engineering staff on residential lots. Those curb cuts predating
the current code language carry the normal restriction of legal non‐conformities in that they
cannot be expanded and must be removed in cases of replatting or major additions. Such
curb cuts have been removed throughout the City as part of the street reconstruction
program since the limitation was adopted in 2010.
2. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that is not
caused by the landowner.
Front Setback: The City’s acquisition of additional right‐of‐way was not an active choice
made by the property owner, and does result in creating a shallower lot to build on
compared to surrounding properties.
Accessory Structures: Other than the existing location and size of the detached garage the
applicant wishes to keep in place on 1435 Rhode Island, the lot itself is of a standard size and
with relatively even topography. The existing garage is being kept as a choice of the property
owner, and staff sees no other unique challenges with the lot otherwise.
Curb Cut and Driveway: Due to the proximity of the structure at 1421 Rhode Island to the
south property line (12.5 feet), there is limited potential to extend the driveway connecting
5
to the garage to allow for access to the rear of the home itself, especially for larger
recreational vehicles. Parking along the street is not a unique issue to this property
however, and is by itself not a justification for retaining the curb cut.
3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality
Front Setback: Staff feels that by reducing the setback to bring the home in line with others
along the block would make the new home less likely to feel out of place with surrounding
properties.
Accessory Structures: The attached garage would not drastically alter the appearance of the
home on the lot in comparison to other similar sized homes. The additional 11 square feet of
area would not likely be noticeable.
Curb Cut and Driveway: Existing grandfathered curb cuts and driveways along property lines
are somewhat common in some of the City’s older single‐family neighborhoods, where they
were put in place prior to changes to the City code. The Board has rarely approved variances
to bring these into conformity as the City would prefer that they be replaced over time by
paved driveways that conform with standard code language.
Additionally, staff assesses whether other options are available to meet the applicant’s needs
without requiring a variance. Staff finds that in the case of the accessory structure size request, the
11 sq. ft. that exceed the required maximum of 1,000 sq. ft. could likely be met by reducing the
width of the attached garage structure by as little as a foot. This would still leave sufficient room to
pull in an average size vehicle, and with the garage being 16 feet in depth, would save more than
the 11 square feet necessary.
Lastly, staff assesses whether the proposal requests the smallest variance necessary to meet the
applicant’s needs. Staff agrees with the applicant that for all cases other than the accessory
structure size, these requests represent the most minimal feasible to suit the applicant’s needs.
Additional Staff Comments
The City’s Engineering staff are not in support of the curb cut or driveway setback variance. They
note that a driveway across a property line will cause future problems if and when either property is
sold. Not only does it not meet the 3 foot offset from the property line, it crosses the property line.
It is also a second curb cut for both properties, which is prohibited by City Code without a legal
second garage. If the owner wants to construct a permitted garage on the property, then a second
curb cut may be allowed, but it is still in conflict with the property line and therefore, needs to be
removed or relocated when plans for a new garage have been approved and permitted.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance request of 10 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance
of 25 feet at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line.
6
Staff recommends denial of the variance request of 11 feet off the maximum allowed accessory
structure area of 1,000 to a total area of 1,011.
Staff recommends denial of the variance request of a waiver of the second garage requirement in
order to keep an existing secondary curb cut.
Staff recommends denial of the variance request of 3 feet off the required 3 feet to a distance of 0
feet at the paved area’s closest point to the side yard property line.
SUBJECT PROPERTY
Planning | 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427‐4588
763‐593‐8095 | TTY: 763‐593‐3968 | www.goldenvalleymn.gov | planning@goldenvalleymn.gov
P L A N NING A P PLI C ATI ON
Zoning Code Variance
Street address of property in this application:
1425 Rhode Island Ave N, Golden Valley MN 55427
APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name (individual, or corporate entity):
Taylor Ward
Address:
1421 Rhode Island Ave N, Golden Valley, MN 55427
Phone number:
218‐259‐3601
Authorized Representative (if other than applicant):
Name:
Address:
Phone number:
Property Owner (if other than applicant):
Name:
Address:
Phone number:
SITE INFORMATION
Provide a detailed description of the variance(s) being requested:
I am asking for a variance of an additional 13sqft of garage space on the proposed house to be built at 1435
Rhode Island ave N. That address will be the new lot North of 1425. I have attached a proposed drawing
showing the proposed house and attached garage. Currently on the property a second garage to the back NW
corner was built prior to my ownership. The garage is a newer 2x6 construction and was in very good structural
condition which made my decision not to tear it down.
Email address:
Email address:
Email address:
Taylorward5@hotmail.com
Provide a detailed description of need for a variance from the Zoning Code, including description of building(s), description of proposed
addition(s), and description of proposed alteration(s) to property:
I am asking for a variance to the 1000sqft total allowed garage space measured from the outside of the
structure. I am looking for an additional 13sqft to hopefully make the garage attached to the new house usable
for a midsize car. The current garage is 788.9 sqft leaving me 211.1 sqft to build a garage onto the proposed
new home. In the attached drawing you will see I have a proposed area of 224 sqft from what Jason
Zimmerman from the City of Golden Valley has informed me of. This being 13sqfr over the allotted 1000sqft
total. Im asking for a small variance to keep the attached garage usable for a car and not to have to walk outside
in the winter to the detached garage to get my vehicle. Also helping possible resale value in the feture.
Planning | 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427‐4588
763‐593‐8095 | TTY: 763‐593‐3968 | www.goldenvalleymn.gov | planning@goldenvalleymn.gov
Zoning Code Variance (continued)
Minnesota State Statue 462.357 requires that a property exhibit “practical difficulties” in order for a variance to be considered. Practical
difficulties:
• result in a use that is reasonable
• are based on a problem that is unique to the property
• are not caused by the landowner
• do not alter the essential character of the locality
To demonstrate how your request will comply with Minnesota State Statute 462.357, please respond to the following questions.
Explain the need for your variance request and how it will result in a reasonable use of the property.
The variance will allow better use of the attached garage for my personal car, I am also building under size on
the allowed building envelope for the property which means I’m also not asking to cut into the impervious
allowance. This will also keep the resale of the property more desirable since most people like the convenience
of an attached garage. I think the small amount of sqft is a reasonable request.
What is unique about your property and how do you feel that it necessitates a variance?
The property came with a very well‐built detached garage that was not worth tearing down since it has good
use, but it cannot be built onto the proposed house. I’m asking to build a reasonable single stall garage onto the
new home well under the building envelope of the property but only 13sqft over the 1000sqft garage
allowance.
Explain how the need for a variance is based on circumstances that are not a result of a landowner action.
It was not my action to build the already existing garage on the property. I’m simply asking to be able to build a
reasonable size single stall attached garage to the proposed house that will be slightly over the allowed sqft.
Explain how, if granted, the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of your neighborhood and Golden Valley as a whole.
This variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood because almost all new builds in the area have an
attached garage and or most houses have an attached garage do to the fact that most people don’t like to walk
outside in the winter to retrieve their car or personal items being stored. I think the proposed house will fit in
very well in the neighborhood and golden valley as a whole.
Planning | 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427‐4588
763‐593‐8095 | TTY: 763‐593‐3968 | www.goldenvalleymn.gov | planning@goldenvalleymn.gov
Zoning Code Variance (continued)
The City requests that you consider all available project options permitted by the Zoning Code before requesting a variance. The Board
of Zoning Appeals will discuss alternative options to seeking variance with you at the public hearing. Please describe alternate ways to
do your project that do not require variances from the Zoning Code.
I believe that with the little bit of sqft that I’m requesting for a variance and given the existing conditions of the
property width It’s a very reasonable request. Being that I’m under the building envelope allowed and asking
for a little extra storage to store my car and personal belongings out of sight and the elements. The building
code measures off outside measurements, so the actual sqft that’s usable and over the 1000 total is less.
REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS
Current survey of your property, including proposed addition and new proposed building and structure setbacks (a copy of Golden
Valley’s survey requirements is available upon request; application considered incomplete without a current property survey)
One current color photograph of the area affected by the proposed variance (attach a printed photograph to this application or
email a digital image to planning@goldenvalleymn.gov; submit additional photographs as needed)
Fee: $200 application fee for Single‐Family Residential, $300 application fee for all other Zoning Districts
Legal description: Exact legal description of the land involved in this application (attach a separate sheet if necessary):
SIGNATURES
To the best of my knowledge the statements found in this application are true and correct. I also understand that unless construction of
the action applicable to this variance request, if granted, is not taken within one year, the variance expires. I have considered all options
afforded to me through the City’s Zoning Code and feel there is no alternate way to achieve my objective except to seek a variance to
zoning rules and regulations. I give permission for Golden Valley staff, as well as members of the Board of Zoning Appeals, to enter my
property before the public hearing to inspect the area affected by this request. Please include printed name, signature, and date for ap‐
plicant, authorized representative (if other than applicant), or property ower (if other than applicant).
Name of Applicant (please print):
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______ Signature of Applicant:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________ Authorized Representative (if other than applicant)
Name (please print):
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________ Signature:
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________ Property Owner (if other than applicant)
Name (please print):
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________ Signature:
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________
Date:
__________________________
Date:
__________________________
Date:
_________________________
Please note: The City of Golden Valley will send notice of your variance request to all adjoining property owners as well as owners of
properties directly across streets or alleys. Your neighbors have the right to address the Board of Zoning Appeals at your public hearing.
You are advised to personally contact your neighbors and explain your project to them before the public hearing.
This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72‐hour request. Please call 763‐593‐8006 (TTY: 763‐593‐3968) to
make a request. Examples of alternate formats may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc.
Planning | 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427‐4588
763‐593‐8095 | TTY: 763‐593‐3968 | www.goldenvalleymn.gov | planning@goldenvalleymn.gov
P L A N NING A P PLI C ATI ON
Zoning Code Variance
Street address of property in this application:
1425 Rhode Island Ave N, Golden Valley MN 55427
APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name (individual, or corporate entity):
Taylor Ward
Address:
1421 Rhode Island Ave N, Golden Valley, MN 55427
Phone number:
218‐259‐3601
Authorized Representative (if other than applicant):
Name:
Address:
Phone number:
Property Owner (if other than applicant):
Name:
Address:
Phone number:
SITE INFORMATION
Provide a detailed description of the variance(s) being requested:
We have a second driveway that is used for access to store our boats and trailers behind our gated
fence area to be in compliance with the zoning ordinance codes of Golden Valley. This is the
only access we have to the gated fenced in area that allows us access to store our boats and
trailers.
Email address:
Email address:
Email address:
Taylorward5@hotmail.com
Provide a detailed description of need for a variance from the Zoning Code, including description of building(s), description of proposed
addition(s), and description of proposed alteration(s) to property:
We need this driveway to access the gated fenced in area to the North side of the property.
Allowing up to be in compliance with the zoning ordinance of Golden Valley to conceal our
boats and trailers.
Planning | 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427‐4588
763‐593‐8095 | TTY: 763‐593‐3968 | www.goldenvalleymn.gov | planning@goldenvalleymn.gov
Zoning Code Variance (continued)
Minnesota State Statue 462.357 requires that a property exhibit “practical difficulties” in order for a variance to be considered. Practical
difficulties:
• result in a use that is reasonable
• are based on a problem that is unique to the property
• are not caused by the landowner
• do not alter the essential character of the locality
To demonstrate how your request will comply with Minnesota State Statute 462.357, please respond to the following questions.
Explain the need for your variance request and how it will result in a reasonable use of the property.
This driveway is access to the gated area to remain in compliance with the zoning ordinance
codes of Golden Valley. If it was to be removed then the yard will be ruined with ruts when
backing our boat and trailer in behind the fence.
What is unique about your property and how do you feel that it necessitates a variance?
Once again it allows us to be in compliance with the Golden Valley zoning ordinance codes.
This driveway has allowed us to comply with the zoning ordinance codes. Without the driveway
we will not be able to access the fenced in area and will not be able to store and conceal our boats
and trailers.
We would like to build a utility garage which the city zoning codes allows 2 curb cuts accesses.
Explain how the need for a variance is based on circumstances that are not a result of a landowner action.
The second driveway was there when we purchased the home and was approved when the
previous homeowner built the newer home. The previous owner was allowed to keep the second
driveway when he built the home around 2009.
Explain how, if granted, the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of your neighborhood and Golden Valley as a whole.
It is an asset to be able to conceal and store our personal property to comply with the zoning
ordinance. Our neighbors have many vehicles and the street at times is not passable for 2
vehicles going opposite directions. It is very congested; In the winter it allows us to park extra
vehicles so that the street remains clear for snow removal. It has never been an issue with the
neighbors or neighborhood. During family gatherings it allows 2 additional parking spots for cars
off of the street.
Planning | 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427‐4588
763‐593‐8095 | TTY: 763‐593‐3968 | www.goldenvalleymn.gov | planning@goldenvalleymn.gov
Zoning Code Variance (continued)
The City requests that you consider all available project options permitted by the Zoning Code before requesting a variance. The Board
of Zoning Appeals will discuss alternative options to seeking variance with you at the public hearing. Please describe alternate ways to
do your project that do not require variances from the Zoning Code.
The only access we have to the gated fenced area to store and conceal our personal property is
from the second curb cut driveway.
REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS
Current survey of your property, including proposed addition and new proposed building and structure setbacks (a copy of Golden
Valley’s survey requirements is available upon request; application considered incomplete without a current property survey)
One current color photograph of the area affected by the proposed variance (attach a printed photograph to this application or
email a digital image to planning@goldenvalleymn.gov; submit additional photographs as needed)
Fee: $200 application fee for Single‐Family Residential, $300 application fee for all other Zoning Districts
Legal description: Exact legal description of the land involved in this application (attach a separate sheet if necessary):
SIGNATURES
To the best of my knowledge the statements found in this application are true and correct. I also understand that unless construction of
the action applicable to this variance request, if granted, is not taken within one year, the variance expires. I have considered all options
afforded to me through the City’s Zoning Code and feel there is no alternate way to achieve my objective except to seek a variance to
zoning rules and regulations. I give permission for Golden Valley staff, as well as members of the Board of Zoning Appeals, to enter my
property before the public hearing to inspect the area affected by this request. Please include printed name, signature, and date for ap‐
plicant, authorized representative (if other than applicant), or property ower (if other than applicant).
Name of Applicant (please print):
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______ Signature of Applicant:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________ Authorized Representative (if other than applicant)
Name (please print):
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________ Signature:
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________ Property Owner (if other than applicant)
Name (please print):
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________ Signature:
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________
Date:
__________________________
Date:
__________________________
Date:
_________________________
Please note: The City of Golden Valley will send notice of your variance request to all adjoining property owners as well as owners of
properties directly across streets or alleys. Your neighbors have the right to address the Board of Zoning Appeals at your public hearing.
You are advised to personally contact your neighbors and explain your project to them before the public hearing.
This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72‐hour request. Please call 763‐593‐8006 (TTY: 763‐593‐3968) to
make a request. Examples of alternate formats may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc.
From:
To:Campbell, Myles
Cc:
Subject:property at 1421-1435 Rhode Island Ave. No.
Date:Thursday, May 21, 2020 11:24:50 AM
Dear Mark:
My name is Connie Clayman, and I live at 1432 Rhode Island Ave. No, directly across the street
from the above address. We have lived here since October, 1967, when we bought the house
from the builder. Therefore, I am very familiar with the neighborhood.
My neighbors across the street want to build a new house, and the issue of a driveway has
come up. This is a driveway that has been very useful to the neighborhood. It doesn't interfere
with anything. My next door neighbors at 1438 Rhode Island have three daughters, and they
all have cars. It has provided extra space to keep all the cars off the street. It is helpful in the
winter when the snow plows come through. It is an asset! I wish I had a driveway like that!
Please allow the Ward's to keep the driveway. We all benefit.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Connie Clayman
Sent from Outlook
Photos submitted by applicant
p. 1 Boat and Existing Driveway
p. 2‐5 evening traffic/parking examples
p. 6‐8 Shared/Zero Lot Line Driveways
Planning | 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427‐4588
763‐593‐8095 | TTY: 763‐593‐3968 | www.goldenvalleymn.gov | planning@goldenvalleymn.gov
P L A N NING A P PLI C ATI ON
Zoning Code Variance
Street address of property in this application:
1425 Rhode Island Ave N, Golden Valley MN 55427
APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name (individual, or corporate entity):
Taylor Ward
Address:
1421 Rhode Island Ave N, Golden Valley, MN 55427
Phone number:
218‐259‐3601
Authorized Representative (if other than applicant):
Name:
Address:
Phone number:
Property Owner (if other than applicant):
Name:
Address:
Phone number:
SITE INFORMATION
Provide a detailed description of the variance(s) being requested:
To have the new home set back at 25 ft instead of the 35 foot that is currently zoned that will be
in line with the existing neighboring homes.
Email address:
Email address:
Email address:
Taylorward5@hotmail.com
Provide a detailed description of need for a variance from the Zoning Code, including description of building(s), description of proposed
addition(s), and description of proposed alteration(s) to property:
The current code only existing on the new plot is 35 feet unlike my current home that is next to
the new plot at only 25 feet along with the other homes in the neighborhood. The 25 foot
easement set back is more than enough for new development for future city or utility expansion.
Planning | 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427‐4588
763‐593‐8095 | TTY: 763‐593‐3968 | www.goldenvalleymn.gov | planning@goldenvalleymn.gov
Zoning Code Variance (continued)
Minnesota State Statue 462.357 requires that a property exhibit “practical difficulties” in order for a variance to be considered. Practical
difficulties:
• result in a use that is reasonable
• are based on a problem that is unique to the property
• are not caused by the landowner
• do not alter the essential character of the locality
To demonstrate how your request will comply with Minnesota State Statute 462.357, please respond to the following questions.
Explain the need for your variance request and how it will result in a reasonable use of the property.
I am requesting that the house be moved towards the front set back at 25 feet to keep in
compliance and consistency with the rest of the neighborhood. This will allow more space in the
backyard for our three young children to play safely and for ease of accessibility to the existing
garage.
What is unique about your property and how do you feel that it necessitates a variance?
There is an existing garage in the back corner of the property. We do not feel it is environmental
or economical to tear down the garage because it is a solid well-built structure. Also, it is the only
house in the neighborhood with the 35 foot set back.
Explain how the need for a variance is based on circumstances that are not a result of a landowner action.
The property has an existing garage that is well-built and engineered. The existing garage helps
with the need for storage and vehicles. We are not looking for an advantage but rather to conform
our new home to the existing neighborhood.
Explain how, if granted, the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of your neighborhood and Golden Valley as a whole.
If not granted the variance, our home will not have the same set back as the other neighboring
Golden Valley homes at 25 feet. It will be non-conforming to the rest of the neighborhood and set
it apart. We are looking to be consistent and have more space in the backyard to keep our children
safe and secure away from the street and it will create less impervious surface with a shorter
driveway on a new house to allow more green space and less hard cover.
Planning | 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427‐4588
763‐593‐8095 | TTY: 763‐593‐3968 | www.goldenvalleymn.gov | planning@goldenvalleymn.gov
Zoning Code Variance (continued)
The City requests that you consider all available project options permitted by the Zoning Code before requesting a variance. The Board
of Zoning Appeals will discuss alternative options to seeking variance with you at the public hearing. Please describe alternate ways to
do your project that do not require variances from the Zoning Code.
Not having the variance will set the new home apart from the other neighboring homes and will
reduce the use of our backyard and safety of our children. We believe there is no alternative, but
the variance will still allow plenty of room in the front for the 10ft easement.
REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS
Current survey of your property, including proposed addition and new proposed building and structure setbacks (a copy of Golden
Valley’s survey requirements is available upon request; application considered incomplete without a current property survey)
One current color photograph of the area affected by the proposed variance (attach a printed photograph to this application or
email a digital image to planning@goldenvalleymn.gov; submit additional photographs as needed)
Fee: $200 application fee for Single‐Family Residential, $300 application fee for all other Zoning Districts
Legal description: Exact legal description of the land involved in this application (attach a separate sheet if necessary):
SIGNATURES
To the best of my knowledge the statements found in this application are true and correct. I also understand that unless construction of
the action applicable to this variance request, if granted, is not taken within one year, the variance expires. I have considered all options
afforded to me through the City’s Zoning Code and feel there is no alternate way to achieve my objective except to seek a variance to
zoning rules and regulations. I give permission for Golden Valley staff, as well as members of the Board of Zoning Appeals, to enter my
property before the public hearing to inspect the area affected by this request. Please include printed name, signature, and date for ap‐
plicant, authorized representative (if other than applicant), or property ower (if other than applicant).
Name of Applicant (please print):
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______ Signature of Applicant:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________ Authorized Representative (if other than applicant)
Name (please print):
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________ Signature:
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________ Property Owner (if other than applicant)
Name (please print):
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________ Signature:
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________
Date:
__________________________
Date:
__________________________
Date:
_________________________
Please note: The City of Golden Valley will send notice of your variance request to all adjoining property owners as well as owners of
properties directly across streets or alleys. Your neighbors have the right to address the Board of Zoning Appeals at your public hearing.
You are advised to personally contact your neighbors and explain your project to them before the public hearing.
This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72‐hour request. Please call 763‐593‐8006 (TTY: 763‐593‐3968) to
make a request. Examples of alternate formats may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc.
Date: May 26, 2019
To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
From: Myles Campbell, Planner
Subject: 4725 Olson Memorial Highway
Mike Olson, Applicant
Introduction
Mike Olson and Brit Amundson, of TreHus Builders, Inc. are seeking four variances from the City
Code to make a series of improvement at 4725 Olson Memorial Highway. The applicant is seeking
the following variances from City Code:
Variance Request City Code Requirement
The applicant is requesting a variance of
10 feet off the required 30 feet to a
distance of 20 feet at its closest point to
the side yard (west) property line.
§ 113‐95, Office (BPO) Zoning District, Subd.
(g)(1)(c), Side and Rear Setbacks. Accessory
structures shall be located no less than the required
setback for principal structures in the Office Zoning
District from a side or rear lot line.
§ 113‐95, Office (BPO) Zoning District, Subd.
(f)(1)(b)(2), Principal Structures. For lots adjoining
an R‐3, R‐4, Office, or Institutional Zoning District,
the required side yards shall be no less than 30 feet
in width and the required rear yards shall be no less
than 30 feet in depth.
The applicant is requesting a variance of
10 feet off the required 35 feet to a
distance of 25 feet at its closest point to
the front yard (west) property line.
§ 113‐95, Office (BPO) Zoning District, Subd.
(f)(1)(b)(2), Front Yard Setback Requirement: The
required minimum front setback shall be 35 feet
from any front lot line along a street right‐of‐way
line. All front yards shall be maintained as
landscaped green areas.
The applicant is requesting a waiver of the
front yard landscaped area requirement
§ 113‐151, Off‐Street Parking and Loading, Subd.
(b)(9), Landscaping; Internal and External. The
2
for the added accessible spaces off of the
frontage road.
minimum required landscaped areas, within which
there shall be no parking or drive aisles (except
driveway access from street) in R‐3, R‐4,
Institutional, Office, Commercial, Light Industrial,
and Industrial Zoning Districts, shall be:
a.External Landscaping.
1.Front yard: 35 feet.
The applicant is requesting a variance of 3
parking spaces of the required 36 spaces
required for the lot.
§ 113‐151, Off‐Street Parking and Loading, Subd.
(c), Minimum Number of Required Off‐Street
Parking Spaces. Offices – 1 space per 250 s.f. of
gross floor area.
Background
4725 Olson Memorial Highway is located at the end of a frontage road for the highway of the same
name. The frontage road is located to the south of the actual highway, although the northern lot
line of this lot does abut the highway right‐of‐way. The original building was built in 1960 and has
seen some minor alterations and improvements in subsequent years. The building footprint is
approximately 4,608 sq. ft. today. Over the building’s two stories, the gross sq. ft. is 9,216. The lot
has a deeded total sq. ft. of 38,583 or around 0.89 acres. Parking on the lot is located to the south
and southwest of the existing building. 28 parking spaces are currently striped and provided.
In 2000, a variance was applied for and approved for a significant expansion of the principal
building. The expansion would have added approximately 3,000 sq. ft. to the building’s footprint,
but this was never acted upon after the variance’s approval. This variance did however bring the
parking lot’s location along the west and south property lines into conformance with the City Code.
Additional proof of parking was demonstrated at the time to the east of the building in order to
meet the added demand of the building’s planned expansion.
Summary of Requests
The applicant is seeking to make a number of improvements to the building and site in order to
modernize the property to suit their business’ needs. Most of these variance requests stem from the
applicant’s desire to construct a new accessory storage structure on the lot, which would measure
994 sq. ft. in area. This meets the area requirements for accessory structures in the Office zoning
district, and would be designed in such a way to match the exterior treatments of the existing
principal structure.
For accessory structures in the Office Zoning District, the City requires that the structure meet the
same side and rear setbacks as the principal structure would. Since the lot abuts another Office
zoned use on its west side, the typical setback required would be 30 ft. The applicant is seeking a
variance to reduce this amount to 20 ft. For reference, this would be equivalent to the side setback
required in the district for lots abutting Light Industrial, Industrial, and Mixed Use zoning districts, as
well as railroads. No similar variance is required for the existing parking that is located along the
western property line at a functional zero foot setback. As mentioned, this parking location was
made compliant via the variance approval in 2000.
3
Resulting from the new storage building, the site would lose some of its existing parking spaces in
the southwest corner of the lot. The applicant is proposing to mitigate this loss of spaces via the
reconfiguration of sections of the primary parking area, as well as the new inclusion of two ADA
spaces off of the end of the frontage road. The site’s existing ADA handicap parking would then be
converted to traditional parking. The applicant does note in their application that the new location
of the accessible parking would be both closer to the building’s entrance and require a less
significant ramp pitch. That said, the location would require an additional curb cut off of the
frontage road and have no landscaped buffer between the frontage road and the spaces
themselves, necessitating a variance from the City’s external landscaping requirements for off‐street
parking.
While the storage building will take up some space in the parking lot, the new configuration as well
as the added accessible parking spaces would result in a net gain of spaces on the lot. As shown on
the applicant’s site plan, the resulting amount of parking would be 33 total spaces, with two being
accessible spaces. In § 113‐151, Off‐Street Parking and Loading, Subd. (c) of the City Code, the city
sets minimum parking at 1 space per 250 sq. ft.
Office Sq. Ft. Parking
Calculation
Required Spaces Current Spaces
Provided
Proposed Spaces
Provided
9,216 1 space per 250 36 28 33
Based on the City Code requirements, the applicant would be closer to the required minimum than
the current lot, but still three spaces under the required minimum, necessitating a variance
approval. Staff considered exploring the possibility of utilizing the proof of parking that was
demonstrated in the variance from 2000 but found that this solution was not optimal. Such parking
to the rear of the building would only be accessible by a new paved drive running from the end of
the frontage road, and parallel along the length of the north side of the office building. Besides
eliminating the possibility of the relocated accessible parking, this solution would also add
significant hard cover to the site that already has an impervious surface percentage of 47%.
Additional variances from the external landscaping requirements would also be required to allow for
the drive and parking given their proximity to Olson Memorial Highway.
Finally, the applicant is seeking a ten foot reduction in the principal structure’s front setback in
order to expanded an existing overhang at the building’s entrance. The applicant is seeking a larger
overhang to improve the aesthetic of the front entrance area and to provide additional protection
from rain and the elements.
Analysis
In reviewing this application, staff has maintained the points of examination to the considerations
outlined in Minnesota State Statute 462.357 – that the requested variance is in harmony with the
general purposes and intent of the Zoning Chapter, that it is consistent with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan, and that a property exhibit “practical difficulties” in order for a variance to be
granted.
4
Staff finds that the variances are, generally speaking, in line with both the purpose of the Zoning
Code as well as the purpose of the Office Zoning District. These variances are related to the
improvement of the property for its use as an office structure, which is in line with the purpose of
the zoning district. While the Office Zoning District specifically states its purpose is not “for the sale
of or handling of goods, wares, merchandise, or commodities,” staff feels that the storage being
requested is clearly defined as accessory to the principal use of the property as an office.
Regarding the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, Staff would highlight one of its objectives from the
Land Use Chapter, to “Promote visual quality standards in design and material selection for new
development.” The applicant’s materials and plans show a high level of thought and care given to
the exterior treatment of both the principal and accessory structure, as well as care given to use the
existing site in an efficient manner. For these reasons, staff finds the variance requests consistent.
In order to constitute practical difficulties:
1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner.
Accessory Storage Structure: Accessory structures are allowed in the Office zoning district
and otherwise meets the use, size, and design standards from the zoning code.
Front Setback for Overhang: The overhang is reasonable in its design and scale, as well as the
desire to update the building’s entrance. Previous variance approvals on this property had
been for much more intrusive structures within the required front setback.
Accessible Spaces: The new location of accessible spaces would reduce the distance between
the parking spaces and the entrance of the building and have a smaller grade change to the
entrance. The location in relation to the frontage road itself does raise some concerns
amongst staff as the complete elimination of a landscaped buffer is a significant variance
from code.
Parking Provided: While under the required amount, the applicant has increased total
parking provided on site while maintaining good circulation thorough the existing lot.
2. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that is not
caused by the landowner.
Accessory Structure: The lot’s layout does create challenges for locating a detached
accessory structure. Theoretically the open area to the east presents the most unused space
currently, but the lot narrows as it goes east, and the setbacks from the existing structure
and property lines would create issues if not the need for other variances if pursued.
Additionally the storage structure’s location in the parking lot is deliberate given the need to
move/remove materials from vehicles.
Front Setback: The lot has a unique shape overall and the presence of the cul‐de‐sac causes
the front yard to narrow near the entry to the building.
5
Accessible Parking and Overall Parking Provided: Given the need for accessible parking to be
near the entrance of the building, there are limited options other than the existing location
of the accessible parking on‐site. Maintaining the current location of the accessible parking is
an option, but would result in a lower overall provided parking on site.
As mentioned previously, additional proof of parking was demonstrated to the rear of the
building, but this would require a major increase in the hardcover on site, and would itself
require variances from either the north property line, or potentially the southern property
line if the existing incursion into the rear setback was increased. The existing parking lot is
largely built out, and the applicant’s plans already have modified the layout to provide some
additional spaces.
3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality
Accessory Structure: The structure would be designed to match the exterior finishes of the
principal structure, and additionally would abut a parking lot on the property to the west,
not another building itself. Staff feels this structure would improve the site without
detracting from nearby properties.
Front Setback: An updated overhang would be a nice addition to the building’s entrance and
would match the finishing on the accessory structure. Staff does not feel that it detracts
from nearby properties.
Accessible Parking and Overall Parking Provided: Of the proposed actions requiring a
variance, this is the item that will have the greatest visual impact from the road, essentially
creating a parking pad at the end of the frontage road. Staff does not feel this impacted view
would be detrimental, but it would be a change from the current situation.
Additionally, staff assesses whether other options are available to meet the applicant’s needs
without requiring a variance. Staff does not believe there are options that would satisfy the
applicant’s needs, though staff believes that the existing overhang could be updated and refreshed
without the need to increase the extension into the front yard setback. That said, staff understands
this solution would not allow additional protection against the elements.
Lastly, staff assesses whether the proposal requests the smallest variance necessary to meet the
applicant’s needs. Staff feels that these requests largely represent the smallest variation from the
code possible.
Additional Staff Comments
The City’s Engineering Staff do not support a variance for the additional parking area constructed off
the end of the cul‐de‐sac. Additional curb cuts are occasionally allowed for driveway access to
commercial buildings, but not solely for parking. This is no different than parking bump‐outs which
are discouraged for private benefit throughout the City.
6
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance of 10 feet off the required 30 feet to a distance of 20
feet at its closest point to the side yard (west) property line.
Staff recommends approval of the variance of 10 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 25
feet at its closest point to the front yard (west) property line.
Staff recommends denial of the variance of a waiver of the front yard landscaped area requirement
for the added accessible spaces off of the frontage road.
Staff recommends approval of the variance of 3 parking spaces of the required 36 spaces required
for the lot. Additionally, staff is open to increasing this variance approval to 6 spaces of the required
36 in the case that the Board does not approve the preceding variance allowing the new accessible
spaces.
SUBJECT PROPERTY
Planning | 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427-4588
763-593-8095 | TTY: 763-593-3968 | www.goldenvalleymn.gov | planning@goldenvalleymn.gov
Zoning Code Variance
Street address of property in this application:
APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name (individual, or corporate entitiy):
Address:
Phone number: Email address:
Authorized Representative (if other than applicant):
Name:
Address:
Phone number:Email address:
Property Owner (if other than applicant):
Name:
Address:
Phone number:Email address:
SITE INFORMATION
Provide a detailed description of the variance(s) being requested:
Provide a detailed description of need for a variance from the Zoning Code, including description of building(s), description of proposed addition(s), and description of proposed alteration(s) to property:
PLANNING APPLICATION
4725 Olson Memorial Hwy, Golden Valley MN 55422
Mike Olson - TreHus Builders, Inc.
3017 4th Ave. S., Minneapolis, MN 55408
952-693-3778 molson@trehus.biz
Brit Amundson
3017 4th Ave. S., Minneapolis, MN 55408
612-965-0166 bamundson@trehus.biz
We're requesting a waiver for 3 non-conforming conditions to better serve the needs of our design/build business, our tenants, our staff and visitors.
1) Front setback reduction to accommodate a new accessory storage building:
a) We're proposing the addition of a storage building over the front yard setback in the SW corner of the parking lot allowing for the most efficient land use, while maximizing the existing parking lot. The storage building will be situated within the existing parking lot space.
2) Secondary curb cut with accessible parking off of the frontage road:
a) We're proposing the addition of 2 accessible parking spaces off the cul-de-sac at the NW corner of the property to add to the overall parking capacity while reducing travel distance to the accessible entrance.
3) Front and side setback reduction to accommodate new entry roof and columns:
a) We're proposing the addition of a larger architectural overhang at accessible entrance to provide aesthetic interest and better protection from the weather for staff, tenants and guests.
1)Proposed storage building location does not comply with set back requirement. City considers both the north side and the entire west side of the property as the front. Front yard set back is 35'. We're requesting that the city reduce this to 20', consistent with the city's side yard setback requirement.
2)Proposed ADA parking does not comply with front yard set back rules. By allowing the location of the accessible spaces offof the culd-de-sac, the travel distance and ramp angle will be half of the existing ADA parking spots. Granting proposed ADA parking and the proposed storage building will bring total parking spaces to 35. The code states that 36 parking spaces are required for the gross s.f. of the office building. The existing lot can currently only allow for 35 spaces including 2 accessible spaces.
3)Proposed larger overhang does not comply with front yard set back requirements, but neither does the existing overhang. Allowing for a new architectural overhang will provide greater visual appeal and provide more practical shelter from the elements. The original facade from 1960 has never been renovated.
Zoning Code Variance (continued)
Planning | 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427-4588
763-593-8095 | TTY: 763-593-3968 | www.goldenvalleymn.gov | planning@goldenvalleymn.gov
Minnesota State Statue 462.357 requires that a property exhibit “practical difficulties” in order for a variance to be considered. Practical difficulties:• result in a use that is reasonable• are based on a problem that is unique to the property• are not caused by the landowner• do not alter the essential character of the locality
To demonstrate how your request will comply with Minnesota State Statute 462.357, please respond to the following questions.
Explain the need for your variance request and how it will result in a reasonable use of the property.
What is unique about your property and how do you feel that it necessitates a variance?
Explain how the need for a variance is based on circumstances that are not a result of a landowner action.
Explain how, if granted, the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of your neighborhood and Golden Valley as a whole.
1) and 2) The unique shape of the property and set back requirements limit the location of proposed storage unit.This in turn impacts the number of parking spaces on the lot. We're requesting to add a parking pad in the NWcorner of the property to off-set the number of parking spaces lost to the proposed storage building.
3) The addition of a larger overhang provides greater weather protection to staff and visitors and provides greaterarchitectural interest to a 'tired' facade.
1)The property is pie shaped and narrows at the SE side of the office building. Building the proposed storage unit in the SW corner of the property maintains the most parking spaces in the existing lot while allowing the most practical access to the proposed storage unit.
2)The proposed ADA parking off of the cul-de-sac helps maintain the existing number of parking spaces and makes the accessible parking easier to access for those in need.
The landowner is allowed to build an auxiliary storage unit on the property. Any additional storage unit will lessen the number of parking spaces on the existing lot. Because of the shape and topography of the lot, locating auxiliary storage anywhere on the lot other than the existing parking lot, would be impractical and inaccessible. Placing the proposed storage unit in the SW corner of the property and adding 2 accessible parking spaces off of the cul-de-sac maximizes the total number of parking spaces, and allows for a shorter and easier path of travel for handicapped persons.
The proposed changes are in keeping with the other commercial spaces in the neighborhood and will provide better use of the property, greater curb appeal and greater accessibility.
Zoning Code Variance (continued)
This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call 763-593-8006 (TTY: 763-593-3968) to
make a request. Examples of alternate formats may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc.
The City requests that you consider all available project options permitted by the Zoning Code before requesting a variance. The Board
of Zoning Appeals will discuss alternative options to seeking variance with you at the public hearing. Please describe alternate ways to
do your project that do not require variances from the Zoning Code.
REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS
Current survey of your property, including proposed addition and new proposed building and structure setbacks (a copy of Golden
Valley’s survey requirements is available upon request; application considered incomplete without a current property survey)
One current color photograph of the area affected by the proposed variance (attach a printed photograph to this application or email a digital image to planning@goldenvalleymn.gov; submit additional photographs as needed)
Fee: $200 application fee for Single-Family Residential, $300 application fee for all other Zoning Districts
Legal description: Exact legal description of the land involved in this application (attach a separate sheet if necessary):
SIGNATURES
To the best of my knowledge the statements found in this application are true and correct. I also understand that unless construction of the action applicable to this variance request, if granted, is not taken within one year, the variance expires. I have considered all options afforded to me through the City’s Zoning Code and feel there is no alternate way to achieve my objective except to seek a variance to zoning rules and regulations. I give permission for Golden Valley staff, as well as members of the Board of Zoning Appeals, to enter my
property before the public hearing to inspect the area affected by this request. Please include printed name, signature, and date for ap-
plicant, authorized representative (if other than applicant), or property ower (if other than applicant).
Name of Applicant (please print): __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Signature of Applicant: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Date: _________________________
Authorized Representative (if other than applicant)
Name (please print): _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Signature: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Date: __________________________
Property Owner (if other than applicant)
Name (please print): _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Signature: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Date: __________________________
Please note: The City of Golden Valley will send notice of your variance request to all adjoining property owners as well as owners of
properties directly across streets or alleys. Your neighbors have the right to address the Board of Zoning Appeals at your public hearing.
You are advised to personally contact your neighbors and explain your project to them before the public hearing.
Planning | 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427-4588
763-593-8095 | TTY: 763-593-3968 | www.goldenvalleymn.gov | planning@goldenvalleymn.gov
1) Zoning allows us to build a storage building on the property. Any additional building will decrease the total number of parking spaces, which is why we'd like to add the ADA parking pad at the NW corner of the property.
2)We can keep the existing ADA parking spaces, but moving them to the NW corner of the property decreases the overall distance of travel and the pitch of any ramping to the main entrance.
3)We can keep the existing overhang at the front entry, but want to increase curb appeal and coverage from the elements.
Mike Olson - TreHus Builders, Inc.
5/4/2020
Briton Amundson
05/04/2020