bza-minutes-may-25-21
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 May 25, 2021, as submitted.
Staff took a roll call vote and the motion carried.
Approval of Minutes
MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Sadeghi to approve the April 27, 2021, meeting minutes.
Staff took a roll call vote and the motion carried.
1. 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.
The applicant appears before the board, a second time, with a revised request:
Revised Request
The applicant is requesting a variance of 10 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a total distance of 5 ft. at its
closest point to the side yard property line
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. Staff
originally recommended denial, item was tabled until revised design materials could be provided.
May 25, 2021 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
May 25, 2020 – 7 pm
2
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 and laid out revised
building plans to illustrate the amended garage addition request.
Practical Difficulties
1. Two car garages are a common retrofit for older homes. The revisions made by the
applicant since their first request have reduced the needed variance and result in a 24’ wide
two‐car garage, which staff believes is a reasonable use in a single‐family residential district
2. The City has not typically considered a lot being a corner lot to be a practical difficulty with
previous variances, there are hundreds of corner lots throughout the City that face the
same restrictions. The off‐set placement of the existing home on the lot however limits the
ability to expand the existing garage, despite the lot’s overall size and open space to the
south.
3. Two car garages are not an uncommon sight in many of the City’s neighborhoods, including
this one. The resulting setback of 5’ is narrow, but the overall space between structures
would not be out of character for older properties in the surrounding area.
Other Considerations
Staff assesses whether the variance represents the smallest feasible variance or if there are other
options available:
At 24’, this is a fairly narrow two car garage by design, dropping the width further would
impact usability
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 approval of the variance request of 10 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a total
distance of 5 ft. at its closest point to the side yard property line.
Board members didn’t have questions and Chair Orenstein stated his agreement with staff
analysis.
There were no callers for open forum.
Members thanked the applicant for amending the application.
Chair asked for a motion.
A MOTION was made by Orenstein and seconded by Ginis to follow staff recommendations and
approve the variance request of 10 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a total distance of 5 ft. at its closest
point to the side yard property line.
Staff took a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
May 25, 2020 – 7 pm
3
2. Address: 4404 Sunset Ridge
Applicant: Jared Kevitt
Request: § 113‐88, Single‐Family Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(c)(1) Side Yard Setback Requirements
5 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a total distance of 10 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 that it’s
a vacant Lot, subdivided along with the adjacent lot to the west in 2019.
The applicant is requesting a decrease in the principal structure side setback on the west side of the
property from 15’ to 10’. The lot is steeply sloped, with the flattest sections being on the west
portion of the lot. Moving the house west creates a wider buffer from the existing wetland to the
east and would help preserve existing trees on the eastern part of the property. The proposed site
plan shows the home as being 20’ from the east side property line
Campbell discussed comments from environmental resource staff and why the inclusion of this
information was important to staff’s recommendation. Campbell discussed the request within the
context of the zoning code and the 2040 comprehensive plan.
Practical Difficulties
1. The proposed home is in‐scale with others in the surrounding neighborhood and its location is
cognizant of the neighboring residential property, as well as nearby natural resources. Given
the property is zoned for, and was replatted to allow for single family scale development, the
applicant’s proposal is seen as reasonable.
2. The parcel in question has two principal circumstances that create difficulties in developing a
by‐right home: the steep slopes down towards the east, and the presence of the wetlands
nearby and to the east. The variance is seeking to mitigate the impact of the new home and
construction on the wetlands.
3. A 10’ side setback, while not allowed today, would not be too dissimilar than those of other
older homes along Sunset Ridge. The impact on the neighboring property is mitigated by the
lower elevation of the lot (~7 ft. lower than the closest point on the adjacent home) and the
closest points between them being garages rather than living space.
Other Considerations
Staff assesses whether the variance represents the smallest feasible variance or if there are other
options available:
Reducing the home’s width, such as by reducing the garage to two stalls, could eliminate the
need for the variance
o The City has no way to impose this however, since there is still space to move the home
east on the lot without changing the design.
A lesser variance could be granted, such as one for 12.5’ instead of 10’
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
May 25, 2020 – 7 pm
4
o This again would either require the home to move closer to the wetland, or that the
property owner voluntarily decrease the width of the home
Home could be moved further east, requiring more grading work and bringing it closer to the
wetland, requiring no variance
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance request of 5 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a total distance
of 10 ft. at its closest point to the side yard property line.
Chair Orenstein asked if the side they’re discussing is the side of the garage, staff pulled up the
plans and confirmed. Member Nelson mentioned that she didn’t realize there was 7 feet between
the garage and the drop. Nelson asked if the garage is a one story or two. Staff requested members
ask the applicant questions regarding plans and elevation. Elevation plans were not included in the
application. Member Ginis asked if the basis for recommendation is that it’s desirable for the
home to be as far from the wetland as possible. Staff confirmed there is public benefit by
maintaining space from the home and wetland. Members discussed potential conditions for
approval.
The Chair invited the applicant to present.
Applicant stated the presentation was complete and offered to answer questions. The Chair asked
if there was a significant cost increase if the home was moved to the east. The applicant responded
that a 15ft retaining wall would need to be put in place and it would be visible to neighbors.
Orenstein asked for elevation drawings and the applicant didn’t have them. Nelson asked if the
garage had living space above it, the applicant responded that it would but not a full story over the
garage. Members discussed the full plan and how second story drawings relate to the three‐car
garage as a foundation.
There was a neighbor present for public comment, Connie Lahn.
Prior to the night before, the neighbor didn’t know what the variance was for nor did they know it
would be the two garages abutting. The neighbor sent a letter to staff from their architect as that
person was familiar with the two lots when split. The neighbor went on to discuss house sizes on
the lots and members asked a few questions regarding the subdivision.
The Chair closed the open forum
Board members discussed the application and expressed the desire for elevation drawings and
alternatives. Discussion around the wetland, water runoff, and a buffer to the wetland went on.
A MOTION was made by Orenstein and seconded by Nelson to table the item until the applicant
can provide staff with more detailed drawings and information.
Staff took a roll call vote and the motion carried.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
May 25, 2020 – 7 pm
5
3.Annual Board Member Orientation
Staff reviewed the City of Golden Valley Structure and staff, City Boards and Commissions, and
Board and Commission Member Roles & Responsibilities.
Staff went in depth on the BZA, requirements, quorum needs, and goals with Planning Commission.
Members and staff discussed Planning Commission members that attend BZA meetings, as well as
rotation of youth members, and Golden Valley domain email addresses.
Officer elections were put on hold in order to have Chris Carlson vote as well.
4.Adjournment
MOTION made by Nelson, seconded by Orenstein and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the
meeting at 8:24 pm.
Staff called a roll call vote and the motion passed unanimously.
________________________________
Richard Orenstein, Chair
_________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant