bza-agenda-sep-22-20
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 133 862 4025. If you incur costs to call into the meeting, you may submit
the costs to the City for reimbursement consideration. 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
August 25, 2019, Regular Meeting
4. 1108 Sumter Ave N
Zona and Todd Pederson, Applicant
Request: § 113‐88, Single‐Family Density Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(a) Front
Yard Setback Requirements 3.58 ft. off of the required 30 ft. to a distance of 26.42 ft. at its
closest point to the front yard property line.
5. 3125 26th Ave N
Isaac Murphy, Applicant
Request: § 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(b) Rear Yard Setback
Requirements 23 ft. off the required 25 ft. to a total distance of 2 ft. at its closest point to the rear
yard property line
6. 113 Parkview Terrace
Ryan Hanson, Applicant
Request: § 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (f)(2) Height
Requirements 1.5 ft. over the allowed 28 ft. for a total height of 29 ft. 5‐1/8 in.
7. Adjournment
September 22, 2020 – 7 pm
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 133 743
2368.
Call To Order
The meeting was called to order at 7 pm by Chair Orenstein.
Roll Call
Members present: Chris Carlson, Sophia Ginis, Richard Orenstein, Chuck Segelbaum – Planning
Commissioner, Lauren Pockl – Planning Commissioner
Members absent: Kade Arms‐Regenold, Nancy Nelson
Staff present: Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman and Planner Myles Campbell
Approval of Agenda
MOTION made by Ginis, seconded by Pockl to approve the agenda of August 25, 2020, as submitted.
Staff took a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously.
Approval of Minutes
MOTION made by Pockl, seconded by Ginis to approve the July 28, 2020, meeting minutes after edits
were made to correct name misspelling. Staff took a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously.
1. 2565 Byrd Ave N
David Uhr, Applicant
Request: § Section 113‐152, Screening and Outdoor Storage, Subd. (c)(1)(a) 2 ft. over the allowed 4
ft. in height for fences in a front yard to a total of 6 ft.
Myles Campbell, Planner, started by stating the applicant is requesting a variance from City
Code in order to construct a six‐foot fence on a property that has three front yards. Campbell
provided some context for the location and zoning of the property. The property has streets
along three sides: Byrd Ave N, 26th Ave, and Kewanee Way. There is also a grade drop from the
east to the west. The limit for fence height in front yards is four feet, so there is very little area
where the applicant could construct a six‐foot fence. Campbell stated that the additional height
is being requested for privacy as well as security for a large dog and a small child.
August 25, 2020 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
August 25, 2020 – 7 pm
2
Staff reviewed the application and after analysis found an extensive six foot fence would not be
a reasonable use and would alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the variance request of 2 ft. over the allowed 4 ft. in height for
fences in a front yard to a total of 6 ft.
Segelbaum asked for a review of when front yard fences are allowed an exception to be six feet in
height. Campbell explained that it is for principal arterials with higher levels of traffic and that none
of the three adjacent roads met that classification. The Board discussed if the limit on fence height
was due to aesthetics or concerns around public safety and concluded it was mostly due to
aesthetics and preserving the viewshed along public streets.
Chair Orenstein asked the applicant to comment and David Uhr pointed out that traffic heading
south on France Ave has a direct view into their house and yard and that there are other six‐foot
fences in the area, though he said they may have been constructed prior to the current regulations.
In addition, the grade of their lot means there would be little privacy with a four‐foot fence.
The Board looked at images of a six‐foot fence just down the street. Ginis asked if the Board had
ever approved a fence variance in a similar situation in the past. Jason Zimmerman, Planning
Manager, stated that he was aware of one such case a few years ago where a property with three
front yards was granted a variance for a six‐foot fence. In that case, the area that functioned as a
rear yard was across from a wooded area and not a residence.
Uhr stressed that a priority was for privacy along 26th Ave because of the cars that paused at stop
signs at the intersection with France Ave.
Orenstein asked if the applicant was open to any other options. Uhr replied that they were not
interested in shrinking the size of the fenced‐in area. Segelbaum asked if the applicant had
considered landscaping for screening. The applicant stated they were also looking for security in
containing their dog. Zimmerman read an email from the neighbor to the south objecting to a six‐
foot fence along their property line because of the decrease in openness and visibility.
Pockl asked if there was a lot of foot traffic along the street. The applicant confirmed that there is,
as well as a number of wild animals including coyotes, foxes, and turkeys.
Orenstein noted that there were no other members of the public wishing to speak. Carlson
mentioned that he was sympathetic because the property is very exposed from all sides. Ginis
stated that while she wanted to provide some privacy for the applicant’s rear yard, she did not
want to create a negative impact on the homes across the street. Segelbaum indicated he was
open to providing some additional privacy along 26th Ave but that maybe vegetation could address
that.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
August 25, 2020 – 7 pm
3
Orenstein mentioned that consistency was important for the Board and taking into account dogs
and children was outside of that consistency.
MOTION was made by Orenstein and seconded by Segelbaum to follow staff recommendation and
deny the variance request of 2 ft. over the allowed 4 ft. in height for fences in a front yard to a total
of 6 ft.
Uhr asked if there was room to compromise and allow higher fence along one side of the property.
Pockl asked if the applicant wanted to table the request to look at other options. Orenstein said
they could appeal to the City Council if they didn’t like the decision.
Staff called a roll call vote and the motion passed 4‐1 with Carlson voting against.
2. 500 Ardmore Drive
James Kraschel, Applicant
Request: § 113‐88, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. (i)(2) .05 feet off of the required 3 ft.
to a distance of 2.95 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line.
Myles Campbell, Planner, gave the Board a background on the lot and its location south of
Highway 55. The lot is a corner lot and is made up of two 40‐foot lots; the home is entirely located
on the southern lot. The home was built before 1980 and therefore has a 3‐foot setback
requirement instead of the current 5‐foot setback requirement. A recent survey shows the lot is
just under the required 3’ by 0.5 of an inch. The applicant would like the opportunity in the future
to split the lot but the non‐conforming side setback must be addressed in advance.
Staff find this request to be in line with the zoning code, R‐1 district, as well as the 2040
comprehensive plan. Aside from the fraction of an inch off the code requirement, the lot functions
as required by the code.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance request of .05 feet off of the required 3 ft. to a
distance of 2.95 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line.
Board members stated that the request seems straightforward.
Chair Orenstein asked for comment from the applicant.
James Kraschel, Applicant stated he also felt the request was a small one and straightforward.
Chair Orenstein asked if there were any members of the public wishing to speak.
Seeing none, the Chair closed the public comment section.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
August 25, 2020 – 7 pm
4
A MOTION was made by Chair Orenstein and seconded by Ginis to follow staff recommendation
and approve the variance request of .05 feet off of the required 3 ft. to a distance of 2.95 ft. at its
closest point to the side yard (north) property line.
Staff called a roll call vote and the motion passed unanimously.
3. 5509 Lindsay St
Vladimir Sivriver, Applicant
Request: § 113‐89, Moderate Density Residential (R‐2) 20 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a
distance of 15 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line.
Myles Campbell, Planner, gave the Board a background on the home and showed its location west
of Highway 100 and stated the area has a mix of zoning. The lot is currently owned by MnDOT and
the applicant hopes to build a new single‐family home on the lot. Being a corner lot, both yards
that face a street are considered front yards and thus have a required setback of 35 feet. The
applicant would like a variance off the secondary setback. Staff observed a number of homes in the
area have reduced setbacks albeit not as great as the one requested.
Staff find the request generally in line with the Zoning Code, the regulations of the Moderate
Density Residential Zoning District, and the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. While the home overall is
scaled and designed in a complementary fashion to the property, the proposed plan shows a three‐
car garage as the primary cause of the encroachment into the setback. Staff feels this would be an
unreasonable use for which to grant a variance.
Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the variance request of 20 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance
of 15 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line.
Staff would recommend approval of a modified variance, of 11ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a
distance of 24 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line.
Board members asked a few clarifying questions of staff regarding code language and
requirements.
Chair Orenstein asked for comment from the applicant.
Vladimir Sivriver, Applicant illustrated his intention for building on the property. He discussed the
garage size need and the sharp angle of the property thus creating the variance they are
requesting. Sivriver added that while working with Golden Valley staff has been helpful, he wishes
Golden Valley would follow other city codes and adopt a second street reduction in setback. Ginis
asked to hear more from the applicant and staff to understand what the possible reiterations were.
Staff started that the house width was reduced and set back further south because the lot is wider
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
August 25, 2020 – 7 pm
5
as it moves south. Staff is sympathetic to the need for living space but the third garage stall request
is what directly leads to the larger variance. The Board reviewed the site plan and the lot while
discussing with the applicant possible alternatives.
Chair Orenstein asked if there were any members of the public wishing to speak.
Seeing none, the discussion continued.
Board asked staff if three‐car garages were common in Golden Valley and if there’s a history of
BZA approving variances for a three‐car garage. Staff responded that three‐car garages are not
uncommon but that they are usually on wider lots. Requesting a reduction in setbacks for a
three‐car is not something the BZA has a history of approving. Commissioner Segelbaum added
that he’s grateful the applicant would like to reinvest in the city but cannot approve a variance
that asks for more than 50% of the original setback. Commissioner Pockl stated that it seems
the Board agrees that they want to see the applicant build but have concern on the extent of
the variance. Pockl added that perhaps the applicant would like to table and return with a
modified request. After discussion the applicant stated he can accommodate the modified
variance as presented to staff.
A MOTION was made by Segelbaum and seconded by Orenstein to follow staff
recommendation and approve the modified variance, of 11ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a
distance of 24 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line.
Staff called a roll call vote and the motion passed unanimously.
Adjournment
MOTION made by Ginis, seconded by Pockl and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting
at 8:48 pm.
Staff called a roll call vote and the motion passed unanimously.
________________________________
Richard Orenstein, Chair
_________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant
Date: September 22, 2020
To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
From: Myles Campbell, Planner
Subject: 1108 Sumter Ave N
Zona and Todd Pederson, Applicant
Introduction
Zona and Todd Pederson, the property owners, are seeking a variance from the City Code to expand
and existing front porch. The applicant is seeking the following variances from City Code:
Variance Request City Code Requirement
The applicant is requesting a variance of
3.58 ft. off of the required 30 ft. to a
distance of 26.42 ft. at its closest point to
the front yard property line.
§ 113‐88, Single‐Family Density Residential (R‐1)
Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(a) Front Yard Setback
Requirements
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.
Background
1108 Sumter Ave N is a single‐family
residential property. The home was built
in 1961, and the lot itself is
approximately 8,500 sq. ft. The lot has a
regular shape and no significant grading
challenges present.
The applicant is hoping to expand an
existing open front porch to run along the front face of the home. The existing porch is 8 ft. wide and 9
ft. deep, whereas the addition would be only 6 feet in depth, 16 ft. in width. The new porch would be
roofed, but still would be open on all sides to comply with the City’s requirements for front porches.
2
Summary of Requests
The City’s principal structure setbacks allows for some additional space on the front of homes for
open decks and front porches. These structures can typically be no closer than 30 ft. from the front
property line, as opposed to the home itself which must be at least 35 ft. from the front property
line by code.
The applicant is requesting some additional space to build their porch addition. The existing home
itself is only 32 ft. 5 in. at its closest point to the property line (at the northwest corner), making it a
legal nonconformity in today’s code. The existing 8x9 ft. porch also does not meet the code
requirement of 30 ft. from the property line, being approximately 23.42 ft. from the front yard
property line. The result of the existing home’s location being closer to the front property line, is
that it leaves very little space for a usable front porch to be located in front of the home.
The applicant has requested a 6 ft. deep porch along the front of the home, which would encroach
less than the existing deck by about 3 feet, but would also take up a more significant area given its
width. If allowed, the new deck would result in a front yard setback of roughly 26.42 feet, or 26 feet
and 5 inches, at its closest point to the property line.
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 variance is generally in line with both the purpose of the Zoning Code and the
regulations of the Single‐Family Residential Zoning District. It is in line with the purpose of the R‐1
district, which is “to provide for detached single‐family dwelling units at a low density along with
directly related and complementary uses.”
In reviewing the request for consistency with the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, staff also found
that the plans mostly matched the intent and goals of the plan’s housing and land use chapters.
In order to constitute practical difficulties:
1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner.
Front porches are allowed and encouraged in the city to promote open and inviting front
yards and home facades. They are a reasonable use on a residential property.
2. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that is not
caused by the landowner.
The only circumstance preventing the construction of the deck is the home’s existing non‐
conforming location, being located too close to its front property line. This alone is not a
unique circumstance, otherwise the lot’s shape is regular and has a relatively even grade.
3
3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality
While modifying the front of the home, an open porch should not have a significant impact
on the surrounding neighborhood, a number of homes in the area were built right at or just
under our current 35 ft. setback.
Additionally, staff assesses whether other options are available to meet the applicant’s needs
without requiring a variance, or whether the proposal requests the smallest variance necessary to
meet the applicant’s needs. Given the circumstances, staff does not believe an alternative is
available to expand the deck.
Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the variance request of 3.58 ft. off of the required 30 ft. to a distance of
26.42 ft. at its closest point to the front yard property line.
Date: September 22, 2020
To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
From: Myles Campbell, Planner
Subject: 3125 26th Ave N
Isaac Murphy, Applicant
Introduction
Isaac Murphy, the property owner, is seeking a variance from the City Code to expand an existing
garage. The applicant is seeking the following variances from City Code:
Variance Request City Code Requirement
The applicant is requesting a variance of
23 ft. off the required 25 ft. to a total
distance of 2 ft. at its closest point to the
rear yard property line
§ 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning
District, Subd. (f)(1)(b) Rear Yard Setback
Requirements
The required rear setback shall be 25 feet.
Background
3125 26th Ave N is a single‐family residential property. The
home was built in 1955, and the lot itself is approximately
8,393 sq. ft. The lot has a slightly irregular shape, with an
angled rear property line that limits the depth of the lot in
sections. Similarly, there is an alley easement over a
portion of the rear yard. This alley is unpaved and not used
by the residents it is attached to, but does allow City public
works staff access an interior pocket park just southwest of
the property.
The applicant is hoping to expand an existing single car
garage to allow for a second stall and an interior access to
the rest of the home. The existing garage is 14’ wide by
approximately 20’ in depth. The existing garage is itself
2
non‐conforming with the rear setback requirements for principal structures, being roughly 10’ from the
angled rear property line currently.
Summary of Requests
For accessory structures such as garages that are attached to the home, the City’s zoning code
applies the same setback requirements as for the principal home. The resulting 25’ setback cuts
deeply into the lot given the angled property line, meaning the usable lot area is reduced on the
eastern side of the property.
The applicant is requesting some additional space to expand their garage. The proposed plans show
an additional 14’ in width, and an increase in the overall garage depth to 22’. Overall the structure
would be 28’x22’. At its closest point to the rear property line, the garage would reduce the rear
setback to an approximate 2’. The property owner is in conversation with City staff about a potential
vacation of the alleyway, in which 3125 would receive the portion of the alley to the west of its
centerline. If this vacation were to take effect, the rear setback at its closest point to the proposed
garage would be 10. 5’.
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 variance is generally in line with both the purpose of the Zoning Code and the
regulations of the Single‐Family Residential Zoning District. It is in line with the purpose of the R‐1
district, which is “to provide for detached single‐family dwelling units at a low density along with
directly related and complementary uses.” In reviewing the request for consistency with the City’s
2040 Comprehensive Plan, staff also found that the plans mostly matched the intent and goals of
the plan’s housing chapter.
In order to constitute practical difficulties:
1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner.
While garages are a reasonable request and even two‐car garages being common. The
addition here would severely reduce the rear setback. 28’ is wide for a two‐car garage, so
staff feels there is room to reduce the encroachment through design.
2. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that is not
caused by the landowner.
The lot is very unique in terms of having both the angled rear property line, and the alley
area to the rear of the home. Both of these elements impact the amount of usable area,
especially to the rear of the lot.
3
3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality
Two car garages are not an uncommon site in many of the City’s neighborhoods, including
this one. The greatest impact will be on the neighbors directly east and south of the
property, though there is a reasonable amount of space between these structures, even
given the reduced setback.
Additionally, staff assesses whether other options are available to meet the applicant’s needs
without requiring a variance, or whether the proposal requests the smallest variance necessary to
meet the applicant’s needs. As mentioned in the practical difficulties, 28’ is wider than average for a
two‐car garage, and therefore some reduction of the encroachment could be found by making the
new garage 24‐26’. However, the biggest potential difference maker would be the alley area, and if
a vacation were approved. Staff is much more comfortable hearing a variance with that additional
space provided by the alley area, and is reluctant to recommend approval without yet knowing the
outcome of that vacation.
Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the variance request of 23 ft. off the required 25 ft. to a total distance
of 2 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard property line
1/4 " = 1"VAPOR BARRIER16 X 8 CONC. FTG 6" TREATED WD PLATE SILL SEAL312SIDING TO MATCH HOUSE7/16 OSB EXTERIORWALL SHEATHINGFINISHED GRADE6" CONC. BLK CORE FILLEDMIIN. 3 1/2 " CONCRETE SLABW/ REBAR GRIDANCHOR BOLTS 1/2" DIAMETER7" IMBEDMENT4' MIN. SAND OR GRAVEL BASESHINGLES TO MATCH EXISITNG HOUSE3' WEATHERGARD IF NEEDED15# FELT1/2" OXBOARDFASICA/SOFFIT & TRIM TO MATCHEXISTING HOUSEREBAR PERSTRUCTURALENGINEERENGINEERED TRUSSES 2' ON CENTERHAND FRAME ROOF OVER EXSITING HOUSE2X4 STUDS 16" O.C.GARAGE WALL SECTION 4 C 8" CONC. BLK14°2'GARAGE ADDITIONFRONT ELEVATIONREAR ELEVATIONLEFT SIDE ELEVATION1/8 " = 1'CAM DESIGN612-442-9161FOR ISSAC MURPHY 612-500-3772HOMEOWNER & CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALLDIMENSIONS, STRUCTUAL DETAILS & BUILDINGCODES, AND GRADE REQUIREMENTSP1
SSSSS
S 12'-8"5'-10"5'-10"16'-4"20'-0"14'-0"14'-0"14'-0"75'-0"47'-0"28'-0"2'-0"24'-0"22'-0"75'-0"28'-0"47'-0"EXISTINGFOUNDATIONADDITION1 C 6" CONC BK4 C 8" CONC BLK16 X 8 CONC FTGCAM DESIGN612-442-9161FOR ISSAC MURPHY 612-500-3772HOMEOWNER & CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALLDIMENSIONS, STRUCTUAL DETAILS & BUILDINGCODES, AND GRADE REQUIREMENTSPFOUNDATION ADDITION 1/4" = 1'2
306816304040160804020286820362036203620362868306830682668266826683068266826686068DN34WP433432'-7"2'-0"4'-6"10'-0"14'-0"11'-0"11'-0"22'-0"4'-0"28'-0"47'-0"24'-0"75'-0"75'-0"47'-0"8'-10"REMOVE EXISTINGGARAGE WALLSGARAGE ADDITIONREMOVE EXISTINGFLOOR & REPOUR4" CONC PADREBAR OR MESH2" SLOPE TO OH DOORFIRE DOOR W/ 1HR CLOSERTYPE X GYP BDTO CEILINGCAM DESIGN612-442-9161FOR ISSAC MURPHY 612-500-3772HOMEOWNER & CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALLDIMENSIONS, STRUCTUAL DETAILS & BUILDINGCODES, AND GRADE REQUIREMENTSP3
Date: September 22, 2020
To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
From: Myles Campbell, Planner
Subject: 113 Parkview Terrace
Ryan Hanson, Sustainable 9 Design + Build, Applicant
Introduction
Michael and Heather Noble, the property owners, are seeking a variance from the City Code to build
a new home at 113 Parkview Terrace. The applicant is seeking the following variances from City
Code:
Variance Request City Code Requirement
The applicant is requesting a variance to
build 1.5 ft. over the allowed 28 ft. for a
total height of 29 ft. 5‐1/8 in. for a new
home, measured from the average grade
to the midpoint of the highest pitched
roof.
§ 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning
District, Subd. (f)(2) Height Requirements
No principal structure shall be erected in the R‐1
Zoning District with a building height exceeding 28
feet as measured from the average grade at the
front building line. The average grade for a new
structure shall be no more than one foot higher
than the average grade that previously existed on
the lot.
Background
The existing home at 113 Parkview
Terrace is a single‐family home, built in
1952. The lot itself is approximately
22,351 sq. ft. The lot has a regular
shape other than a curved front
property line to match the curve of
Parkview Terrace. The lot is steeply
2
sloped in its front yard down towards the roadway, and in the rear yard there is a significant flat section
to the rear of the home that the applicant is proposing to fill in order to correct drainage flows on site.
The applicant is planning to tear down the existing home on the lot in order to build a new single‐family
residence. The new home would be 3‐stories total, and have a total footprint of approximately 3,397 sq.
ft. The proposed structure as submitted meets all setback requirements, as well as lot cover and
impervious surface requirements. However currently the proposed design does not meet maximum
height requirements.
Summary of Requests
Zoning code limits building height in the R‐1 district to 28’ maximum. Sec. 113‐1 Definitions, defines
building height and also describes how this height is determined:
Building Height: The vertical distance or height of a structure shall be measured from the average
grade at the front building line (street side) to the average height of the highest pitched roof or the
highest point of a flat roof structure. In the case of a corner lot, the average grade is measured from
all sides of the structure facing a street. The grade or average grade of a lot is established at the
time of subdivision approval by the City. If the grade or average grade was not established at the
time of subdivision approval by the City, the City Manager or his/her designee shall establish the
average grade prior to construction of the structure.
Average grade is determined by taking the elevation at 3 points along the front of the home and
then finding the average of those three points. Given the designed home’s shape and the steep
slopes on the front of the lot, this average grade results in a starting height slightly above the lowest
floor’s slab. From this point to the midpoint of the highest pitched roof, the height of the building is
just under 29.5’.
Given that this is a new build, staff typically looks to see what limiting factors with the lot contribute
to the need for a variance, versus what aspects of the design are creating the need. Here the biggest
contributing factor is the grading of the site. The applicant points out that the elevation for the
garage slab is largely set in stone, as this is the elevation required for a driveway with the maximum
slope to still be functional. Another limiting factor that is related to grading is the work to be done in
the rear of the yard. A portion of the rear yard will be filled in to correct negative grading towards
the house. This grading is related to the site itself, however the applicant’s desire to provide a rear
access from the home is impacted by the decision, as it requires the main level elevation to be
raised to meet the yard’s new elevation.
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.
3
Staff finds that the variance is generally in line with both the purpose of the Zoning Code and the
regulations of the Single‐Family Residential Zoning District. It is in line with the purpose of the R‐1
district, which is “to provide for detached single‐family dwelling units at a low density along with
directly related and complementary uses.”
In reviewing the request for consistency with the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, staff also found
that the plans mostly matched the intent and goals of the plan’s housing and land use chapters. The
new build and design represent a major reinvestment in the property, and the design is seeking to
improve on‐site stormwater management.
In order to constitute practical difficulties:
1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner.
The new home meets all other standards for a new build construction and is fitting with the
purpose of the R‐1 zoning district. Given that this is a new build opportunity however, staff is
somewhat reluctant to allow for the additional height solely in response to grading work as
there are other options to achieve a lower height.
2. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that is not
caused by the landowner.
The site grading is a unique challenge in designing for the lot: the front is heavily sloped
while the rear has a significant flat portion and a raised section that drains towards the
home. However, at least in the rear yard of the lot, the applicant’s desire to have rear access
from the main floor is contributing to the added height and need for a variance.
3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality
The new home would be significantly taller and larger than the existing home, however it
would not be out of character with other homes along Parkview Terrace. The additional
height being requested would likely be inconsequential to views from public right‐of‐way or
adjacent properties when considering the overall change on the lot.
Additionally, staff assesses whether other options are available to meet the applicant’s needs
without requiring a variance, or whether the proposal requests the smallest variance necessary to
meet the applicant’s needs. Given this is new build, staff would push to see the 1.5’ in height be
corrected without a variance, or with a lesser variance. Is there space to lower ceiling heights on one
or more of the levels? Could the rear access be lower and have steps walking up to the yard? A more
drastic modification would be to remove the rear access entirely, eliminating the need to raise the
main level.
Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the variance request of 1.5 ft. over the allowed 28 ft. for a total height
of 29 ft. 5‐1/8 in. for a new home, measured from the average grade to the midpoint of the highest
pitched roof.
Zoning Code Variance Application Page 1 of 3
Street address of property in this application:
Applicant Information
Name (individual, or corporate entity)
Street address Zip
Phone Email
Authorized Representative (if other than applicant)
Name
Street address Zip
Phone Email
Property Owner (if other than applicant)
Name
Street address Zip
Phone Email
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:
5/1/20
continued
Physical Development-Planning Department | 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 763-593-8055 | FAX: 763-593-8109 | TTY: 763-593-3968 | www.goldenvalleymn.gov
113 Parkview Terrace
Sustainable 9 Design + Build
3511 W 44th St 55410
612-636-3232 ryanhanson@sustainable9.com
SAME
Michael and Heather Noble
201 Parkview Terrace 55416
952-657-4743 michaeltnoble@gmail.com
A variance is requested to exceed the maximum height of 28ft from the average grade at the front of the building by by 1ft
5-1/8in for a total height of 29ft 5-1/8" to allow for new construction home to replace the existing structure.
The following section of the zoning code states "Sec. 113-88. (f) Principal Structures, (2)Height Restrictions. No principal
structure shall be erected in the R-1 Zoning District with a building height exceeding 28 feet as measured from the average
grade at the front building line. The average grade for a new structure shall be no more than one foot higher than the average
grade that previously existed on the lot." The existing front yard is a steep slope up to the main level. Due to the Grading of
the site, the max slope for a functional driveway, and the existing "average grade", the garage slab elevation cannot change.
To maintain access to the rear yard, achieve Positive drainage away from the house, and maintain an accessible Driveway,
we are proposing exceeding the allowable height of 28ft by 1ft 5-1/8in while pushing the house further off the street.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 02499FB1-33BB-42E0-AE44-3FB151A75EF5
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.
Zoning Code Variance Page 2 of 3
continued
The existing front yard is a steep slope up to the main level. Due to the grading of the site, the max slope for a functional
driveway, and the existing "average grade", the garage slab elevation cannot change. To maintain access to the rear yard,
achieve positive drainage away from the house, and maintain an accessible driveway, we are proposing exceeding the
allowable height of 28ft by 1ft 5-1/8in while pushing the house further off the street. The first 35' of rear yard immediately
adjacent to the existing home is roughly 4' lower than the remainder of the rear yard. The existing lowered area poses an issue
with drainage and rear yard access with the proposed building footprint (see attached site plan). We are proposing to fill the
lowered portion and raise the main level elevation to access the remainder of the rear yard at the same elevation as the main
level.
The steep slope of the front yard and the existing "average grade" does not allow a change to the driveway slope or the
driveway will not be functional at that grade percentage. Also, the existing 35ft of rear yard immediately adjacent to the home
creates and issue to establishing proper drainage on the site unless it is corrected.
All of the grades are existing on the lot and not something of the landowners actions and were present when they purchased
this parcel.
If granted, this variance will allow the majority of the new proposed home to be set father back on the lot than the existing
home. This will bring the new proposed home more in line with the front yard setbacks of the other existing adjacent homes on
this side of the block. Also, by allowing this variance, the rear yard will be brought back up to grade with the home which will
eliminate poor drainage issues, but also bring it in line with the other flat rear yards on the adjacent homes. Additionally, the
neighbor to the North accesses their lot from the East, and sits on higher ground away from the lot in consideration.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 02499FB1-33BB-42E0-AE44-3FB151A75EF5
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 a 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 is 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)
☐ ☐ Application fee: $200 for Single-Family Residential, $300 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 con-struction 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.
Applicant
Name (please print): __________________________________________________
Signature: X________________________________________________________ Date: ______________
Authorized Representative (if other than applicant)
Name (please print): __________________________________________________
Signature: X________________________________________________________ Date: ______________
Property Owner (if other than applicant)
Name (please print): __________________________________________________
Signature: X________________________________________________________ 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 proper-ties 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.
Zoning Code Variance Page 3 of 3
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.
In order to do the project without a variance, it would require significantly reducing the footprint of the home and siting it closer
to the street in a similar size/footprint to the existing home to avoid rear yard drainage issues, or major excavation. We
believe raising the home and pushing it back off the street will impact the street presence in a positive way by aligning it closer
with the neighbors.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 02499FB1-33BB-42E0-AE44-3FB151A75EF5
9/2/2020
Michael Noble
9/2/2020
Ryan Hanson
PROPOSED HOUSE
EQEQNW Corner
EL:(911.2)
SW Corner
EL:(903.7)
MIDPOINT
EL:(911)
PROPOSED
GARAGE
PROPOSED AVG. GRADE
NORTH 913
MIDDLE 910
SOUTH 905.9
AVG. GRADE 909.6
EXISTING AVG. GRADE
NORTH 911.2
MIDDLE 911
SOUTH 903.7
AVG. GRADE 908.6
EXG LOWERED REAR YARD
PARKVIEW TERRACEPARKVIEW TERRACEEXISTING FRONT YARD
THE FIRST 35' OF REAR YARD IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING HOME
IS ROUGHLY 4' LOWER THAN THE REMAINDER OF THE REAR YARD. THIS AREA IS
DASHED WITH RED ON THE PHOTOS (LEFT, ABOVE).
THE EXISTING LOWERED AREA (IN RED) POSES AN ISSUE WITH DRAINAGE AND
REAR YARD ACCESS WITH THE PROPOSED BUILDING FOOTPRINT (SEE
ATTACHED SITE PLAN). WE ARE PROPOSING TO FILL THE LOWERED PORTION
AND RAISE THE MAIN LEVEL ELEVATION TO ACCESS THE REMAINDER OF THE
REAR YARD AT THE SAME ELEVATION AS THE MAIN LEVEL.
EXISTING REAR YARD CONDITION
EXISTING FRONT YARD CONDITION
THE EXISTING FRONT YARD IS A STEEP SLOPE UP TO THE MAIN LEVEL. DUE TO THE
GRADING OF THE SITE, THE MAX SLOPE FOR A FUNCTIONAL DRIVEWAY, AND
THE EXISTING "AVERAGE GRADE", THE GARAGE SLAB ELEVATION CAN NOT
CHANGE. IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN ACCESS TO THE REAR YARD, ACHIEVE
POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM THE HOUSE, AND MAINTAIN AN ACCESSIBLE
DRIVEWAY, WE ARE PROPOSING EXCEEDING THE ALLOWABLE HEIGHT WHILE
PUSHING THE HOUSE FURTHER OFF THE STREET.
EXISTING FRONT YARD
STEEP GRADE
4' STEP
894896898900902904906908910912914916918920918920916PARKVIEW TERRACE4250 S.F. RESIDENCE
SHED
30' X 60' ATHLETICS COURT
25' X 50' ATHLETICS COURT
MAIN LAWN
TIRE SWING
HOT TUB
PATIO
NATURAL
GARDEN
OUTDOOR
LIVING
PATIO
AUTO
COURT
FIREPIT PATIO
EQEQNW Corner
EL:(913)
SW Corner
EL:(905.9)
MIDPOINT
EL:(910)PROPOSED FACE OF MAJOR STRUCT.EXISTING FACE OF MAJOR STRUCT.23' - 6 1/2"
PROPOSED AVG. GRADE
NORTH 913
MIDDLE 910
SOUTH 905.9
AVG. GRADE 909.6
EXISTING AVG. GRADE
NORTH 911.2
MIDDLE 911
SOUTH 903.7
AVG. GRADE 908.6
T/O SHEATHING | MAIN LEVEL
100'-6" (EL: 916'-6")
T/O SLAB | LOWER LEVEL
89'-8 5/8" (EL: 905'-8 5/8")
T/O SLAB | GARAGE
88'-2 5/8" (EL: 904'-2 5/8")
T/O SHEATHING | ENTRY LEVEL
99'-4" (EL: 915'-4")
T/O SHEATHING | UPPER LEVEL
111'-1 7/8" (EL: 927'-1 7/8")
T/O SHEATHING | MAIN LEVEL
100'-6" (EL: 916'-6")
T/O SLAB | LOWER LEVEL
89'-8 5/8" (EL: 905'-8 5/8")
T/O SLAB | GARAGE
88'-2 5/8" (EL: 904'-2 5/8")
T/O SHEATHING | ENTRY LEVEL
99'-4" (EL: 915'-4")
T/O SHEATHING | UPPER LEVEL
111'-1 7/8" (EL: 927'-1 7/8")
HEIGHT TO PEAK
125'-10 1/2" (EL: 941'-10 1/2")
PROPOSED AVERAGE GRADE @ FRONT OF RESIDENCE
93'-7 1/2" (EL: 909'-7 1/2")
MIDPOINT OF PITCHED ROOF (BUILDING HEIGHT)
123' 0 1/2" (EL: 939'-0 1/2")PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT29' - 5 1/8"T/O SHEATHING | MAIN LEVEL
100'-6" (EL: 916'-6")
T/O SLAB | LOWER LEVEL
89'-8 5/8" (EL: 905'-8 5/8")
T/O SLAB | GARAGE
88'-2 5/8" (EL: 904'-2 5/8")
T/O SHEATHING | ENTRY LEVEL
99'-4" (EL: 915'-4")
T/O SHEATHING | UPPER LEVEL
111'-1 7/8" (EL: 927'-1 7/8")
T/O SHEATHING | MAIN LEVEL
100'-6" (EL: 916'-6")
T/O SLAB | LOWER LEVEL
89'-8 5/8" (EL: 905'-8 5/8")
T/O SLAB | GARAGE
88'-2 5/8" (EL: 904'-2 5/8")
T/O SHEATHING | ENTRY LEVEL
99'-4" (EL: 915'-4")
T/O SHEATHING | UPPER LEVEL
111'-1 7/8" (EL: 927'-1 7/8")
HEIGHT TO PEAK
125'-10 1/2" (EL: 941'-10 1/2")
PROPOSED AVERAGE GRADE @ FRONT OF RESIDENCE
93'-7 1/2" (EL: 909'-7 1/2")
MIDPOINT OF PITCHED ROOF (BUILDING HEIGHT)
123' 0 1/2" (EL: 939'-0 1/2")PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT29' - 5 1/8"HEIGHT TO PEAK
125'-10 1/2" (EL: 941'-10 1/2")
PROPOSED AVERAGE GRADE @ FRONT OF RESIDENCE
93'-7 1/2" (EL: 909'-7 1/2")
MIDPOINT OF PITCHED ROOF (BUILDING HEIGHT)
123' 0 1/2" (EL: 939'-0 1/2")
HEIGHT TO PEAK
125'-10 1/2" (EL: 941'-10 1/2")
PROPOSED AVERAGE GRADE @ FRONT OF RESIDENCE
93'-7 1/2" (EL: 909'-7 1/2")
MIDPOINT OF PITCHED ROOF (BUILDING HEIGHT)
123' 0 1/2" (EL: 939'-0 1/2")
EXISTING AVERAGE GRADE - (EL: 908 - 7 1/2")
EXISTING AVERAGE GRADE - (EL: 908 - 7 1/2")
EXISTING AVERAGE GRADE - (EL: 908 - 7 1/2")
EXISTING AVERAGE GRADE - (EL: 908 - 7 1/2")
EL: 913'-0"
El: 910'-0"
EL: 905.9"
T/O SLAB | LOWER LEVEL
89'-8 5/8" (EL: 905'-8 5/8")
T/O SLAB | GARAGE
88'-2 5/8" (EL: 904'-2 5/8")
T/O SLAB | LOWER LEVEL
89'-8 5/8" (EL: 905'-8 5/8")
T/O SLAB | GARAGE
88'-2 5/8" (EL: 904'-2 5/8")
HEIGHT TO PEAK
125'-10 1/2" (EL: 941'-10 1/2")
PROPOSED AVERAGE GRADE @ FRONT OF RESIDENCE
93'-7 1/2" (EL: 909'-7 1/2")
MIDPOINT OF PITCHED ROOF (BUILDING HEIGHT)
123' 0 1/2" (EL: 939'-0 1/2")PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT29' - 5 1/8"HEIGHT TO PEAK
125'-10 1/2" (EL: 941'-10 1/2")
PROPOSED AVERAGE GRADE @ FRONT OF RESIDENCE
93'-7 1/2" (EL: 909'-7 1/2")
MIDPOINT OF PITCHED ROOF (BUILDING HEIGHT)
123' 0 1/2" (EL: 939'-0 1/2")
EXISTING AVERAGE GRADE - (EL: 908 - 7 1/2")EXISTING AVERAGE GRADE - (EL: 908 - 7 1/2")
10.5% AVG. GRADE
T/O SLAB | LOWER LEVEL
89'-8 5/8" (EL: 905'-8 5/8")
T/O SLAB | GARAGE
88'-2 5/8" (EL: 904'-2 5/8")
T/O SLAB | LOWER LEVEL
89'-8 5/8" (EL: 905'-8 5/8")
T/O SLAB | GARAGE
88'-2 5/8" (EL: 904'-2 5/8")
HEIGHT TO PEAK
125'-10 1/2" (EL: 941'-10 1/2")
PROPOSED AVERAGE GRADE @ FRONT OF RESIDENCE
93'-7 1/2" (EL: 909'-7 1/2")
MIDPOINT OF PITCHED ROOF (BUILDING HEIGHT)
123' 0 1/2" (EL: 939'-0 1/2")PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT29' - 5 1/8"HEIGHT TO PEAK
125'-10 1/2" (EL: 941'-10 1/2")
PROPOSED AVERAGE GRADE @ FRONT OF RESIDENCE
93'-7 1/2" (EL: 909'-7 1/2")
MIDPOINT OF PITCHED ROOF (BUILDING HEIGHT)
123' 0 1/2" (EL: 939'-0 1/2")
EXISTING AVERAGE GRADE - (EL: 908 - 7 1/2")EXISTING AVERAGE GRADE - (EL: 908 - 7 1/2")
10.5% AVG. GRADE
EXISTING FACE OF MAJOR STRUCTUREPROPOSED FACE OF MAJOR STRUCTUREMAJOR STRUCTURE SETBACK
23' - 6 1/2"
EXISTING
STRUCTURE
EXISTING
STRUCTURE
SHOWN DASHED
NEIGHBOR TO NORTH,
SHOWN DASHED
NEIGHBOR TO NORTH,
SHOWN DASHED
VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST
VIEW FROM SOUTHEAST VIEW FROM EAST
113 PARKVIEW TERRACE
EXTERIOR RENDERINGS
WORKBENCH/STORAGE
KINGUNEXCAVATEDFIREPLACE
UP 3 EQ.
RISERS
UP 3 EQ.
RISERS
UP 3 EQ. RISERS
UP 16 EQ. RISERSPLANTER UP 18 EQ.
RISERS
WET BARLINEN WINE
EGRESS WELL
BEERBARN DOORLINEN
DESKCOATSBOOKCASE BENCH
FIREPLACE
MULTI-STORY BOOKSHELFLOW BOOKSHELF/DIVIDER4' X 12' ISLAND
CREDENZA
D/W46" DISH SINK48" PREP SINK
48"
REFRIG.
36" RANGE
UP 18 EQ.
RISERS
FIREPITGREEN ROOF
STRG
ART WALL
COATS/SHOES
HIDE-AWAY SCREENS
HIDE-AWAY SCREENS
DN 18 EQ. RISERS
DN 2 EQ.
RISERS
DN 2 EQ. RISERSDN 16 EQ. RISERS
BARBACK BAR STRGBOOKCASE3-PANEL SLIDER
WINDOW WALLHIDE-AWAY SCREENSFEATURE GARDEN
QUEEN
KING
LINEN
RAIN HEAD
MULTI-STORY BOOKSHELF
DESK
DN WASH/DRYSLIDING DOOR
ENTERTAINMENT CENTERQUEEN
SKYLIGHT
ABOVE