bza-agenda-aug-24-21
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Board of Zoning Appeals meetings are being conducted in a hybrid format with in‐person and
remote options for attending, participating, and commenting. The public can make statements in
person at this meeting during the public comment sections.
Remote Attendance/Comment Options: Members of the public may attend this meeting by via
Webex, or by calling 1‐415‐655‐0001 and entering access code 1779 61 8735. Members of the
public wishing to address the BZA should contact staff liaison, Myles Campbell ‐ Planner, at
mcampbell@goldenvalleymn.gov or at 763‐593‐3979.
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Agenda
3. Approval of Minutes
May 25, 2020, Regular Meeting
4. Address: 6454 Western
Applicant: Dustin Pederson, Applicant
Requests:
§113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (g)(1)(a) Accessory Structure Location
To allow for an accessory structure in the front yard of home.
§ 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (g)(1)(b) Accessory Structure Front
Setback
13 feet off the required 35 feet to 22 feet at its closest point to the front yard property line
5. Adjournment
August 24, 2021 – 7 pm
Hybrid Meeting
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, Rich Baker–
Planning Commissioner
Staff present: Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman and Planner Myles Campbell
Approval of Agenda
MOTION made by Carlson, seconded by Nelson to approve the agenda of June 22, 2021, as submitted.
Staff took a roll call vote and the motion carried.
Approval of Minutes
MOTION made by Ginis, seconded by Orenstein to approve the May 25, 2021, meeting minutes.
Staff took a roll call vote and the motion carried with Baker abstaining.
1. 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
summarized that this item was presented at the previous BZA meeting but was tabled.
This lot was a vacant lot subdivided in 2019, the applicant wishes to build a new home. According to
City Code requirements, lots that are greater than 100ft in width, the side setbacks for any portion of
a structure 15 feet or less in height shall be 15 feet.
The applicant is requesting a reduction in that setback, their lot is steeply sloped, moving the house
to the west creates a wider buffer from the existing wetland to the east and it preserves existing
trees on the eastern side of the property. Campbell displayed a number of images, an elevation
survey, and comments from the Environmental Resources Staff that support the variance.
June 22, 2021 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
June 22, 2021 – 7 pm
2
Practical Difficulties
1. The proposed home is in‐scale with others in the surrounding neighborhood and its non‐
conforming location is cognizant of both the neighboring residential property, as well as nearby
natural resources. 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.
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.
Applicant has let staff know they could also work with a lesser variance for a 12.5’ setback
instead of 10’
o This again would either require the home to move closer to the wetland
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.
o Staff recommends this approval be conditioned on the footprint of the principal
structure remaining 20’ off the side (east) property line, as shown in the site plan.
Chair Orenstein opened the discussion for comments. Members discussed the previous meeting,
new details, and specifics about the wetland next to the home.
The Chair invited the applicant to present.
Jared Kevitt, applicant, thanked staff for the summary and added that if the 10‐foot setback was
unreasonable, he could work with a 12.5’ setback. He added that due to the lot shape, the front
width is the widest point and the lot width in the middle decreases. Applicant added he’d prefer
the full 5‐foot request.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
June 22, 2021 – 7 pm
3
Ginis asked the applicant about reducing the roofline to match the setback and if it alters the
layout. Applicant stated that these alterations do not significantly impact the architecture plans.
The Chair opened the open forum 7:24pm.
The neighbors, Aaron and Connie Lahn, sent an emailed comment to staff; Campbell read the email
to the Board Members for the record.
There were no other public comments on this item.
The Chair closed the open forum at 7:27pm
Board members discussed the application, Ginis expressed gratitude to staff and the applicant for
addressing questions and concerns presented to them at the prior meeting. Ginis added that
having the neighbor’s support for the variance and the public benefit of staying away from the
wetlands leads to her support for the variance as requested. Nelson thanked the applicant for
pointing out the unique shape of the lot and how that alters the width through the lot. Carlson
echoed both previous comments and expressed support for the 10‐ft setback. Planning
Commissioner Baker thanked the applicant for a thought‐out presentation, he thanked staff for
pointing to the roofline outside of the building envelope, and added his concern was the impact to
the neighbor. The neighbor’s email alleviated Baker’s concern.
A MOTION was made by Nelson and seconded by Baker to approve staff recommendation with the
condition as stated.
Staff took a roll call vote and the motion carried.
2. Annual Board Member Orientation‐Officer Elections
Staff reviewed current roles and responsibilities and said each member may remain in the Chair
and Vice‐Chair role for two consecutive roles. Nelson proposed the current structure remain.
Richard Orenstein remains as Chair of the BZA and Sophia Ginis remains as Vice‐Chair.
3. Adjournment
MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Carlson and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the
meeting at 8:40 pm.
Staff called a roll call vote and the motion passed unanimously.
________________________________
Richard Orenstein, Chair
_________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant
Date: August 24, 2021
To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
From: Myles Campbell, Planner
Subject: 6454 Western Ave
Dustin Pederson, Applicant
Introduction
Dustin Pederson, the property owner, is seeking a variance from the City Code to build a detached
accessory structure. The applicant is seeking the following variances from City Code:
Variance Request City Code Requirement
The applicant is requesting
a variance to allow for an
accessory structure in the
front yard of their home.
§ 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd.
(g)(1)(a) Accessory Structure Location
A detached accessory structure shall be located completely to the
rear of the principal structure, unless it is built with frost footings.
In that case, an accessory structure may be built no closer to the
front setback than the principal structure.
The applicant is requesting
a variance of 13 feet off
the required 35 feet to 22
feet at its closest point to
the front yard property line
§ 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd.
(g)(1)(b) Accessory Structure Front Setback
Accessory structures shall be located no less than 35 feet from the
front lot line.
2
Background
6454 Western Avenue is a single‐family residential zoned parcel.
The home was built in 1968 as the sole lot in the Golden Manor
addition. The lot itself is approximately 25,097 sq. ft. The lot is an
irregular shape, having only three sides. It fronts onto both
Western and Glenwood Avenues resulting in much of the lawn
space being considered front yard. The property is located in a
largely single‐family neighborhood. The lot is heavily wooded along
Glenwood Avenue, providing some screening for the yard area
from the right‐of‐way.
Summary of Requests
The City’s Zoning Code established a number of standards
regarding detached accessory structures. These are in place to
ensure that these structures do not end up detracting from the
local neighborhood aesthetic and character, and to provide
safe distances between structures. In the zoning code, Sec. 113‐88, Subsec. (g)(1) sets the location
and setback requirements for all accessory structures in the R‐1 Single Family Zoning District. This
request would require variances from items (a) and (b) under this subsection.
§ 113‐88, Subd. (g)(1)(a) states that all detached accessory
structures should be located fully to the rear of a principal
structure, although it allows structures to be located in
the side yard when they use frost footings. Use of frost
footings here ensures that the structure will not become
damaged or dilapidated to frost heaves. Due to the
atypical nature of the lot, there is realistically very little
area that can be considered side or rear yard, limiting the
capacity to locate a detached accessory structure, frost
footings or otherwise. The diagram to the left shows the
applicable side and rear yard area in blue, the remainder
of the parcel’s open space is considered part of the front
yard due to facing Glenwood and Western Aves
respectively.
The area directly to the west of the home is likely not viable to locate a 16’x10’ shed as proposed by
the applicant, due to the need to have 10’ of separation between structures and still maintain the
minimum setback off the property line. To the north of the home is an existing deck and patio, one
or both of these would likely need to be removed or relocated in order to allow the new detached
structure.
The second variance requested is from § 113‐88, Subd. (g)(1)(b), the City code typically requires that
all detached accessory structures be a minimum of 35 feet from the front property line. In order to
pursue the proposed location for the shed, either a variance from the front setback requirement, or
3
the 10 feet of separation requirement would be necessary, due to the distance between the existing
deck and front property line. It’s possible shifting the structure further south on the lot may allow
greater separation from the property line along Glenwood Ave, however this would likely increase
its visibility from Western Ave as a result.
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, as it does
not impact or change the principal use of the lot as a single‐family residence, and due to the
expected minimal impact on neighboring properties. Staff also finds the request reasonable in light
of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which has as one of its goals to, “Support the rehabilitation and
reinvestment of the housing stock as structures continue to age.”
In order to constitute practical difficulties:
1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner.
The shed is of a reasonable size considering the existing accessory structures on the
property, and its location will be largely screened from view of public right‐of‐way due to
existing vegetation along Glenwood and Western Aves. Staff feels the request is reasonable.
2. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that is not
caused by the landowner.
Being a corner lot is typically not sufficient in and of itself to be considered a unique
circumstance given that hundreds of parcels in the city share this characteristic. However,
this lot is unique in that it has only three‐sides and a very small proportion of the open space
being considered side or rear yard. The lot’s shape and location of the home on it is not the
result of the current landowners.
3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality
Due to vegetation along Glenwood and Western, the shed should not be visible from any
public right‐of‐way, and as such it should have little to no impact on the essential 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. The applicant could attempt to pursue a location to the side/rear of the
home, however this would likely require the removal of the existing patio area. Additionally, a
potentially lesser front setback variance could be achieved by moving the shed slightly to the south.
However, this would likely increase its visibility from Western Ave.
4
Staff will note that other City departments had no comments on the proposed variance.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow for an accessory structure in the front
yard of their home.
Staff recommends approval of the variance request of 13 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a total
distance of 22 ft. at its closest point to the front yard property line.