bza-agenda-dec-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 177 209 5157. 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
November 24, 2020, Regular Meeting
4. Address: 4124 Beverly
Applicant: Angela & Andrew Varpness
Request: § 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(c)(2) Side Yard Setback
Requirements. 3.8 ft. off of the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 8.7 ft. at its closest point to the side
yard (west) property line.
Request: § 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (f)(4)
Side Wall Articulation. 1 ft. less than the required 2 ft. articulation depth.
5. Adjournment
December 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 in.
Call To Order
The meeting was called to order at 7 pm by Chair Orenstein.
Roll Call
Members present: Chris Carlson, Sophia Ginis, Nancy Nelson, Richard Orenstein, Kade Arms‐
Regenold, Chuck Segelbaum– Planning Commissioner
Staff present: Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman and Planner Myles Campbell
Approval of Agenda
MOTION made by Nelson, seconded by Carlson to approve the agenda of November 24, 2020, as
submitted. Staff took a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously.
Approval of Minutes
MOTION made by Carlson, seconded by Orenstein to approve the October 27, 2020, meeting minutes.
Staff took a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously.
1. 832 Meadow Lane South
Peter Prudden, Applicant
Request: § 113‐89, Moderate Density Residential (R‐2) Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(a) Front Yard
Setback Requirements: 6 ft. off of the required 30 ft. to a distance of 24 ft. at its closest point to
the front yard (east) property line.
Jason Zimmerman Planning Manager, started by stating the applicant’s request, and reminded the
group that a similar request but for 8 feet off the required 30 ft. was denied at the previous meeting.
Zimmerman displayed a map of the lot and its proximity in the neighborhood. The lot is a corner lot
and a regular shape, the applicant would like to expand living space by adding a large open porch to
the east. Zimmerman summarized the request; the home is conforming on the lot but requests a
variance to reduce the setback in order to build a front porch. City code states a setback of 30 feet
for open porches, this addition would result in a setback of 24 feet from the east property line. The
November 24, 2020 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
November 24, 2020 – 7 pm
2
area of the porch is approximately 45 square feet. Plans and diagrams were presented to illustrate
the lot, house location on the lot, and updated plans for the proposed porch.
Staff analyzes a variance by following three principles:
1. Consistency with Zoning Code
2. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
3. Property exhibits “practical difficulties”
• Reasonable use
• Unique circumstances not created by the landowner
• Does not alter the essential character
Staff found the variance to be generally in line with both the zoning code and regulations of the R‐1
district. The project also fits in with the 2040 Comp plan to support rehabilitation and reinvestment
of the housing stock as they continue to age.
Analysis of practical difficulties was harder; while the addition of a front porch is reasonable, this
proposed addition is quite large and staff feels that a similar effect could be achieved with a smaller
porch. Staff feels the updated proposal is not reasonable.
Corner lots are common, the house is positioned on the lot in a way that would allow for a significant
expansion without the need for a variance. The variance request does not appear to be due to a
circumstance unique to the property.
A number of other lots in the area have setbacks less than 35 ft. and many utilize that space for a
garage. The construction of a porch, in this instance, will not alter the essential character of the area.
Zimmerman stated there is room in the front yard setback to construct a smaller yet conforming
open porch. He added that a smaller porch that aligns with the front plane of the home would still
require a variance but a much smaller one, approximately 3 feet. Staff displayed diagrams to
illustrate the porch in sections. While the plan does align with two of the three items for analyzing a
variance request, staff did not find that the property exhibited practical difficulty.
Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the variance request of 6 ft. off of the required 30 ft. to a distance
of 24 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line for an open front porch.
Chair Orenstein opened the floor for Board questions, Chuck Segelbaum, Planning Commissioner,
asked staff if the request is granted, is the applicant required to follow the plans as submitted to the
City. Zimmerman responded that it depends on the Board’s language when approving the variance. If
the language remains general, the applicant may be able to adjust the plan and utilize the approved
setback variance along the entire front yard. If the approval language is more specific, it can be
limited to the plans as proposed.
Chair Orenstein invited the applicant to speak.
John Tadewald, architect, spoke and is acting as an independent architect for the applicant.
Peter Prudden, applicant, stated they met with the architect since the last meeting to discuss
alternatives to the original variance in October. He added that they weren’t willing to agree to
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
November 24, 2020 – 7 pm
3
compromises without consulting their architect and that’s why they’re before the BZA again.
Prudden added that while they reduced the variance request by 2 feet, it reduces the variance by
50% in terms of area. Prudden said that he doesn’t want to use ambiguous terms like “excessive” or
“large” and would like to use the actual numbers. Prudden then deferred to the architect. John
Tadewald, architect, added that the applicants don’t feel the porch is excessive and need a porch
this large to accommodate the seating they require for the porch. The applicant and his wife are
business owners and networking is important to them, they would like to entertain more than two
guests. The porch they are seeking a variance for will help them comfortably entertain six adults.
Tadewald echoed the applicant on size reduction and added that they looked at alternatives for the
porch. In other areas, the massing would be more obtrusive to the neighbors and neighborhood. The
proposed porch will provide them with the square footage they need and will be aesthetically
pleasing for the neighborhood. Prudden added that new refreshed drawings were provided and he
didn’t see them in the slide show. Jessica Prudden, applicant, added that the porch would be their
outdoor space. Their backyard is full of trees and overlooks their neighbors’ yards, they don’t want to
entertain in their front yard, and they have an elderly parent who lives with them. All of these
reasons are why they want a front porch.
Nancy Nelson, said the porch seems to be 15x16 and recalls the French doors being a concern at the
last meeting. She asked if the architect could add sliding glass doors and that would free up space.
Prudden responded that those changes were made. He added that documentation he provided to
the Planning Assistant isn’t present at the meeting. He states the floorplan shows a sofa, two chairs,
and a walkway. Zimmerman added that any images received by staff are what are being shown. If
updated drawings show a different arrangement, staff didn’t receive them. The plans attached to the
application show the updated size but do still show French doors. Orenstein confirmed which doors
are sliding and no longer French doors. Tadewald stated the seating area is 12x16 and the sliding
doors allow for more usable space to accommodate more than four people. Orenstein asked staff to
display the rendering of the porch that aligns with the house, and he asked the architect why that
rendering is unacceptable. Tadewald stated it could accommodate seating for four but would
eliminate the ability for more. He added there are architectural reasons why it should extend beyond
the dining but aesthetically it’s more pleasing with the massing of the house. Jessica Prudden
jumped in and stated that on November 16th, they received an email from the Planning Assistant
stating they were missing part of the application. 20 minutes after the receipt of that email, the
applicant sent the full application to staff. She continued by asking what was fair for outdoor space,
what amount of space is fair for use for a backyard. She added that the porch will essentially be their
backyard. Zimmerman asked if they’re wondering what usable space they’d have in the backyard vs
the front. Jessica Prudden added that she would like the useable space quantified. Zimmerman
responded that the number varies by lot and there are regulations to keep structures out of setbacks.
He continued that there is no regulation that would prohibit a front patio and that it could extend
almost to the street. The code regulates massing of the house and any other attached porch. A
homeowner is allowed to use their outdoor space to entertain by using pavers, garden beds, etc.
Prudden added that adding a patio to the front of the house has zero common sense for the
neighborhood. Tadewald added that no other house has a front yard patio but a number of them
have covered porches. He added the applicant wants to use the space if the weather is less than
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
November 24, 2020 – 7 pm
4
ideal. Orenstein clarified that no one was suggesting a patio on this property but staff was citing code
to answer the question posed to them by the applicant.
The conversation moved on to the responsibility of the Board and practical difficulty.
Chair Orenstein opened the public comment portion.
824 Meadow Lane
Voiced support of the porch
Tom Lockhart,
909 Parkview Terrace,
Caller stated his support for the proposed plan, the design matches the integrity of the
neighborhood. He added he likes the design because the alternative is that the house will be torn
down and a new build will be erected.
Seeing no further callers, the Chair closed the public comment.
Carlson stated the neighbor input is swaying his opinion/decision. Segelbaum reviewed the city
analysis standards and stated their importance. He added that he agreed with the first two analysis
items however the house and lot may be conforming but the house is on the lot at a 45‐degree angle.
He added that it’s a difficult layout for a lot. Nelson echoed this statement and reiterated her
sympathy for corner lots. Ginis suggested the variance be granted but by square footage of the
triangle that encroachs the setback, not a blanket 6 feet. She also challenged the idea of useable
space. Ginis added that granting the variance is at the edge of her comfort level and understands the
applicant wants an aesthetic but doesn’t feel the request is completely justified. Orenstein stated
he’d be in favor of approval but would like to subject it to the plans as given to staff.
Chair asked for a motion.
A MOTION was made by Chuck Segelbaum and seconded by Nelson approve the request for 6 ft.
off of the required 30 ft. to a distance of 24 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property
line and limited to the site plans as submitted to the City by the date of this meeting.
Staff took a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously
2. Adjournment
MOTION made by Carlson, seconded by Nelson and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the
meeting at 8:00 pm.
Staff called a roll call vote and the motion passed unanimously.
________________________________
Richard Orenstein, Chair
_________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant
1
Date: December 22, 2020
To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
From: Myles Campbell, Planner
Subject: 4124 Beverly Ave
Angela & Andrew Varpness, Applicant
Introduction
Angela and Andrew Varpness, the property owners, are seeking a variance from the City Code to
construct an addition to the western portion of their home which would extend into the side yard
setback area. The applicant is seeking the following variances from City Code:
Variance Request City Code Requirement
The applicant is requesting
a variance of 3.8 ft. off of
the required 12.5 ft. to a
distance of 8.7 ft. at its
closest point to the side
yard (west) property line.
§ 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd.
(f)(1)(c)(2) Side Yard Setback Requirements
In the case of lots having a width greater than 65 feet and less than
100 feet, the side setbacks for any portion of a structure 15 feet or
less in height shall be 12.5 feet.
The applicant is requesting
a variance of 1 ft. less than
the required 2 ft.
articulation depth.
§ 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (f)(4)
Side Wall Articulation
For any new construction, whether a new dwelling, addition, or
replacement through a tear‐down, any resulting side wall longer
than 32 feet in length must be articulated, with a shift of at least
two feet in depth, for at least eight feet in length, for every 32 feet
of wall.
2
Background
4124 Beverly Ave is a 12,742 square foot single‐family residential lot,
that is just over 80 ft. in width at its front lot line. The property is
located in the eastern part of the City, a few blocks south of Highway
55.
The existing house was constructed in 1959 and currently sits 10.1 ft.
from the west property line at its closest point. While this is less than
the current side setback requirement for a lot this size (12.5 ft.) its side
setback is sufficient for a structure built prior to 1982, as the setbacks
for these older structures are provided in § 113‐88, Subd. (i). For any
new additions and modifications however, the current setback of 12.5
ft. would apply.
Summary of Request
The applicant is proposing to construct an addition off the rear of the
existing garage, which is the western‐most portion of the home. This
addition would provide for a better transition from the garage to a new
mudroom, as well as providing additional interior living space via a new
master suite (bedroom and bathroom). Additionally, a deck would be
added off this new master suite towards the interior of the lot. The
applicant notes that this addition would help them to stay in the home
long‐term as their family grows out of the existing living space.
In order to construct the proposed addition as shown in their site plan, two variances would be
necessary. Firstly, the addition would encroach further into the side setback area than the current home,
being at its closest point 8.7 ft. from the west property line. Additionally, in order to provide articulation
to the elongated sidewall, the applicant has shown a bump out from the existing wall of one foot. While
this follows the intention of the code to break up long sidewalls, code does stipulate that any required
sidewall articulation should have a depth of at least two feet. The code does not dictate whether that
articulation should bump out or inwards from the existing wall line.
The applicant notes that the topography of the lot presents a significant challenge to any potential
addition to the rear of the home. The rear yard does slope steeply downwards from roughly the
west to the east side of the lot, with the lowest point being the very northeast corner. The change
in elevation is an approximately 11‐foot drop from the Northwestern corner of the existing home to
the low point in the eastern yard. Photos provided by the applicant are included with the memo to
demonstrate this slope.
The applicant notes that if the addition were to move further eastward into the lot itself, the new
location of the eastern wall would require additional structural support, likely a concrete foundation
that would also function effectively as a retaining wall against the slope. Additionally they noted
that waiving the requirement for any articulation along the sidewall would also allow for the setback
encroachment to be decreased.
3
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 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 fundamentally change the usage of the lot from its residential purpose.
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.
Updating an older home to meet the needs of current residents is normally something the
City seeks to encourage and support, however staff feels there may be options that allow for
additional living space without increasing the impact of an already reduced setback on the
western property line. Therefore, staff believes the use of the property as proposed by the
owner is not reasonable.
2. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that is not
caused by the landowner.
As noted the lot itself has a very steep slope from the west to the eastern portion of the lot
that creates a number of challenges in terms of a new addition, such as stormwater
management, and sound structural support. Given that this topography is not something
created by the property owner, staff does believe this creates a unique circumstance for the
property.
3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality
Given the grading of the lot, the existing home’s location, and the addition’s location to the
rear of the existing structure it is unlikely that the proposed addition would have much
visibility from Beverly Ave. Therefore, staff believes the proposed use would not alter the
essential character of the area.
4
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. Staff feels there may be potential for changes to the proposed use that
would help to minimize the impact of a potential addition on the neighboring property, without
sacrificing the applicant’s original desire for more living space in the home.
Removing the 1 ft. articulation towards the lot line would put the addition at 9.7 ft. form the
lot line at its closest point. This would require a variance to fully waive the sidewall
articulation requirement and a reduced setback variance of 2.8 ft. off the required 12.5 ft.
This would result in a sidewall roughly 46 ft. in length.
By having the sidewall articulate inwards by two feet, instead of out by one, the resulting
setback at its closest point would be roughly 11.7 ft. from the lot line. This would eliminate
the variance from the articulation requirements and require only a 0.8 ft. variance from the
required 12.5 ft. setback. This option would likely require the eastern wall of the new
addition to be supported by a concrete foundation wall however.
Given the relatively flat topography of the lower eastern portion of the lot, an addition of the
basement level could possibly require no variances from the City. However, staff does not
have a floor plan for the lower level to know if this is feasible from the existing room layout,
and additionally this would likely require grading work to draw stormwater away from the
new addition and towards the existing low spot in the Northeast corner of the yard.
Of these options, staff feels that an inward articulation of the addition, either by one or two feet,
would be the most reasonable option. This would still roughly allow for the proposed addition’s
floorplan with minimal changes, it would still help break up the long sidewall, and rather than
increasing the setback encroachment, it would bring the new northeast corner either behind or
roughly in line with the existing structure. Staff would feel more comfortable considering this
smaller variance that has a reduced impact on the neighboring property compared to the one
currently proposed by the applicant.
Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the variance request of 3.8 ft. off of the required 12.5 ft. to a distance
of 8.7 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (west) property line.
Staff recommends denial of the variance request of 1 ft. less than the required 2 ft. articulation
depth for the resulting sidewall.
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.
Existing Front Elevation and West property line
Existing – behind garage patio with landscape retaining wall
Back of house with tape measure showing location of proposed East wall of addition
View from back of lot, showing the west neighbor’s house
Existing retaining walls, with man shown standing at location of NE corner of proposed addition