bza-agenda-apr-27-21
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 133 193 2799. 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
December 22, 2020, Regular Meeting
4. 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.
5. 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
6. 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.
7. Adjournment
April 27, 2021 – 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 Richard Orenstein.
Roll Call
Members present: Chris Carlson, Sophia Ginis, Nancy Nelson, Richard Orenstein, Lauren Pockl–
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 March 23, 2021, as submitted.
Staff took a roll call vote and the motion carried. Nelson was not present for vote.
Approval of Minutes
MOTION made by Ginis, seconded by Orenstein to approve the December 22, 2020, meeting minutes.
Staff took a roll call vote: 3 approved, Lauren Pockl abstained. Nelson was not present for vote.
1. 750 Boone Ave N
Joshua Pardue
Request: § 113‐151, Off‐Street Parking and Loading, Subd. (b)(21) Compact Vehicle Requirement.
7 compact parking stalls above the 6 allowed by code for a total of 13 stalls.
Request: § 113‐151, Off‐Street Parking and Loading, Subd. (b)(8) Parking Layouts – Aisle Width.
2 ft. off the minimum required 24 ft. for a drive aisle width of 22 ft.
Request: § 113‐151, Off‐Street Parking and Loading, Subd. (b)(8) Parking Layouts – Parking or
Drive Aisle Setback to Principal Structure.
3 ft. 4 in. off the required 10 ft. of distance between a drive aisle and a principal structure to a
distance of 6 ft. 8 in.
March 23, 2021 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
March 23, 2020 – 7 pm
2
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, gave a brief background on the address, its location on a
map, and these variances being part of a proposal to construct a new animal hospital at this address.
750 Boone Ave N is a light industrial property with an office building, it backs up to Bassett Creek and
there are floodplains on either side with an additional shoreland overlay to the east. A CUP for the
construction of a new animal hospital was approved in late 2020. Considering the restriction on the
site, the applicant is requesting variances to the parking lot to try and meet the needs of a new
business.
Zimmerman discussed the zoning code the applicant is requesting a variance from as well as laid out
the three requests. A map and parking diagram was displayed to illustrate where the reduced aisle
width, additional compact spaces, and reduced setback locations are. Based on the proposed square
footage of the building (15,113 sq. ft.), minimum parking requirements are 51 spaces. The applicant
prefers a ratio of 4.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. or 68 spaces. 66 spaces are proposed.
Practical Difficulties
1. The use of the property for an animal hospital meets the use requirements for a Light
Industrial zoning district (requires a CUP). The proposed site plan respects the shoreland
overlay and observes the mapped floodplains. Remaining areas are balanced between
building and parking. Staff believes the use as proposed is reasonable.
2. The lot abuts Bassett Creek and is constrained by the presence of both a shoreland overlay
and federal and locally mapped floodplains. This limits how much of the property can be
developed with structures and/or pavement. Staff believes this creates a unique
circumstance for the property.
3. The requested changes to parking lot dimensions are small would likely go unnoticed. Staff
believes the requests would not alter the essential character of the area.
Other Considerations
Staff assesses whether the request represents the smallest feasible variance or if there are other
options available:
Other options include expanding the building footprint into the shoreland overlay area
(would require a variance), reducing the parking count, or reducing the square footage of
the building.
Alternatively, the 10‐foot landscaped buffer along the south property line could be reduced
to 6 feet 6 inches and thereby provide enough width for the full drive aisle, regular sized
parking spaces, and a full buffer along the building. This would require a different variance
to be granted by the BZA.
The Fire Department reviewed the parking lot plans and had no concerns with the layout or with
the proposed drive aisle width.
Recommendation
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
March 23, 2020 – 7 pm
3
1. Staff recommends approval of the variance request of 7 additional compact spaces above
the 6 allowed by code for a total of 13 spaces, with the following condition:
a. All spaces along the south face of the building shall be clearly signed to ensure the
area is reserved for compact vehicles only.
2. Staff recommends approval of the variance request of 2 ft. off of the minimum require 24
ft. for a drive aisle width of 22 ft.
3. Staff recommends approval of the variance request of 3 ft. 4 in. off of the required 10 ft. of
distance between a drive aisle and a principal structure to a distance of 6 ft. 8 in.
Chair Orenstein invited the applicant to comment on his petition for the variances.
Josh Pardue, Applicant, stated his organization has been working very hard to accommodate the
needs of the tenant while following the constraints of this unique location. Planning Commissioner
Pockl asked why there was a need for additional parking as she isn’t familiar with the parking
density needs. The applicant responded that the parking lot at an animal hospital accommodates
parking for staff and then there are peak times where the lot fills up. If there isn’t adequate
parking, excess car traffic can become a burden for the community.
Board members discussed the application and expressed strong support for staff recommendation.
Chair asked for a motion.
A MOTION was made by Nelson and seconded by Ginis to follow staff recommendations and
approve all three requests, and to approve the condition all spaces along the south face of the
building be clearly signed to ensure compact vehicle parking only.
2. Presentation of 2020 Board of Zoning Appeals Annual Report
Myles Campbell, Planner, introduced the 2020 BZA annual report. Campbell listed the purpose,
mission, and prescribed duties; he also highlighted the criteria for analysis. In 2020, 27 variances
were considered, 18 were in the R‐1 district and Campbell broke them down further by type.
Out of the 27 variances, 15 were approved as requested, 5 were approved with a modification, 6
were denied, and 1 was tabled.
Campbell went on to review the previous 5 years of variances presented to the BZA. He broke
them down by district, type, BZA final decision, project, and then described each variance type.
Campbell was able to collaborate with the City’s GIS Specialist to create a map with the locations of
the variances for 2020 and the previous 5 years. The focus trends in the single‐family
neighborhoods.
Ginis asked if the variance map would be compared to overall construction permits to see if there’s
a correlation. Staff said they’ll check with the GIS Specialist to see if creating that is possible. Ginis
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
March 23, 2020 – 7 pm
4
added that it would be interesting to see if there’s a correlation between variance requests and
higher property values.
Staff and members continued the discussion on patterns in variances, what was learned, and how
the mapping tools will be beneficial in the future.
3. Adjournment
MOTION made by Pockl, seconded by Carlson and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the
meeting at 7:50 pm.
Staff called a roll call vote and the motion passed unanimously.
________________________________
Richard Orenstein, Chair
_________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant
Date: April 27, 2021
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
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
§ 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 currently an alley easement over
a portion of the rear yard. This alley is unpaved and not
used by the residents it is attached to for drive access. The
City is currently in the process of vacating this easement,
and this action is expected to be approved by the City
Council at their meeting on May 4, 2021
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
2
approximately 20’ in depth. The existing garage is itself 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 existing rear property line, the garage would reduce the
rear setback to an approximate 2’. That said the expected vacation of the alley easement by the city,
would provide additional space. Once this vacation were to take effect, the rear setback at its
closest point to the proposed garage would be just short of 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, which are supportive of allowing private reinvestment in properties
which would not negatively impact the neighboring properties or natural environment.
In order to constitute practical difficulties:
1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner.
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 landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that is not
caused by the landowner.
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
3
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. 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 added alley area,
if a vacation were approved. In conversation with City Administrative and Engineering staff, we
understand that this vacation is supported by the City and expected to be approved. As such we are
comfortable conditioning the approval of this variance on that approval.
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
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: April 27, 2021
To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
From: Myles Campbell, Planner
Subject: 1933 Xerxes Ave N
Kari Christianson & Ginger Miles, Applicant
Introduction
Kari Christianson & Ginger Miles, the property owners, are seeking a variance from the City Code to
build an elevated deck off the rear of their home. The applicant is seeking the following variances
from City Code:
Variance Request City Code Requirement
The applicant is requesting
a variance 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.
§ 113-88, Single-Family Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(c)(3) Side Yard
Setback Requirements
In the case of lots having a width of 65 feet or less, the side
setbacks for any portion of a structure 13 feet or less in height
along the north or west side shall be 10 percent of the lot width
and along the south or east side shall be 20 percent of the lot width
(up to 12.5 feet). In no case shall a side setback be less than 5 feet.
Background
1933 Xerxes Ave N is a single-family
residential property. The home was
originally built in 1957, and the lot
itself is approximately 6,756 sq. ft.
The lot is smaller than what would be
allowed today for a new subdivision,
and is also irregular in its shape, being wider at the front property line (50’) than the rear (40’). The
property is located in a largely single-family neighborhood on the eastern boundary of the City.
2
The applicant is hoping to expand an existing single car garage to allow for a second stall build a new
elevated deck off the rear of the home. An existing three-season porch has a doorway that is not
currently usable. Previously there had been a deck in place, however this was removed sometime prior
to 2018. In review of City records, staff could not find any record of a previous variance for the original
deck that was removed. In order to keep the deck in line with the home, a variance from the side
setback requirements will be necessary, as the existing south wall of the home is non-conforming, being
as close as 3.4’ from the south property line. The new deck at its closest point would be 4.3’, where it
meets the corner of the existing three-season porch.
Summary of Requests
For decks that are attached to the home, the City’s zoning code applies the same setback
requirements as for the principal home. Side setbacks for the R-1 district are based upon the lot
width at the front setback. From Sec. 113-88 Subd. (f)(1)(c)(3)
In the case of lots having a width of 65 feet or less, the side setbacks for any portion of a structure 13
feet or less in height along the north or west side shall be 10 percent of the lot width and along the
south or east side shall be 20 percent of the lot width (up to 12.5 feet). In no case shall a side setback
be less than 5 feet.
In this case, the lot is actually under 50’ at the front setback due to it narrowing in width from front
to rear. Typically the setback on the south would be 10% of the lot width, however since the lot is
less than 50’, instead the side setback is 5’, the minimum allowed for any lot in the city by code.
In order to keep the deck in line with the
south wall of the home, a variance is
necessary to reduce this side setback further
to 4.3’ at its closest point. This location
would also make use of the existing access
from the three-season porch as well.
The applicant notes that while they have considered shifting the deck north, it would require
additional posts to support the deck, impacting usable yard space below. The home is U shaped in
terms of its rear façade, potentially requiring a larger wraparound deck if shifted even further north.
While another option is to shift the deck just far enough to the north to maintain the five-foot
setback, or to cut .7’ from the south side of it, the applicant notes this would put the deck off-center
from the door and not match the existing south wall.
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 found the objective of the housing chapter to “Support the
rehabilitation and reinvestment of the housing stock as structures continue to age.” The most
relevant to this request.
In order to constitute practical difficulties:
1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner.
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 landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that is not
caused by the landowner.
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. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality
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.
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 scale of the request, less than a foot from the code
requirement, staff sees no lesser variance action. However, again given the scale, staff believes a
conforming deck that is slightly offset from the south wall of the home would not unduly impact the
use of the deck (reduces the width from 13’ to 12.3’) while not requiring a 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.
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:
�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.
������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
����������������������
�����������������
��������
Patricio Rodriguez Braun
11 / 20 / 2020
Date: April 27, 2021
To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
From: Myles Campbell, Planner
Subject: 1701 Wisconsin Ave N
Kevin Matzek, Applicant
Introduction
Kevin Matzek, 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
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
§ 113-88, Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning
District, Subd. (f)(1)(c)(1) Side Yard Setback
Requirements
In the case of lots having a width of 100 feet or
greater, the side setbacks for any portion of a
structure 15 feet or less in height shall be 15 feet.
Background
1701 Wisconsin Ave N is a single-family residential property. The
home was originally built in 1961, and the lot itself is
approximately14,426 sq. ft. The lot is a corner lot, facing both
Wisconsin Ave and Wesley Drive. The property is located in a
largely single-family neighborhood, however just to the South is
Wesley Park.
The applicant is hoping to expand an existing single car garage to
allow for a second stall. The existing garage is 14.5’ wide by
approximately 20’ in depth. The existing garage is 14.5’ from the
side property line, meaning that it is legally non-conforming with
the current side setback requirements of the lot. The garage is
2
considered conforming in regard to its front setback, and all other relevant zoning regulations such as
height or area.
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. Side setbacks for the R-1 district
are based upon the lot width at the front setback. In this case, the lot is over 100’ in width at its
front setback along Wisconsin, and therefore has an interior side setback of 15’ from the property
line.
The applicant is requesting some flexibility from
this setback requirement in order to expand their
existing single car garage (green). The proposed
plans show a new stall (orange) being added to
the north of the existing garage. In addition, a new
mudroom area (blue) would be added behind the
existing garage, and would provide additional
access to the home itself from the garage. Given
that the existing garage is slightly too close to the
property line, a portion of this mudroom would
also fall within the side setback, however the
garage addition itself would encroach to a more
significant degree, and this variance if approved
would make either a legal non-conformity.
The new garage stall is shown in plans as being 11’
in width, and 24’10” in depth. The addition would
be slightly offset from the existing garage’s façade, but would result in an overall garage width of
25.5’. Given the existing garage’s location, this new addition would decrease the side setback area
to 3.5’ off the north property line, necessitating the variance prior to building.
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 found arguments both in support and against allowing the variance.
In support are such objectives as this one from the Housing Chapter, to “Support the rehabilitation
3
and reinvestment of the housing stock as structures continue to age.” This type of project would be
considered private reinvestment in a home that was built over six decades ago. That said, given the
resulting narrow setback between properties, staff also found objectives not in line with the
variance, such as “Ensure all new housing meets or exceeds the quality standards established in City
ordinances” and “Protect existing residential neighborhoods.” Overall, the variance is in line with
the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan, especially in its housing chapter’s goal to improve existing
housing stock, however the variances impact is more debatable in staff’s eyes.
In order to constitute practical difficulties:
1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner.
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 landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that is not
caused by the landowner.
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. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality
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.
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. Unfortunately, given the existing garage’s location and existing non-
conforming side setback, there are very few other options available to expand the garage to fit two
cars.
• Potentially a tandem style garage could be utilized behind the existing garage, although this
would likely still require a variance for being 14.5’ from the property line (same as the
existing) however tandem garages are fairly uncommon in the city and have drawbacks in
terms of usability.
• A narrower garage could limit the overall variance amount, however given the proposed
width (25.5’) there isn’t much wiggle room here. The minimum width for a two-stall garage is
20-22’ and would still result in a 5-8’ side setback that is otherwise out of character with the
neighborhood.
4
• A more drastic option would be to redesign the existing garage to load form the side yard
instead of the front, and build the second stall further into the rear yard. This would reduce
available back yard space and have more significant cost.
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.
From:Pam Berven
To:Campbell, Myles
Subject:Variance request for Kevin Matzek 1701 Wisconsin Avenue North
Date:Wednesday, April 21, 2021 3:13:10 PM
Hello,
I live next door to Kevin and Julie Matzek who are requesting a variance so that they can
expand their garage to accommodate two cars. This expansion will move their garage closer to
my property than is currently allowed by the City. I support this plan and do not feel that this
has any negative effect on my property. In fact, where there is a reasonable amount of land
and no objection with merit, I support these requests for Golden Valley home-owners in
general. A two-car garage is the least to be expected in a new home. This remodeling makes a
home more useful to its present owners as well as increases its resale value. For the City, there
is the benefit of greater property tax revenue. The city planners have done an excellent job in
designing and executing road improvements on Douglas and Winnetka. Garage expansions
can give homes a similarly updated and fresh look that increases the City's appeal.
Pam Berven