bza-minutes-apr-27-21
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 Richard Orenstein.
Roll Call
Members present: Chris Carlson, Sophia Ginis, Nancy Nelson, Richard Orenstein, Ryan Sadeghi–
Planning Commissioner
Staff present: Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman and Planner Myles Campbell
Approval of Agenda
MOTION made by Ginis, seconded by Carlson to approve the agenda of April 27, 2021, as submitted.
Staff took a roll call vote and the motion carried.
Approval of Minutes
MOTION made by Nelson, seconded by Ginis to approve the March 23, 2021, meeting minutes.
Staff took a roll call vote and the motion carried.
1. Address: 3125 26th Avenue North
Applicant: Isaac Murphy
Request: § 113‐88, Single‐Family Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(b) Rear Yard Setback Requirements
14.54 ft. off the required 25 ft. to a total distance of 10.46 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard
property line, to allow for the expansion of an existing garage.
Myles Campbell, Planner, gave a brief background on the address, its location on a map, and the
alley easement over a portion of the rear yard. An easement vacation is currently in process which
transfers a portion of the easement to adjacent property owners.
This home is located in an R‐1 zoning district and accessory structures that are attached to the
principal structure are subject to the same setback requirements. The existing garage is already non‐
compliant with the 25’ rear setback from the curved property line. This item was discussed by the
BZA in late summer of 2020 and was tabled until progress on the easement could be made.
April 27, 2021 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
April 27, 2020 – 7 pm
2
Campbell discussed the zoning code the applicant is requesting a variance from as well as laid out
building plans to illustrate the garage addition.
Practical Difficulties
1. Two‐car garage expansions are a commonly heard BZA request within the City, as the patterns
of car ownership and use have shifted since many homes were first built in Golden Valley.
Given that many families own two cars, and given winter weather impacts on both on‐ and off‐
street parking, staff generally finds the request reasonable, although 28’ is a wider than average
two‐car garage.
2. The lot is unique in terms of its angled rear property line creating issues with buildability over
the majority of the lot. With the expected vacation of the alley area, some new space will be
considered “buildable” under zoning code, however the property is still limited based on the
location of the existing home, and the angled property line.
3. Two car garages are not an uncommon sight 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, there
is a reasonable amount of space between these structures, even given the reduced setback.
Other Considerations
Staff assesses whether the request represents the smallest feasible variance or if there are other
options available:
There is potential to reduce the garage’s width slightly and reduce the requested variance,
however given the rear setback, this would still require a variance
The site does not allow for any tandem‐style garage or alternate layout to achieve two stalls
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance request of 14.54 ft. off the required 25 ft. to a total
distance of 10.46 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard property line, with the following condition:
1. The applicant shall secure a vacation of the alleyway easement abutting the property prior
to the commencement of any construction activity on the garage expansion
Member Ginis asked if there’s any reason to think the easement vacation wouldn’t occur.
Campbell described the process and the vacation will be presented the following week at City
Council.
Chair Orenstein invited the applicant to comment on the petition.
Isaac Murphy, Applicant, thanked staff for the presentation. Applicant added details on the
current layout of the garage and the addition will increase function and usability.
There were no questions for the applicant.
There were no callers for open forum nor did staff receive comment on this item in advance.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
April 27, 2020 – 7 pm
3
Chair asked for a motion.
A MOTION was made by Carlson and seconded by Ginis to follow staff recommendations and
approve the request, subject to the condition that the applicant secure a vacation of the alleyway
easement abutting the property prior to the commencement of any construction activity.
Staff took a roll call vote and the motion carried.
2. Address: 1933 Xerxes Avenue South
Applicant: Kari Christianson & Ginger Miles
Request: § 113‐88, Single‐Family Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(c)(3) Side Yard Setback Requirements
.7 ft. off the required 5 ft. to a total distance of 4.3 ft. at its closest point to the side yard property
line, to allow for the construction of a new deck
Myles Campbell, Planner, gave a brief background on the address, its location on a map, and the
unique narrowing of the lot from 50’ to 40’.
This home is located in an R‐1 zoning district and is considered a narrow lot as it is under 65’. The
side setback regulations are a percentage instead of a standard distance like with larger lots. This lot
is less than 50’ at the front setback, a setback based on 10% of the width would result in a setback
under 5’. Therefore, the minimum side setback of 5’ is used instead on the South side of the lot. The
proposal adds a raised deck off the rear of the home, in line with the current side wall. This location
has the deck 4.3’ from the property line at its closest point, the same distance as the home currently.
Campbell discussed the zoning code the applicant is requesting a variance from as well as laid out
building plans to illustrate the garage addition.
Practical Difficulties
1. The deck as proposed is of reasonable scale given the lot itself, and its location, while still
requiring a variance, does not increase the level of encroachment into the side setback. The
improvement makes use of the existing rear yard access off the home.
2. The lot’s size is a limiting factor for redevelopment, however there are hundreds of smaller lots
throughout the city and so this itself is not a unique circumstance. That said, the lot’s irregular
widths, in combination with its overall size combine to create unique challenges in making
improvements to the home, and neither is the result of actions by the homeowner.
3. This improvement would be to the rear of the home and would not be visible from the public
Right of Way. Additionally, up until the late 2010’s a deck was already located in this same
location, and so staff would not anticipate this having a major change on the character of the
neighborhood.
Other Considerations
Staff assesses whether the request represents the smallest feasible variance or if there are other
options available:
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
April 27, 2020 – 7 pm
4
Given the variance is for less than a foot, the deck could be slightly reduced in width, from 13’
to 12.3’ and avoid the need for any variance.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance request of 0.7 ft. off the required 5 ft. to a total
distance of 4.3 ft. at its closest point to the side yard property line.
Chair Orenstein punctuated that 0.7 feet equates to eight inches and the rear setback isn’t a factor
in this decision.
Chair Orenstein invited the applicant to comment on the petition.
Ginger Miles, Applicant, thanked staff for the presentation. Applicant added that they spoke to the
neighbors who support the building of a deck. There was once a deck in the same position and they
applicant would like to re‐establish that.
There were no questions for the applicant.
There were no callers for open forum nor did staff receive comment on this item in advance.
Board members discussed the application and expressed strong support for reestablishing a deck
that was intended when the home was built.
Chair asked for a motion.
A MOTION was made by Nelson and seconded by Orenstein to follow staff recommendations and
approve the variance request of 0.7 ft. off the required 5 ft. to a total distance of 4.3 ft. at its
closest point to the side yard property line.
Staff took a roll call vote and the motion carried.
3. Address: 1701 Wisconsin Avenue North
Applicant: Kevin Matzek
Request: § 113‐88, Single‐Family Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(c)(2) Side Yard Setback Requirements
11.5 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a total distance of 3.5 ft. at its closest point to the side yard property
line, to allow for the expansion of an existing garage.
Myles Campbell, Planner, gave a brief background on the address, its location on a map, and the
details around the side‐yard variance request for a two‐car garage and mudroom addition.
This home is located in an R‐1 zoning district and accessory structures that are attached to the
principal structure are subject to the same setback requirements. The existing garage is already non‐
conforming as it’s located 14.5 ft from the property line. This lot is at least 100 feet wide and
therefore side setbacks shall be 15 ft.
Campbell discussed the zoning code the applicant is requesting a variance from as well as laid out
building plans to illustrate the garage addition.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
April 27, 2020 – 7 pm
5
Practical Difficulties
1. As patterns of car ownership and use have shifted since many homes were first built in Golden
Valley, two car garages are a common retrofit for older homes. However, given the resulting
3.5’ setback, staff does not feel this garage request is reasonable in that it drastically reduces
the open space in between homes, despite the addition itself being minimal in width.
2. The City has not typically considered a lot being a corner lot to be a practical difficulty with
previous variances, given that there are hundreds of corner lots throughout the City that face
the same restrictions. While the existing home’s location on the lot may limit the ability to add
new additions to the home, there are no site issues such as wetlands, steep slopes, or other
items that typically fulfill the unique circumstances clause.
3. Two car garages are not an uncommon sight in many of the City’s neighborhoods, including this
one. However, the resulting setback of 3.5’ would be a significant deviation from the typical
requirements for a single‐family zoned lot, and for properties in the surrounding area.
Other Considerations
Staff assesses whether the request represents the smallest feasible variance or if there are other
options available:
At 11’ in width, there’s not much opportunity to reduce the addition’s width
There is enough space in the rear yard for a tandem garage, but this would likely still require a
smaller setback variance
Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the variance request of 11.5 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a total
distance of 3.5 ft. at its closest point to the side yard property line.
Member Ginis asked specifically how wide the lot was and what the smallest set back would be.
Campbell responded that this lot is above 100ft wide, that constitutes a 15ft side setback; the
smallest allowable side setback is 5ft and that’s for a 50ft wide lot. Ginis followed up by asking if
the BZA has a history of approving a variance like this will only 3.5 feet for the side setback. Chair
Orenstein added that the BZA has approved many variances for 2‐car garages but this case is
harder because the variance is significant. Member Nelson spoke to the history of approving 2‐car
garage variances and while the resulting setback is very narrow, the neighbor being impacted has
spoken in favor of the variance. Nelson added that with that testimony, she leans to be in favor.
Chair Orenstein added they need to review this request with the current neighbors in mind but
also future neighbors and future occupants.
Chair Orenstein invited the applicant to comment on the petition.
Kevin Matzek, Applicant, thanked staff for the presentation and added they asked their contractor
to join the conversation. The applicant added details on the current layout of the garage and while
the request really minimizes the setback, their garage abuts the neighbor’s garage so it wouldn’t
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
April 27, 2020 – 7 pm
6
impede windows or living space. The applicant reiterated the neighbor’s support for their request.
Member Carlson asked if the driveway would need expansion and the applicant responded that
the current driveway lines up with their request as the driveway transitions from a single to a single
plus parking pad.
The applicant’s contractor asked if a modified setback request were allowed then maybe there
could be a redesign. He added that the current design is two single stalls so as to incorporate the
aesthetic of the roof but maybe a larger single stall with a double door would be appropriate. The
current design being proposed is the most desirable in terms of current layout, cost, and curb
appeal. While this property’s setback would be 3.5, there would be a total of 33 ft between their
garage and the neighbor’s. Nelson added that the group needs to consider curb appeal in this
request as well and asked if the current design could stay but be a 10.5 ft addition so the setback
was 4ft.
Ryan Sadeghi, Planning Commissioner asked if there was an elevation of the design as he didn’t
see it in the packet. He asked if the applicant explored more efficient designs that use a two‐stall
door to reduce the addition. He added this seems to create more curb appeal than a second stall
added on. Orenstein echoed this statement and asked for additional images to understand the full
impacts of all choices.
There were no callers for open forum but staff received one letter in support from the applicant’s
northern neighbor, Pam Berven.
The contractor displayed more images of the design and BZA members discussed the images. The
applicant added that 5‐6 years they spoke to a City staff member who told them 3ft off the
property line would be the absolute minimum they could go so the applicant used that as their
gauge. Staff chimed in about fire code and a 5ft setback vs 3ft setback and different building
requirements and that probably was what lead the previous staff’s comment. 5ft from the setback
is the same requirement for a detached garage and even a shed so that measurement is consistent
for accessory structures.
Chair Orenstein said he’d like to table the request and have the applicant return with alternative
plans. Other members echoed this.
Chair asked for a motion.
A MOTION was made by Orenstein and seconded by Nelson to table the variance request until the
next meeting and have the applicant return with alternative design plans.
Staff took a roll call vote and the motion carried.
4. Other Business:
Staff reviewed the memo sent out regarding language changes around the term “grandfathered”
and staff will use “legally non‐conforming”. This same memo is being discussed with the Planning
Commission and will go to City Council. Members can change their language themselves and if
members of the public use the term, members are encouraged to educate.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
April 27, 2020 – 7 pm
7
The term “grandfathering” comes from an old Southern legislation that required certain regulations
to vote, unless your grandfathers had voting rights prior to the Civil War‐when only white men
could vote. A number of cities and court systems are moving away from the term. Other language
may evolve but for now staff will continue to use “legally non‐conforming”.
5.Adjournment
MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Carlson and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the
meeting at 8:19 pm.
Staff called a roll call vote and the motion passed unanimously.
________________________________
Richard Orenstein, Chair
_________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant