bza-agenda-nov-24-20
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 177 810 8454 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
October 27, 2020, Regular Meeting
4. 832 Meadow Lane S
Peter Prudden, Property Owner
Waiver from Section 113‐88, Single‐Family Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(a) Front Yard
Setback Requirements
6 ft. off the required 30 ft. to a total distance of 24 ft. at its closest point to the
front yard property line, to allow for a home addition.
5. Adjournment
November 24, 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 in.
Call To Order
The meeting was called to order at 7 pm by Chair Orenstein.
Roll Call
Members present: Chris Carlson, Sophia Ginis, Nancy Nelson, Richard Orenstein, Kade Arms‐
Regenold, Chuck Segelbaum– Planning Commissioner
Staff present: Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman and Planner Myles Campbell
Approval of Agenda
MOTION made by Nelson, seconded by Ginis to approve the agenda of October 27, 2020, as submitted.
Staff took a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously.
Approval of Minutes
MOTION made by Ginis, seconded by Nelson to approve the September 29, 2020, meeting minutes.
Staff took a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously.
1. 6620 Wayzata Boulevard
Border Foods dba Taco Bell #2421, Applicant
Request: § 113‐151, Off‐Street Parking and Loading, Subd. (c) Minimum Required Off‐Street
Parking Spaces: 5 spaces off of the required 79 spaces for a Class II Restaurant to allow for the
modification of the parking layout relating to a building addition and garbage enclosure.
Myles Campbell, Planner, started by reiterating the request and gave the Board an idea of the
home’s location by displaying a map and showing the existing zoning. This site location is a Taco Bell
and is owned by Border Foods Inc.; it’s been in operation since the 1980s. The principal structure is a
2,921 sq. ft single‐story commercial building with a brick façade. There are currently 71 parking
spaces on site with an additional 6 proof of parking spaces established with a CUP from the 90’s.
Campbell told the Board that this variance is part of a CUP and Taco Bell would like to add a
refrigerated storage space off the rear of the building. A CUP amendment is required due to
modifications to the parking lot and the applicant is seeking a variance for the shortfall in parking
October 27, 2020 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
October 27, 2020 – 7 pm
2
spaces. The presentation expanded on the parking, discussed traffic engineer comments,
Environmental Staff review, and City Engineer review.
Staff found the variance to be in line with the zoning code and the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, they
also felt that practical difficulties were met and expanded on those to the Board. Staff feels the
variance is the smallest feasible request while still allowing for the proposed improvements to the
site.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance request of 5 spaces off of the required 79 spaces for
a Restaurant ‐ Class II (fast food).
Chair Orenstein opened the floor for Board questions, seeing none, the applicant was invited to
speak but the applicant was not present. Open forum was opened with no public comment so the
Board moved on to discussion.
MOTION was made by Nelson and seconded by Carlson to follow staff recommendation and
approve the variance request 5 spaces off of the required 79 spaces.
Staff called a roll call vote and the motion passed unanimously.
2. 832 Meadow Lane South
Peter Prudden, Applicant
Request: § 113‐89, Moderate Density Residential (R‐2) Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(a) Front Yard
Setback Requirements: 8 ft. off of the required 30 ft. to a distance of 22 ft. at its closest point to
the front yard (east) property line.
Jason Zimmerman Planning Manager, started by stating the applicant’s request, elaborated on the
lot, and showed a map of its proximity in the neighborhood. The lot is a corner lot and a regular
shape, the applicant would like to expand living space by adding a large open porch to the east.
Zimmerman detailed the request; the home is conforming on the lot but requests a variance to
reduce the setback in order to build a front porch. City code states a setback of 30 feet for open
porches, this addition would result in a setback of 22 feet from the east property line. Zimmerman
displayed plans and diagrams to illustrate the lot and location of the house and proposed porch.
Staff found the variance to be generally in line with both the zoning code and regulations of the R‐1
district. The project also fits in with the 2040 Comp plan to support rehabilitation and reinvestment
of the housing stock as they continue to age. Analysis of practical difficulties was harder; while the
addition of a front porch is reasonable, this proposed addition is quite large and similar effect could
be achieved with a smaller porch. Corner lots are common, the house is positioned on the lot in a
way that would allow for a significant expansion without the need for a variance. The variance
request does not appear to be due to a circumstance unique to the property. Some other lots in the
area have setbacks less than 35 ft. and many utilize that space for a garage. The construction of a
porch, in this instance, will not alter the essential character of the area. Zimmerman stated there is
room in the front yard setback to construct a smaller yet conforming open porch. He added that a
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
October 27, 2020 – 7 pm
3
smaller porch that aligns with the front plane of the home would still require a variance but a much
smaller one, approximately 3 feet. Staff displayed diagrams to illustrate both options.
Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the variance request of 8 ft. off of the required 30 ft. for an open
porch to a distance of 22 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line. Depending
on Board discussion, staff is open to a smaller variance.
Chair Orenstein opened the floor for Board questions, Chuck Segelbaum, Planning Commissioner,
asked if the setback on the porch applied in this situation because the house was on a corner, even
though the porch was offset. Zimmerman responded that according to city code, a front yard is that
which faces a street and therefore a corner generally has two front yards. The Chair invited the
applicant to speak.
Peter Prudden, Applicant, stated his goal is to maintain the character of the home and integrity of
the neighborhood. The applicant stated that their rear yard is situated in a way that a rear deck
would feel like they were sitting on top of their neighbors and would be unpleasant for them. Nelson
asked the applicant if they would be happy with the modified variance as presented by staff. The
applicant stated he appreciated the staff looking for ways to work with them but needs the full
variance in order to create a deck with space for sitting. Members discussed the porch while
reviewing images and diagrams displayed. Orenstein asked if trees would be removed as a part of
the build and the applicant replied there would not be tree removal. The discussion continued on
regarding design and possible modifications to the construction plan so the applicant could reduce
the variance request.
Chair Orenstein opened the public comment portion of this agenda item.
Matthew Kennedy, 601 Meadow Lane, stated his history in the neighborhood and that families are
looking for something now that wasn’t there 20 years ago. He stated his family needed to make
modifications to their home and others are doing full tear downs in order to have a home that meets
the needs of their family. Caller added that corner lots are a challenge and have fewer options for
remodeling than other lots. He finished by expressing support for the porch.
Greg Norman, 1031 Tyrol Trail, stated that the home is higher up on a hill and as a resident he
doesn’t have any concerns about visibility for vehicles. He was able to review plans for the porch
addition and it seems that the design keeps with the architectural integrity of the home. Caller stated
he’d rather see this addition go in than a full tear down and rebuild.
Lee Thoresen, 1001 Parkview, stated that her house is directly across the street from the proposed
addition and that she has no objections to the proposed porch. The home is at a higher elevation and
the porch would be welcome to the neighborhood.
Tom Lockhart, 909 Parkview Terrace, stated his support for the proposed plan, the design matches
the integrity of the home. Caller added he supports it over a tear down and rebuild of the property
and his concern was if the oak tree on the property would be removed.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
October 27, 2020 – 7 pm
4
Seeing no further callers, the Chair closed the public comment. The Board entered a conversation
and Commissioner Segelbaum stated that while the Board is often hesitant to grant front yard
setback variances this lot is a little unique. He added that the modified variance seems more
reasonable as a compromise. Nelson echoed Segelbaum’s statement. Ginis stated that she
understands the architectural elements and why certain design choices were made for this porch.
Ginis added that she’s uncomfortable with the amount of feet requested in the variance. Carlson
stated that there are a lot of nice additions occurring in Golden Valley and while this might be
another nice one to add, he’s concerned about setting a precedence. Ginis asked why this site is
unique and why the Board would approve this variance and not another, however the group needs
to articulate that effectively. Nelson added that while the back is minimal, the lot isn’t unique to the
area. The Board asked the applicant if he was open to a modified variance of 3 feet of the required
30 feet to a distance of 27 feet. The applicant stated he wasn’t interested in that as the design met
the requirements of their family. A few board members stated they would have approved the
modified variance but the initial request was too excessive.
Chair asked for a motion.
A MOTION was made by Chuck Segelbaum and seconded by Nelson to follow staff
recommendation and deny the request for 8 ft. off of the required 30 ft. to a distance of 22 ft. at its
closest point to the front yard (east) property line.
Staff called a roll call vote:
Aye: Carlson, Ginis, Nelson, Segelbaum
Nay: Orenstein
Vote passed 4 to 1 and the variance was denied.
Jessica Prudden came on after the motion was passed and stated her disappointment in the
decision. Segelbaum informed her that she could appeal the decision before the City Council.
3. 5385 Triton Drive
Kelsie and David Leonard, Applicants
Request: § 113‐88, Single‐Family Density Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(a) Front Yard
Setback Requirements: 15 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 20 ft. at its closest point to
the front yard property line for garage addition.
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, started by stating the applicant’s request and gave a
background on the lot’s proximity in the city, the lot size, it being a corner lot, and the home size.
Zimmerman stated the section of City Code that is relevant to the applicant’s request and showed a
site plan for their proposed second stall addition to their garage. Staff listed practical difficulties and
the considered alternative of a detached garage that could be built further south along the frontage
road, however that would require a second curb cut and tree removal. Therefore, staff feels the
variance is a better alternative to the additional curb cut and tree removal.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
October 27, 2020 – 7 pm
5
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance request of 15 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a
distance of 20 ft. at its closest point to the front yard property line for a garage addition.
Commissioner Segelbaum asked staff how they justify recommending approval on this front yard
setback variance while recommending denial of the previous front yard setback variance.
Zimmerman responded that while they’re both corner lots, the BZA has consistently assumed a
second garage stall is necessary in a Minnesota climate; front porch is seen as more of a luxury. The
garage variance is also on a frontage road, facing a sound barrier wall and screened by vegetation.
Member Arms‐Regenold pointed out that the previous applicant was offered a compromise in order
to approve.
Chair Orenstein invited the applicant to speak. Kelsie Leonard, applicant, started by thanking the
Board for considering their application and added her family is hoping make this home their forever
home. The single car garage is their main barrier to realizing that. Segelbaum asked what type of
garage the addition would create, the applicant stated it’s a standard two‐car. Staff displayed the site
plans again, the current garage width is 12.8 feet wide and the addition is 15.2 feet. Discussion
continued on the garage size and the rear of the addition will be flush with the house without
impeding any other zoning code.
There were no public comments.
Nancy Nelson stated that a two‐car garage is warranted and the added points of the frontage road
and sound barrier make this a very reasonable request. Sophia Ginis echoed these statements.
Segelbaum said the proposed garage width seems larger than what is typically considered.
Zimmerman responded that when a garage is added between lots, the City pushes to have the width
reduced as it impacts neighbors. In those situations, garage widths are often reduced to 24 feet wide.
This house’s circumstances are different and therefore the City didn’t ask the applicant to reduce the
width of the proposed addition: on a frontage road, abutting a freeway wall, not encroaching on a
neighbor, increasing home’s value, and general necessity for a two‐car garage.
A MOTION was made by Chair Orenstein and seconded by Nelson to follow staff recommendation
and approve the request for 15 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 20 ft. at its closest point
to the front yard (west) property line.
Staff called a roll call vote and the motion passed unanimously.
4. 2460 Kyle Avenue North
Jim and Michelle Shull, Applicants
Requests: § 113‐88, Single‐Family Density Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(a) Front
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
October 27, 2020 – 7 pm
6
Yard Setback Requirements: 6.41 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 28.59 ft. at its closest
point to the front yard property line for a home addition.
§ 113‐88, Single‐Family Density Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(a) Front Yard Setback
Requirements: 5.41 ft. off of the required 30 ft. to a distance of 24.59 ft. at its closest point to the
front yard property line for a deck.
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, started by stating the applicant’s request, showed a map of
the property, it’s relation to the City, and reviewed local zoning of the neighborhood. A brief
overview of the lot and the property was given and staff provided details on the applicants request.
The home is conforming and built right at the setback distance of 35 feet, however the home has a
well room under the front porch that extends into the setback area and the room isn’t sealed and
causes a draft in the home. The applicant would like to enclose the current porch to create a front
entry as well as seal the well room and add a front deck. Zimmerman displayed proposed site plans.
Staff analyzed the request and found it to be generally in line with the zoning code. The project also
fits with the 2040 Comp Plan’s Housing Chapter goal to “Support the rehabilitation and reinvestment
of the housing stock as structures continue to age.” The well room was something the applicants
inherited with the house and their proposed variance seems to be the smallest feasible variance
option.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance request of 6.41 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a
distance of 28.59 ft. at its closest point to the front yard property line for a home addition.
Staff recommends approval of the variance request of 5.41 ft. off of the required 30 ft. to a
distance of 24.59 ft. at its closest point to the front yard property line for a deck.
Chair Orenstein called the applicant to speak.
The applicant stated her family has been in the home for 16 years and they are doing some much
needed upgrades. Their contractor suggested the well room be covered and sealed. They’re replacing
windows to increase energy efficiency and sealing the well room will increase the efficiency as well.
Commissioner Chuck Segelbaum asked the applicant if they considered a deck that was only 8 inches
above grade, then they wouldn’t need a variance. The applicant’s contractor responded it was to
maintain accessibility so when exiting the house, there won’t be an large step down, this deck still
requires a 3 inch step down from the house however.
There were no public comments.
Board members discussed the deck dimensions and exact location. Members asked staff why the 3
inch step down was an option and a deck, flush with the house, wasn’t. Zimmerman responded that
a flush deck wasn’t discussed but even if a flush deck was built, a variance would still be required.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
October 27, 2020 – 7 pm
7
Members discussed a multi‐level deck but ultimately that wouldn’t impact the variance needed but
would decrease accessibility. Segelbaum asked if there was a deck height limit and staff responded
not as it’s written but a condition may be added. The applicant’s contractor asked for a limit of at
least 16 inches so when they start a build, they can make adjustments for utilities or grade as
needed.
A MOTION was made by Chair Orenstein and seconded by Ginis to follow staff recommendation
and approval the request of 6.41 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 28.59 ft. at its closest
point to the front yard property line for a home addition.
Staff called a roll call vote and the motion passed unanimously.
A MOTION was made by Segelbaum and seconded by Chair Orenstein to follow staff
recommendation and approval the request of 5.41 ft. off of the required 30 ft. to a distance of
24.59 ft. at its closest point to the front yard property line for a deck‐with a condition that the deck
not exceed 16 in. above grade.
Staff called a roll call vote and the motion passed unanimously.
5. Introduction to Just Deeds Project – Presentation by City Attorney Maria Cisneros
Maria Cisneros, Golden Valley City Attorney, started her presentation of the Just Deeds Project,
started by City Council and the Human Rights Commission. This project was created to discuss the
issue of discriminatory covenants in Golden Valley. In 2019, it was ruled that homeowners could
discharge the discriminatory covenants on their property; the City Council and Human Rights
Coalition will be involved to help residents with that discharge process.
Cisneros played a video from the organization Mapping Prejudice on this project.
Cisneros included language in her presentation of the covenant found on her property,
discussed her family, the impacts the covenants have had and would have had on her family at
the time the covenant was set in place. She cited minutes from two planning commission
meetings in 1938 that approved plats for West Tyrol Hills with discriminatory language in the
approval. Cisneros showed a map of Golden Valley with locations of the covenants displayed,
there are 1,600 discriminatory covenants in Golden Valley. She discussed patterns in covenant
locations and specifically the area that borders Minneapolis, as redlining was prevalent in
Minneapolis. The presentation elaborated on lasting impacts of these covenants as well as what
BZA members can do to moving forward. Members asked questions about discriminatory
covenants and redlining as well as the process for discovering if their own homes had these
covenants. Members asked about covenants on land versus homes and how these covenants
were passed on even after they were no longer allowed to be added to properties.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
October 27, 2020 – 7 pm
8
6. Adjournment
MOTION made by Segelbaum, seconded by Orenstein and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn
the meeting at 9:24 pm.
Staff called a roll call vote and the motion passed unanimously.
________________________________
Richard Orenstein, Chair
_________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant
1
Date: November 24, 2020
To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Subject: 832 Meadow Lane North
Peter Prudden, Applicant
Introduction
Peter Prudden, the property owner, is seeking a variance from the City Code to construct an
addition to the eastern portion of his home which would extend into the front yard setback area.
The applicant is seeking the following variance from City Code:
Variance Request City Code Requirement
The applicant is requesting a variance of 6
ft. off of the required 30 ft. to a distance
of 24 ft. at its closest point to the front
yard (east) property line.
§ 113‐89, Moderate Density Residential (R‐2)
Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(a) Front Yard Setback
Requirements
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 for a front
lot line along a street right‐of‐way line.
Background
832 Meadow Lane South is a 15,571 square foot single‐family residential lot located in the southwest
corner of the intersection of Meadow Lane South with Parkview Terrace. Due to its location adjacent to
two rights‐of‐way, it is defined as a corner lot and therefore has two front yards (along Meadow Lane S
and along Parkview Terrace), each having a setback of 35 feet from the property line or 30 feet for a
deck or open front porch. The existing house was constructed in 1938 and sits 40.8 feet from the east
property line at its closest point.
2
Summary of Request
The applicant is proposing to construct a significant addition to the east side of the house, providing a
new open porch as well as remodeling and expanding the interior spaces currently occupied by the
dining room and kitchen. This would result in an encroachment of the open porch into the front yard by
6 feet, resulting in a front yard setback of only 24 feet at its closest point.
This is the second variance request by the applicant. A similar request to allow a front yard setback
of only 22 feet in the southeast portion of the property was denied by the Board of Zoning Appeals
in October. The applicant has since reduced his request by two feet by shrinking the size of the
proposed porch.
The applicant indicates that the size of the proposed open porch is necessary to accommodate a
comfortable seating arrangement and would not require the removal of existing trees or
landscaping. The applicant also states that the size of the addition has been designed to balance the
massing, roof line, and architectural character of the home.
As shown on the plan below, the porch would extend along the front of the home in front of the
living room – approximately 22.5 feet long and 5 feet wide (A). Two French doors would open onto
3
this section of porch from the living room. The primary sitting area within the porch would be
located off the corner of the home and would measure roughly 15 feet by 16 feet (B). A third French
door would provide access from the living room to this area. Finally, a small area approximately 5
feet by 9 feet and serviced by a fourth French door which would lead into the new dining room (C).
A majority of this open porch would be within the permitted building envelope. However, a triangle
of approximately 45 square feet would extend into the front yard setback by 6 feet.
As part of the last proposal, the applicant provided to staff a list of 18 corner lot properties in the
North Tyrol area that contained homes he believed extended into the front yard setback area. Staff
examined the City’s records and found roughly a third of these did have variances on file – often
related to a garage addition. The majority were found to be conforming with respect to the front
yard setback or were old enough to have a legally nonconforming status.
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.
(A)
(B)
(C)
4
Staff finds that the variance is generally in line with the purpose of the Zoning Code as well as the
purpose of the Single‐Family Residential Zoning District, which is to provide for detached single‐
family dwelling units at a low density along with directly related and complementary uses. The
request would not allow for additional unit density in the neighborhood and the proposed addition
would not have any egregious impact on the welfare of neighboring properties.
In the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, one of the stated objectives of the Land Use Chapter is to
protect existing residential neighborhoods. Staff feels that this request would not cause harm to the
neighborhood at large. Additionally, in the Comprehensive Plan’s Housing Chapter is an objective to
support the rehabilitation and reinvestment of the housing stock as structures continue to age. This
type of reinvestment in mid‐century homes helps to keep these properties in good repair and
increase their usability by residents.
In order to constitute practical difficulties:
1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner.
An open front porch is a reasonable use of a residential property as a means of creating
additional usable space. However, the design of the porch as proposed by the applicant is
quite large and a similar outcome could be achieved while avoiding most or all of the need
for a variance. Therefore, staff believes the size of the porch as proposed by the owner is not
reasonable.
2. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that are
not caused by the landowner.
Although corner lots can present a challenge for owners looking to expand the footprint of
their homes, the location of the existing home at 832 Meadow Lane South does allow for
some amount of expansion by right, as evidenced by the proposed plans. The reduced front
setback requirement for open porches provides additional room in which to contemplate an
addition. Further, the size of the lot, at over 15,500 square feet, does not present many of
the limitations observed in other, smaller, corner lots across the city. Given the flexibility to
design for an addition in this setting, staff does not believe the problem is due to a
circumstance unique to the property.
3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality
As the applicant has pointed out, there are a handful of homes on corner lots in the North
Tyrol area that have front yard setbacks of less than 35 feet. Many of these homes utilize this
space for a garage, while others have been constructed closer to the right‐of‐way than is
currently allowed under the zoning regulations. One such property is the adjacent 1045 Tyrol
Trail, which received a variance in 1982 to construct a garage within 14.6 feet of the front
property line. Staff believes a front yard variance for an open porch would not alter the
essential character of the area.
5
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 position of the existing structure on the lot, there is room
outside of the front yard setback to allow for a conforming open porch to be constructed that would
not require a variance. While this would not be as large as the proposed porch, it would still provide
a significant new usable area.
As shown, the proposed porch extends 2.5 feet to the southeast beyond the new front plane of the
main structure. Reducing the size of the porch to align with the rest of the home would still require
a variance, but one of only approximately 3 feet. Staff would feel more comfortable considering this
smaller variance that has a reduced impact on the front yard compared to the one currently
proposed by the applicant.
Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the variance request of 6 ft. off of the required 30 ft. for an open porch
to a distance of 24 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line.
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
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 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.
1
A3.0
2
A3.0
4
A3.0
1
A4.0
3
A3.0
3
A4.0
2
A4.0
NEW PORCH ROOF
NEW
DINING
ROOM
ROOF
NEW
DORMER
ROOF
NEW
DORMER
ROOF
NEW
DORMER
ROOF
NEW BAY
WINDOW
ROOF
EXISTING
TERRACE
EXISTING
CONCRETE WALK
EXISTING
BITUMINOUS
DRIVE
EXISTING
PLAYHOUSE
EXISTING
CONCRETE WALK
EXISTING STONE
LANDSCAPE WALL
EXISTING
STOOP
PROPERTY LINEP R O P E R T Y L I N E
P R O P E R T Y L I N E
PROPERTY LINEEXISTING
HOUSE
1
5'
-
0"
2 5 ' - 0 "
3 5 ' - 0 "
M EA D O W L A N E
PARKVIEW8 3 2 M E A D O W L A N E S O U T H ,
G O L D E N V A L L E Y
35' - 0"
B A C K S E T B A C K
F R O N T S E T B A C K
SIDE SET BACKPORCH SET BACKNEW KITCHEN
ADDITION
5 ' - 0 "1 5 ' - 0 "25'
-
0"
NEW WORKOUT
ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE
A C C E S S A R Y S E T B A C KAC
CESSARY STRUCTURE SET BACK3 0 ' - 0 "
2 4 '6 'FRONT YARD SET BACK
UP
DN
2
A3.0
4
A3.0
1
A4.0
3
A3.0
5' - 0"7' - 0"WET BAR
KITCHEN
LIVING ROOM
DINING ROOM
FOYER
OFFICE
MASTER BEDROOM
CLOSET BATH
LAUNDRY
HALL
POWDER ROOM
PORCH
NEW WALL
9' - 8"13' - 6"ADDITION16' - 1 1/2"ADDED PORCH5' - 6 1/2"ADDED PORCH16' - 0"8' - 3"13' - 4"22' - 10"11' - 0"NEW WALL8' - 4"NEW
OPENING
TO
BELOW
NEW POSTS
GUARDRAIL
AND
HANDRAIL
PANEL READY BUILT-IN COUNTER
DEPTH REFRIGERAT0R
FULL HEIGHT
CABINETS
OVEN AND
GAS RANGE
WITH HOOD
20" DEEP COUNTER/CABINETS WITH
BAR SINK AND UPPER SHELVES
COUNTER
WITH
DRAWERS
BELOW
FULL
HEIGHT
CABINETS
WITH ROD
AND SHELF
DOUBLE
ROD
WITH
SHELFROD & SHELF24" DEEP
COUNTER/CABINETS
WITH LAUNDRY SINK
AND UPPER WALL
CABINET
ISLAND WITH WALL
AND CABINETS
BELOW
VAULTED CEILING
(SCISSOR TRUSSES)
ABOVE
14" SQ COLUMNS,
TYP
ALL
OPENINGS
TO BE
CASED, TYP
BASEMENT
BELOW.
PROVIDE
NEW
WATERPROF
ING
GARAGE
BELOW.
PROVIDE
NEW
WATERPROF
ING
NEW GLASS DOORS
WITH METAL FRAME,
SEE OWNER FOR
PRODUCT
NEW FIREPLACE
SURROUND, SEE
OWNER FOR
PRODUCT
1' - 2 1/8"1' - 5 1/2"3' - 6 1/2"3' - 6 1/2"3' - 6 1/2"2' - 7 5/8"3' - 6 1/2"3' - 6 1/2"2' - 7 5/8"
3
A4.0
2
A4.0
2' - 9 5/8"2' - 11 3/8"
3' - 4"7' - 8 1/4"7' - 8 1/4"3' - 4"6' - 2 1/4"EQ EQ EQ EQ
2' - 4"EQEQ11' - 3 1/2"11' - 3 1/2"7' - 8"7' - 8"
PANTRY
3' - 3"5' - 0"3' - 0"
OVERHEAD
BEAM
3' - 7"
7' - 10 5/8"12' - 3"4' - 5"10' - 1"13' - 11"2' - 5"
6 'PORCH SET BACKFRONT YARD SET BACK