bza-agenda-jun-22-21
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 177 452 4723. 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
May 25, 2020, Regular Meeting
4. 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.
5. Annual Board Member Orientation
6. Adjournment
June 22, 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, 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
Date: June 22, 2021
To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
From: Myles Campbell, Planner
Subject: 4404 Sunset Ridge
Jared Kevitt, Applicant
Introduction
Jared Kevitt, the property owner, is seeking a variance from the City Code to build a new home. The
applicant is seeking the following variances from City Code:
Original Variance Request City Code Requirement
The applicant is requesting a variance 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
§ 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
4404 Sunset Ridge is a single‐family residential zoned parcel that was very recently established. It was
previously part of a larger parcel, 4400 Sunset Ridge, that was subdivided and replatted in 2019. The lot
itself is approximately 21,850 sq. ft. The lot is an irregular shape that fronts onto Sunset Ridge. The
property is located in a largely single‐family neighborhood, however just to the east of the property is
North Tyrol Park. The applicant is looking to build a new single‐family home on the lot, due to site
conditions, the western portion of the property as having better conditions for construction and less
potential for impacts to the Park.
This item was previously tabled at the May meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals so that the applicant
could provide the board with copies of proposed elevations for the home. These new materials, along
2
with an updated site survey, have been included with this memo. Staff will note that some modification
to the garage roofline will likely be necessary in order to bring it into conformance with the City’s
building envelope requirements. The applicant at this time is not seeking a variance related to these
requirements, only the side setback.
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
2040 Comprehensive Plan
In order to constitute practical difficulties:
1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner.
Given the property is zoned for single‐family residential and was replatted to allow for
development, the applicant’s proposal to build a new home on the property is reasonable.
Additionally the request itself is not so drastic as to be unreasonable, and is instead
cognizant of the neighboring residential property, as well as nearby natural resources.
2. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that is not
caused by the landowner.
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 by minimizing grading work and potential erosion issues.
3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality
A 10’ side setback, while not allowed today, would not be too dissimilar than those of other
older homes along Sunset Ridge. The most significant impact would be on the neighboring
residential property, although the applicant notes that lot is at a higher elevation than the
proposed home, and therefore the new home should only have minor impacts on the
neighbor’s views towards the park areas.
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. Here staff sees no such option, as any reduction in the variance
requested would somewhat defeat the purpose of moving the home west to avoid slopes and
erosion issues. The applicant has noted to staff they would be open to a setback of 12.5’ on the west
side, however this would require shifting the structure further to the East.
3
Staff will also note they have consulted with the City’s Environmental Resources Supervisor on this
variance request, due to the wetlands presence. While they note that proper erosion control during
construction will still need to be practiced with this project to mitigate impacts on the parkland,
they are very supportive of having the home located more towards the western side of the lot. This
is both for the positive impact on the wetlands by increasing the buffer area between them and the
home, as well as for the fact that it will help preserve some of the existing trees on the eastern
portion of the property.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance request of 5 ft. off the required 10 ft. to a total distance
of 10 ft. at its closest point to the side yard property line.
Staff also recommends as a condition that the principal structure footprint be setback from the east
side property line by an additional 5 ft. over the required 15 ft. to a total distance of 20 ft.
Date: May 25, 2021
To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
From: Myles Campbell, Planner
Subject: 4404 Sunset Ridge
Jared Kevitt, Applicant
Introduction
Jared Kevitt, the property owner, is seeking a variance from the City Code to build a new home. The
applicant is seeking the following variances from City Code:
Original Variance Request City Code Requirement
The applicant is requesting a variance 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
§ 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
4404 Sunset is a single‐family residential zoned parcel that was very recently established. It was
previously part of a larger parcel, 4400 Sunset Ridge, that was subdivided and replatted in 2019. The lot
itself is approximately 21,850 sq. ft. The lot is an irregular shape that fronts onto Sunset Ridge. The
property is located in a largely single‐family neighborhood, however just to the east of the property is
North Tyrol Park.
The applicant is looking to build a new single‐family home on the lot and due to site conditions has
identified the western portion of the property as having better conditions for construction.
2
Summary of Requests
The City’s Zoning Code bases its side setback requirements for single‐family properties on the size of
the lot, specifically its width. Larger lots have more significant side setbacks, preserving more open
space but still allowing significant area for the building envelope, while narrower lots with less
available land to build on have smaller setbacks to preserve buildable space. For a lot over 100’ in
width at the front setback line, such as 4404 Sunset Ridge, the City requires side setbacks of 15’.
The applicant is requesting that on the western side of the property, this 15’ minimum setback be
reduced to 10’ from the property line. This is due to a few different factors identified by the
applicant:
The property slopes downward from west to east, steeply in portions
o Locating the home on the higher and relatively flatter western portion would reduce
the need for significant grading work along the hill itself
o Moving the home to the west will also help to reduce the need for tree removals on
the eastern side of the property
o Due to the slope, locating the home closer to the east might require a significant
retaining wall to combat the steep grades and to meet building code requirements
The presence of wetlands in North Tyrol Park to the East
o As noted, locating the home on the higher ground should require less cut/fill
regrading work that could potentially impact the wetland
o Locating the home to the west could avoid potential impacts in the future if the
boundary of the wetland were to change or expand
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 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 a number of goals and objectives in support of such a
variance, most centrally the goal of, “Encourage Environmentally Sustainable Housing ‐ Encourage
housing development that maintains or enhances economic opportunity and community well‐being
while protecting and restoring the natural environment”
In order to constitute practical difficulties:
1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner.
Given the property is zoned for single‐family residential and was replatted to allow for
development, the applicant’s proposal to build a new home on the property is reasonable.
Additionally the request itself is not so drastic as to be unreasonable, and is instead
cognizant of the neighboring residential property, as well as nearby natural resources.
2. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that is not
caused by the landowner.
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 by minimizing grading work and potential erosion issues.
3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality
A 10’ side setback, while not allowed today, would not be too dissimilar than those of other
older homes along Sunset Ridge. The most significant impact would be on the neighboring
residential property, although the applicant notes that lot is at a higher elevation than the
proposed home, and therefore the new home should only have minor impacts on the
neighbor’s views towards the park areas.
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. Here staff sees no such option, as any reduction in the variance
requested would somewhat defeat the purpose of moving the home west to avoid slopes and
erosion issues.
4
Staff will also note they have consulted with the City’s Environmental Resources Supervisor on this
variance request, due to the wetlands presence. While they note that proper erosion control during
construction will still need to be practiced with this project to mitigate impacts on the parkland,
they are very supportive of having the home located more towards the western side of the lot. This
is both for the positive impact on the wetlands by increasing the buffer area between them and the
home, as well as for the fact that it will help preserve some of the existing trees on the eastern
portion of the property.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance request of 5 ft. off the required 10 ft. to a total distance
of 10 ft. at its closest point to the side yard property line.
S 31
°07
'07
"
E
112
.71S 03°09'05" E 35.01N 26°48'25" E 33.00N 03°38'52" W 37.08N 34
°35
'09
"
W
238
.35S 03°21'38" E 114.34N 88°20'06" W 31.00
20.0
32'6
"26'0"
14'0
"11'0"
30'0
"12'0"
14'0
"50'0"
8'6"
13'0
"2'0"1'6"
2'0"
2'0"1'6"D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
D e c
k
1'6"
can
t
.
2'
F
.P
.
P o r
c
h33.5222.62N
3
4
°
3
5
'
0
9
"
W
1
6
4
.
6
7N 54°27'06
" W 75.00
10.91
N 85°09'48" W
6
6
106
6
SUNSE
T
R
I
D
G
E
20.6
1'0"12'0"
16'0
"Prop
Wa
l
l
1.5%
10.0
35.5861.0
875.0
869.4
878.5
864.
5
L=89.76
R
=
1
7
0
.
3
9
=30°11'
0
4
"
PRO
P
O
S
E
D
RESI
D
E
N
C
E
walk
Drainage &
Utility Easement
2
5
'
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
B
u
f
f
e
r
O
r
d
i
n
a
r
y
H
i
g
h
W
a
t
e
r
a
s
s
h
o
w
n
o
n
p
l
a
t8588608628648668688708728748758568548
5
2
85
8860862864866868870872874875876876
87887
8
El
e
v
.
=
8
5
0
.
1
3
f
e
e
t
(
N
.
G
.
V
.
D
.
2
9
)
Porc
h
on
Post
s
F:\survey\north tyrol modern addition -henn co\2-1\01 Surveying - 89434\01 CAD\01 Source\01 Survey Base.dwg
Basis for
bearings is
assumed
Surveyors Certificate
000.0
x000.0
Denotes Wood Hub Set for excavation only
Denotes Existing Elevation
Denotes Proposed Elevation
Denotes Surface Drainage
Denotes Iron Monument
Denotes Found Iron Monument
Denotes Proposed Contours
Denotes Existing Contours
NOTE: Proposed grades are subject to results of soil tests.
Proposed building information must be checked with
approved building plan and development or grading
plan before excavation and construction.
Proposed grades shown on this survey are
interpolations of proposed contours from the
drainage, grading and/or development plans.
NOTE: The relationship between proposed floor
elevations to be verified by builder.
NOTE: The only easements shown are from plats of
record or information provided by client.
Drawn By
Signed
Gregory R. Prasch, Minn. Reg. No. 24992
Scale: 1" = 20'
F.B.No.
Project No.I certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under
the laws of the State of Minnesota
rev
Address:
Legal Description
7601 73rd Avenue North
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428
(763) 560-3093
DemarcInc.com
Proposed Top of Foundation
Proposed Garage Floor
Proposed Basement Floor
Type of Building
875.3
875.0
865.0
Fullbasement Walkout
89434A
****-**
Site Plan Survey For:
4404 Sunset Ridge
Golden Valley, MN
Prepared this 18th day of May 2021.
JARED KEVITT
Lot 2, Block 1, NORTH TYROL
MODERN ADDITION,
Hennepin County, Minnesota
Property located in Section
30, Township 29, Range 24,
Hennepin County, Minnesota
Property Zoned R-1, Single Family Residential
Building Setback Requirements
Front - 30 feet
Side - 15
Rear - 25 feet
Lot coverage 30%
Total Impervious Surface 50%
Maximum building height 28 feet
Refer to City Code for additional restrictions or allowances.
Proposed Hardcover
Lot Area 21,836 sq ft
Building 2,222 sq ft
Deck 192 sq ft
Porch 60 sq ft
Walkway 49 sq ft
Driveway 1,213 sq ft
Total 3,736 sq ft
Percentage 17.11%
P R E L I M I
N
A
R
Y