bza-agenda-dec-28-21
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 177 452 4723. Members of the
public wishing to address the BZA should contact staff liaison, Amie Kolesar – Planning Assistant,
at akolesar@goldenvalleymn.gov or at 763‐593‐3992.
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Agenda
3. Approval of Minutes
November 23, 2020, Regular Meeting
4. Address: 3017 Major Ave N
Applicant: Mike Smith
Request: 9.5 feet off the required 12.5 feet to a total distance of 3 feet off the side property line
§ 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(c)(2) Principal Structure Side
Setback
5. Address: 448 Westwood Dr N
Applicant: Scott Crooker
Requests: 15.4 feet off the required 35 feet to a total distance of 19.6 feet
§ 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(a) Principal Structure Front
Setback
6. Adjournment
December 28, 2021 – 7 pm
Hybrid Meeting
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
This meeting was conducted in a hybrid format with in‐person and remote options for attending,
participating, and commenting. The City used Webex to conduct this meeting and members of
the public were able to monitor the meeting and provide comment by calling in.
Call To Order
The meeting was called to order at 7 pm by Richard Orenstein.
Roll Call
Members present: Chris Carlson, Nancy Nelson, Richard Orenstein, Kade Arms‐Regenold, Mike
Ruby – Planning Commissioner
Members absent: None
Staff present: Myles Campbell, Planner; Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Approval of Agenda
MOTION made by Nelson, seconded by Orenstein to approve the agenda of November 23, 2021, as
submitted.
Motion carried, 5‐0.
Approval of Minutes
MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Arms‐Regenold to approve the October 26, 2021 meeting
minutes.
Motion carried, 5‐0.
1. Address: 1875 Kyle Place
Applicants: Allison Adrian and Spencer Gerberding
Request: 13 feet 9 inches off the required 15 feet to a distance of 1 foot 3 inches for a deck from the
side property line
§ 113‐88, Single‐Family Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(c)(1) Side Setback Requirements
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, reviewed the property and the applicant’s request for a
variance to bring a previously constructed deck into compliance. The lot is a single‐family lot and the
home was built in 1961. The deck was constructed in 2021 without City review or permits. The lot is
constrained by the Shoreland Overlay District and a sanitary sewer easement which protects 36”
MCES gravity line. Zimmerman went on to display the deck’s location in relation to the property line,
the shoreland setback, and easement.
Practical Difficulties
November 23, 2021 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
November 23, 2021 – 7 pm
2
1. Single‐family properties often utilize decks in order to be able to enjoy being outside for a large
portion of the year. Properties that sit adjacent to a lake are perhaps even more suited to have
spaces to enjoy the outdoors. The ability to have a deck overlooking Sweeney Lake appears to
be reasonable. However, the applicants already have a deck facing the lake and, with the
construction of the large new deck, have gone well beyond the constraints imposed by the side
yard setback that all other homes on Sweeney Lake must follow.
Enough space exists to the east of the home to construct a conforming deck should the
property owners feel the current deck is not large enough to meet their needs, though it may
not be as large as they would prefer. Therefore, staff believes the owners do not propose to use
the property in a reasonable manner.
2. The need for the variance is due to the construction – absent City review or permits – of a large
deck without consideration of the Shoreland Overlay District, the sanitary easement, or the side
yard setback. While staff does not believe this action was carried out with any ill intent, the fact
remains that the applicants’ problem (the need for the variance) is clearly due to circumstances
that were caused by the owners and not due to circumstances unique to the lot.
3. There are many eyes on the back yards of homes that abut Sweeney Lake, and a number of
concerned residents are aware of the lake’s classification as an impaired body of water.
Allowing large structures to be constructed that meet zoning requirements may be
unavoidable, but allowing those that do NOT meet requirements to remain only adds to the
number of impervious surfaces in the area and contributes to runoff into the lake. Given the
large size of the deck – even with the front portion removed to accommodate the Shoreland
Overlay District and the sanitary easement – staff believes the proposed use would alter the
essential character of the area.
Other Considerations
Staff assesses whether the variance represents the smallest feasible variance or if there are other
options available:
There remains enough room to the east of the existing home for a smaller deck to be
constructed while observing the 15‐foot setback. Alternatively, the space that the new deck
occupies could be replaced with a ground level patio (under 8 inches) and not be constrained by
the side yard setback (though a setback of 3 feet from the side property line would still need to
be observed).
Recommendation
Based on the factors above, staff recommends denial of the variance request for 13 feet 9 inches
off the required 15 feet to a distance of 1 foot 3 inches for a deck from a side property line.
Staff answered some question from the BZA members regarding the setback, patios, and deck
location options.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
November 23, 2021 – 7 pm
3
The Chair invited the applicant to present.
Allison Adrian and Spencer Gerberding, Applicants, spoke to the board and discussed their unique
lot and very unique home angles. They discussed the need for their deck’s size in order to
accommodate seating and foot traffic. The applicant stated the deck does not alter the character as
it’s built in line with the home and they are planning to plant trees in front of it. The home is also
built in to a hill and the deck was built in the hill to follow the aesthetic. Replacing the deck with a
patio creates a 15 ft drop in elevation from a conforming deck location.
The Chair opened the public forum at 7:30pm.
No in person comments.
Phone commenters:
Talia Jackson
Sent an email and added that the applicant explained the need for the deck. Jackson said she isn’t a
direct neighbor but the impact to neighbors and the neighborhood is positive.
No more callers.
The Chair closed the public forum at 7:32pm
Chair Orenstein opened the Member discussion.
Members and staff discussed how staff became aware of the deck and someone from the lakeside
called asking if it complied with the watershed and setbacks. The Chair stated he’s in agreement
with staff analysis. Carlson echoed the Chair’s comments and reiterated that the practical difficulty
was created by the applicant. Nelson added that the applicant had good points but they should
have come to staff and the Board before building the deck, not after. Arms‐Regenold added his
concern about the lake, and that someone from across the lake saw it and which leads him to
believe the deck is too large.
Staff added that if the applicant wanted to table the decision, return to the next meeting with a
new application for an edited variance with a thought out plan in place, the Board may consider a
smaller variance request. The applicant preferred that idea as opposed to ripping the whole deck
out.
A MOTION was made by Orenstein and seconded by Carlson to remove table this item to the
December meeting.
Motion carried, 5‐0.
2. Address: 3017 Major Ave N
Applicant: Mike Smith
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
November 23, 2021 – 7 pm
4
Request: 11 feet off the required 12.5 feet to a total distance of 1.5 feet off the side property line
§ 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(c)(2) Principal Structure Side
Setback
Myles Campbell, City Planner, began by displaying the lot’s location in the City and discussed how
the property and surrounding neighborhood are zoned. The applicant is requesting a variance to
allow for a second garage stall to be added. Applicant is seeking to build a 11’ wide second garage
stall, but due to the insufficient setback this would require a variance. Given the addition proposed is
within 2 feet of the property line, the City’s Building Official will require extra fire safety measures.
Practical Difficulties
1. Improvements to older single‐car garages are commonly heard at the Board of Zoning Appeals,
and given climate and modern trends in vehicle ownership, these are typically seen as
reasonable uses of the property. However, this addition would reduce the side setback to less
than 2 feet from the property line, significantly reducing the amount of space between
structures and also requiring additional measures for fire protection. Staff believes the proposal
as shown does not use the property in a reasonable manner.
2. The existing home’s location and reduced side setback are not the creation of the homeowner,
however no other unique circumstance is listed by the property owner. Topography is relatively
flat, there are no issues with storm water, and the addition would not avoid the need to
remove mature trees. Staff believes the site does not exhibit unique circumstances.
3. While an older neighborhood with some smaller setbacks than today’s standards, at less than
three feet this would be out of the ordinary for a principal structure. This impact would
primarily be on the adjacent property owner rather than impacting views from the Right of
Way. The lack of an ability to put eaves on at least one side of the home, due to fire safety
requirements would also detract from its character. Staff believes the proposed use would alter
the essential character of the area.
Other Considerations
Staff assesses whether the variance represents the smallest feasible variance or if there are other
options available:
Existing home location leaves few options to both add a second stall and avoid a variance. The
variance request could be reduced however by shifting the addition forward on the lot.
The site has ample rear yard space in which a detached garage could be added.
Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the variance request for 11 feet off the required 12.5 feet to a total
distance of 1.5 feet off the side property line (south)
Chair Orenstein opened the discussion for questions.
Members and staff discussed the neighbor’s fence in relation to the garage, changes to the
driveway, the potential for a rear yard detached garage,
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
November 23, 2021 – 7 pm
5
The Chair invited the applicant to present.
Applicant not present.
The Chair opened the public forum at 7:56pm
No in person commenters
No callers
The Chair closed the public forum at 7:57pm
Members discussed that while they believe in second stalls for a garage, there isn’t enough space
on the lot to place it where the applicant requested. Carlson stated that many houses in the area
have a similar lot and home style; approving this variance may set a precedent for the whole area.
They discussed the idea of a detached garage but it didn’t seem possible without destroying the
current garage.
A MOTION was made by Orenstein and seconded by Ruby to follow staff recommendation and
deny the request of 11 feet off the required 12.5 feet to a total distance of 1.5 feet off the side
property line.
Motion carried, 5‐0.
3. Address: 448 Westwood Dr N
Applicant: Scott Crooker
Requests: 19.4 feet off the required 35 feet to a total distance of 15.6 feet; 24 square feet over the
allowed 1,000 square feet for accessory structures
§ 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(a) Principal Structure Front
Setback
§ 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (g)(3) Accessory Structure Area
Limitations
Myles Campbell, Planner, discussed the plot and home in relation to its neighborhood in the City.
The home is a corner lot and according to zoning code, has two front yards and thus two 35’setbacks.
The current garage is a tuck under and the homeowner would like to convert the existing garage into
home space and add a 3‐car garage that has access to the road opposite of the current driveway
access.
Practical Difficulties
1. While garage improvements are commonly heard as matters of variance requests, and
being able to store vehicles indoors is reasonable given Minnesota winters, at 32’x32’ this is
a large garage to allow given the need for a variance. 32’ is wide enough for three vehicles
to be parked side by side, and a depth of 32’ is in excess of a typical minimum depth for
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
November 23, 2021 – 7 pm
6
garages, around 20‐24 feet. Staff believes the proposal as shown does not use the property
in a reasonable manner.
2. While having stricter setbacks for principal structures, being a corner lot has not typically
been considered a unique circumstance by the BZA, given that hundreds if not thousands
exist throughout the city. That said, a tree to the east of the existing garage and steep
slopes would likely impact the property owner’s ability to expand the footprint that
direction. Staff believes the property exhibits unique circumstances.
3. The applicant is working with an architect to ensure the addition matches with the rest of
the home, and notes the orientation of the garage to the side of the home matches that of
others in the nearby residential area. That said the reduction a street side setback would
put this addition closer to the street than is typical in the area. Staff believes the proposed
use would alter the essential character of the area.
Other Considerations
Staff assesses whether the variance represents the smallest feasible variance or if there are other
options available:
Reducing the garage width would reduce the setback encroachment and potentially eliminate
the area variance
A tandem style garage could reduce the setback variance
The existing garage could be renovated and expanded in place to avoid a variance
Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the variance request for 19.4 feet off the required 35 feet to a total
distance of 15.6 feet.
Staff recommends denial of the variance request of 24 square feet over the allowed 1,000 square
feet for accessory structures.
Members and staff discussed the house size, standard front yard setbacks, the ROW, and variances
in the setback.
The Chair invited the applicant to present.
Scott Crooker, Applicant, introduced himself and gave an overview of the property. He added
more details on the garage, the stalls are too narrow for a crv/suv vehicle. There is a metal beam
and a column between the two stalls and it’s no longer stable, the applicant suspects a previous
owner hit it with a car and then patched it together. Additionally, the retaining wall on the property
has fallen down a few times and the applicant is hoping the tuck under conversion plus a new
garage with eradicate those issues. Members and the applicant discussed alternative garage sizes
and staff reviewed regulations around multiple curb cuts on a R‐1 property.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
November 23, 2021 – 7 pm
7
The Chair opened the public forum at 8:24pm
There were no in person comments.
Campbell reviewed comments that were sent to staff. The first comment was included in the
packet and the second was received the morning of the meeting.
Jeff Dotterweich
336 Burntside Drive
This neighbor had concerns on the size, setback infringement, and asked if other areas
could be utilized for this request.
Sophia Angell
421 Burnside Dr
This neighbor stated their support of the variance request.
There were no call‐in commenters.
The Chair closed the public forum at 8:27pm
Nelson stated she would like to deny the accessory structure area limitations because the applicant
already stated he’s comfortable reducing the size. Members discussed the size of the garage to
avoid the area limitation, and again to discuss the setback variance.
Members asked the applicant to have his architect reconfigure the site plan so the area limitation
variance is avoided, and a new plan reduces the setback request.
A MOTION was made by Nelson and seconded by Arms‐Regenold to table the request.
Motion carried, 5‐0.
4. Address: 2445 Nevada Ave N
Applicant: TR Processing
Request: to allow mechanical equipment and a sidewalk to be located within the required 10‐foot
landscaped buffer zone in a side yard
§ 113‐95, Industrial Zoning District, Subd. (h)(b)(4) Side and Rear Setback Requirements
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, introduced this request and the goal to allow mechanical
equipment and a sidewalk to be located within the required 10‐foot landscaped buffer zone in a side
yard. This would done as part of a renovation of an existing industrial building for use as a hemp
processing facility. Zimmerman then displayed a map and discussed the property in relation to the
City and the areas around it. He then went on to discuss the background of the property, the
proposed future use, and a few specifics regarding its build. He displayed plans and photos to
illustrate the request.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
November 23, 2021 – 7 pm
8
Practical Difficulties
1. The need for new HVAC equipment is understandable given the nature of the new business
being proposed. Adapting older buildings for new uses often requires creative problem solving
to make the existing conditions work with new demands. Locating the equipment to the north
of the building is an understandable preference. Staff believes the owner proposes to use the
property in a reasonable manner.
2. The building in this location is nonconforming with respect to its setback along the north
property line. Instead of leaving 20 feet of distance, the north wall is only 15 feet 3 inches from
the property line. This is not the fault of the current property owner, and does limit the space
to the north within which equipment and other items can be located.
However, the applicant is choosing to use this location for the HVAC equipment when it could
be located on the roof, albeit at a greater cost. While there are solar panels installed on the
roof, they are centrally located and take up small fraction of the available space. If the
equipment were to be placed on the roof, there would be enough space remaining in the side
yard to install the sidewalk without needing a variance from the City. Therefore, staff believes
the applicant’s problem (the need for the variance) is caused by decisions being made by the
owner.
3. Similar to many other industrial areas, this part of the city has a character that is generally
defined by large buildings, significant impervious areas, and equipment installed and visible
from the street. The addition of the HVAC equipment being proposed – along the side of the
building and behind a fence – would not alter the essential character of the area.
Other Considerations
Staff assesses whether the variance represents the smallest feasible variance or if there are other
options available:
Enough room is available on the roof to install the HVAC equipment, thereby making room for
the required sidewalk outside of the landscaped buffer zone and eliminating the need for any
variances.
Recommendation
Based on the factors above, staff recommends denial of the variance request to allow mechanical
equipment and a sidewalk to be located within the required 10‐foot landscaped buffer zone in a
side yard.
Board Members and staff discussed specifics about the request and members inquired about other
regulations that may be triggered by either granting the variance or granting alternatives.
The Chair invited the applicant to present.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
November 23, 2021 – 7 pm
9
Jared Tate, Plant Manager ‐ Applicant, handed out some items to the site plan that were turned in
after the packet went out.
Jay Strawman, CEO TR Processing – Applicant, stated that he’s a resident of Golden Valley and
owns Process Displays which owns 7125 Sandberg Road. Applicant added that the way the roof is
built, it cannot support the weight of the mechanicals required to process their product at a
pharma grade level. Additionally, removing the solar panels to place the mechanicals there will not
only increase their carbon footprint by eliminating the panels, but in turn‐the mechanicals will need
to be larger and thus require more energy.
Applicant added that if there were erosion concerns, landscaping could be done as prevention.
Answering member questions, the applicant stated they have been in the building for a year and at
the time were producing food grade products and as they progressed with clinicals, they were
informed they need to be pharma grade. In order to achieve that grade status, they are required to
install the extra mechanicals to enhance air flow in the facility. Members and applicants discussed
the exact location of the mechanicals, the fence screening the mechanicals, and the sidewalk.
The Chair opened the public forum at 9:00pm
No in person comments.
No call‐in comments.
The Chair closed the public forum at 9:02pm
Members stated they don’t feel the essential character of the site will be compromised. Staff
initially recommended denial based on the possibility of the mechanicals being placed on the roof
but after the applicant presentation, that may not be a possible alternative. Chair Orenstein stated
he was inclined to approve the variance, Nelson and Carlson echoed this. Ruby asked about
stormwater runoff alternatives with the mechanicals. The applicant stated they will work it out
with City staff as needed to meet regulation.
A MOTION was made by Orenstein and seconded by Carlson to not follow staff recommendations
and instead approve the variance, as requested.
Motion carried, 5‐0.
5. Adjournment
MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Arms‐Regenold and the motion carried unanimously to
adjourn the meeting at 9:07 pm.
Motion carries, 5‐0
________________________________
Richard Orenstein, Chair
_________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant
Date: December 28, 2021
To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
From: Myles Campbell, Planner
Subject: 448 Westwood Drive N
Scott Crooker, Applicant
Introduction
Scott Crooker, the property owner, is seeking a variance from the City Code to build an attached
garage. The applicant is seeking the following variances from City Code:
Variance Request City Code Requirement
The applicant is requesting
a variance of 15.4 feet off
the required 35 feet to a
total distance of 19.6 feet
§ 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd.
(f)(1)(a) Principal Structure Front Setback
The required minimum front setback shall be 35 feet from any
front lot line along a street right‐of‐way line.
Background
448 Westwood Drive is a single‐family home located in
the eastern part of the City. The surrounding area is
largely zoned single‐family residential, with Highway 55
just a couple blocks north of the property.
The home on‐site was built in 1948 as part of the
Glendale Addition. The lot is 20,043 square and is a
corner lot, facing both Westwood and Burntside Drives,
with the current garage facing Burntside. The variance
request has been revised following discussion at last
month’s Planning Commission meeting, with the
applicant having reduced the width of the structure and
providing new details such as an architectural elevation
to demonstrate the proposed design of the new garage.
2
Summary of Requests
The City’s Zoning Code established a number of standards regarding accessory structures, though
these are somewhat simplified for structures attached to the principal home. For purposes of code,
any accessory structure attached to the home is required to meet the same setback requirements,
for a front yard setback, § 113‐88, (f)(1)(a), this requires 35 feet off the front property line to the
closest point of the home. In the case of 448 Westwood Drive, as a corner lot this 35 foot setback
applies on both the west and south sides of the property.
The applicant is seeking a variance from this section of code in order to build a new attached garage
on the south side of their home. The original request was for a garage 32 feet wide, bringing the
front setback to Burntside down to 15.6 feet from the property line. The plans were revised
following the BZA tabling the item and asking for the width to be reduced. The new garage width
would be 28 feet, placing the closest point of it 19.6 feet from the property line. Also accounting for
the City’s Right‐of‐Way, the new garage would 29.6 feet off the curb, compared to a typical 45 feet.
The applicant notes this new garage would be replacing the existing tuck under garage that has
access off of Burntside, which would need to be renovated in order to be used due to structural
issues.
Figure 2: Revised
The new garage would be located south of the existing home, and a new driveway would be
provided from Westwood Drive. One item to note here, if approved, the existing driveway would
need to be removed, due to the existing tuck under no longer being considered a garage space. This
is a requirement of code in§ 113‐88, Subd. (n)(4). The new garage would be the same depth as the
original request making it 28 x 32 feet. The applicant notes they are working with an architect to
match the new addition to the home itself, and elevations are included in the agenda packet for
review.
Figure 1: Original
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, as it does
not impact or change the principal use of the lot as a single‐family residence, nor does it allow for
additional density of population. 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.” Improvements to sites with older garages have
been a common home improvement in recent years as patterns of vehicle ownership have changed
since the mid‐20th century.
In order to constitute practical difficulties:
1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner.
Garage improvements are commonly heard as matters of variance requests, and being able
to store vehicles indoors is reasonable given Minnesota winters. However, despite reducing
the garage width, this request is still for an oversized two‐car garage rather than a more
minimal footprint. Given that the home’s location already means most of this addition would
fall within the required setback, staff believes the proposal as shown does not use the
property in a reasonable manner.
2. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that is not
caused by the landowner.
While having stricter setbacks for principal structures, being a corner lot has not typically
been considered a unique circumstance by the BZA, given that hundreds if not thousands
exist throughout the city. That said, the site grading drops to the east of the existing garage
would likely impact the property owner’s ability to expand the footprint that direction. Staff
believes the property exhibits unique circumstances.
3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality
The applicant is working with an architect to ensure the addition matches with the rest of
the home, and notes the orientation of the garage to the side of the home matches that of
others in the nearby residential area. That said, the reduction a street side setback would put
this addition closer to the street than is typical in the area. With the additional 10 feet of
right‐of‐way between the property line and the curb, the new addition would be ~ 29.6 feet
off the curb. This would be especially be true given the visibility of the addition on a corner
lot. Staff believes the proposed use would alter the essential character of the 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
4
meet the applicant’s needs. 28 x 32 feet is still a large garage, and staff would push for the overall
width to be reduced further to 24 feet, preserving some additional open space while still being an
average width two‐car garage. The required variance would be reduced, although a variance would
still likely be necessary, even for a garage closer to 24 feet in width. The applicant noted at the last
meeting that a tandem‐style, adding additional depth would inhibit light in the room behind the
garage on the main floor. Staff would still advocate that the existing tuck‐under could be renovated,
and could be extended out towards Burntside without a variance to have additional storage space.
Staff will note that other City departments had no comments on the proposed variance.
Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the variance request for 15.4 feet off the required 35 feet to a total
distance of 19.6 feet.
Date: December 28, 2021
To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
From: Myles Campbell, Planner
Subject: 3017 Major Ave N
Mike Smith, Applicant
Introduction
Mike Smith, the property owner, is seeking a variance from the City Code to expand the garage on
the property. The applicant is seeking the following variances from City Code:
Variance Request City Code Requirement
The applicant is requesting
a variance of 9.5 feet off
the required 12.5 feet to a
total distance of 3 feet off
the side property line
§ 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd.
(f)(1)(c)(2) Principal Structure Side Setback
In the case of lots having a width greater than 65 feet and less
than 100 feet, the side setbacks for any portion of a structure 15
feet or less in height shall be 12.5 feet.
2
Background
3017 Major Ave N is a single‐family home located in the northern part of the City. The surrounding area
is also largely zoned single‐family residential. The home on‐site was built in 1952 as part of the Noble‐
Grove Addition. The lot is 13,340 square feet and 82 feet in width. The current garage faces onto Major
Ave N and is attached to the south side of the home. The applicant hopes to expand the existing garage,
which is only a single stall, to allow for two‐cars to be parked indoors. The applicant originally applied for
a similar variance that appeared on the November 2021 BZA agenda. The applicant had not been able to
attend that meeting and the request was denied. Following the meeting the applicant made revisions to
their plans and submitted a new variance request+.
Summary of Request
The City’s Zoning Code establishes a side setback of 12.5 feet for those lots that are between 65‐100
feet in width, as measured at the lot’s front setback. This is to provide adequate open space
between homes and prevent crowding of structures. The city also restricts the height of a building at
this setback, establishing a building envelope in which a principal structure can be located. This
secondary consideration of the building envelope would not apply in this case, given that the home
and addition are only a single story and would not exceed the allowed height.
The original variance request heard by the BZA last month was for a reduction of 11 feet off the
required 12.5 feet, putting the garage at its closest point 1.5 feet off the side property line. The
addition would’ve been 11 feet in width itself, making the combined garage width just over 23.5
feet in width.
The applicant was able to revise plans to reduce the setback encroachment. By changing the design
to a single overhead garage door (as opposed a door for each stall), the overall garage width was
reduced to 22 feet, with the addition being 9.5 feet. The new garage would be at its closest point 3
feet from the side property line, with eaves extending slightly closer than that.
Figure 1: Original Figure 2: Revised
3
The City’s Building Official notes that because this structure would be located within 5 feet of the
property line, additional measures would need to be taken during construction in order for the
structure to not present a fire safety hazard. Minnesota Building Code requirements would require
both the interior and exterior walls of the addition (on the south and west sides) would need to be
constructed with a minimum of 1‐hour fire resistance rating. Unlike in the original plans, the eaves
are spaced sufficiently off the property line, such that they could be maintained around the entire
garage. However, like the walls themselves, the eaves would need to be similarly treated for fire
resistance.
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, nor does it allow for
additional density of population. 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.” Improvements to sites with older garages have
been a common home improvement in recent years as patterns of vehicle ownership have changed
since the mid‐20th century.
In order to constitute practical difficulties:
1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner.
Improvements to older single‐car garages are commonly heard at the Board of Zoning
Appeals, and given climate and modern trends in vehicle ownership, these are typically seen
as reasonable uses of the property. However, this addition would reduce the side setback to
3 feet from the property line, significantly reducing the amount of space between structures
and also requiring additional measures for fire protection. Staff believes the proposal as
shown does not use the property in a reasonable manner.
2. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that is not
caused by the landowner.
The existing home’s location and reduced side setback are not the creation of the
homeowner, however no other unique circumstance is listed by the property owner.
Topography is relatively flat, there are no issues with storm water, and the addition would
not avoid the need to remove mature trees. Staff believes the site does not exhibit unique
circumstances.
3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality
4
While an older neighborhood with some smaller setbacks than today’s standards, a three
foot setback would still be noticeably smaller than can be found in the rest of the
neighborhood. This impact would primarily be on the adjacent property owner rather than
impacting views from the Right of Way. Staff believes the proposed use would alter the
essential character of the 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. At 22 feet in width, there is little to no potential to reduce the width
further. Staff had originally suggested shifting the addition forward which, due to the angle of the
home on the lot, this would create greater separation, however this is not possible with the single
door design. Additionally, the lot has ample rear yard space that is not inhibited by steep slopes or
floodplain. The applicant could therefore pursue a detached garage similar to many other lots in the
neighborhood.
Staff will note that other City departments were consulted on this variance. The concerns of the
Building Official regarding the structure’s fire safety requirements under the building code have
been noted.
Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the variance request for 9.5 feet off the required 12.5 feet to a total
distance of 3 feet off the side property line.
9 H QW +RRG
5DQ JH
83*$5$*($'',7,21$'-$&(173523(57<3523(57</,1(6,'(<$5'6(7%$&.9$5,$1&(5(48(67(')25$'',7,212)6(&21'*$5$*(67$//0 $-2 5 $9 (%$&.<$5'$'',7,21(;,67,1*+286(*$5$*($'',7,21
(9(29(5+$1*
',67$1&()5203523(57</,1(
+5),5(5$7(':$//$
$
(;,67,1**$5$*(*$5$*(67$//$'',7,21
6FDOH3URMHFWQXPEHU'DWH'UDZQE\&KHFNHGE\5RHKU6FKPLWW$UFKLWHFWXUH//& 7\OHU6WUHHW1(6XLWH0LQQHDSROLV01 S H LQIR#URHKUVFKPLWWFRP5RHKU6FKPLWW$UFKLWHFWXUH//&&127)25&216758&7,21 30$VLQGLFDWHG$5(9,6('*DUDJH9DULDQFH3ODQV0$-25$9($'',7,21$1'5(02'(/0$-25$9(1*2/'(19$//(<011R 'HVFULSWLRQ 'DWH$3HUVSHFWLYH9LHZ*DUDJH
$*$5$*( ($67(/(9$7,21
$6,7(3/$1*$5$*($'',7,21
$/(9(/ 1(:*$5$*(3/$1
$*$5$*( 6287+(/(9$7,21$1(:675((79,(:*$5$*(*(1(5$/127(6 :$//)5$0,1*72%(;:22'678'6$7
2&522))5$0,1*72%(7-,#
2&12,168/$7,21$7*$5$*(*$5$*(,17(5,25:$//6$1'&(,/,1*72%(81),1,+6('3529,'(+285),5(5$7,1*21(;7(5,25:$//1($53523(57</,1($(;,67,1*675((79,(:675((79,(:5(1'(5,1*
UPUP25' - 0"HOUSEPROPERTY LINESIDEWARD SETBACK OPTION #25' - 0"Significant Backyard Grade SlopeMATURE TREEMATURE TREEMATURE TREEVIEW FROM NEIGHBORS YARD25' - 0"HOUSEPROPERTY LINEACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACK 5' - 0"5' - 0"OPTION 13' - 0"MATURE TREEMATURE TREEMATURE TREEMATURE TREEPRIMARY STRUCTURE SETBACK12' - 4"12' - 4"10' - 0"Significant Backyard Grade SlopeScaleProject numberDateDrawn byChecked byRoehrSchmitt Architecture, LLC1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 275Minneapolis, MN 55413(p) 612.216.4191(e) info@roehrschmitt.com2020 RoehrSchmitt Architecture, LLCCNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION11/30/2021 4:56:53 PM1/16" = 1'-0"A05VARIANCECOSTBENEFITCOMPARATIVEANALYSISMAJOR AVEADDITIONANDREMODELAuthorChecker3017 MAJOR AVE N.GOLDEN VALLEY MN55422COST: UNDESIRABLE AND EXPENSIVE DRIVEWAY REPLACES EXISTING GREEN PRIVACY HEDGE BETWEEN PROPERTIESCOST: GARAGE BECOMES COST PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE: DUE TO ADDITIONAL SITE WORK, RELATED TO SLOPE AND EXCAVATION, ADDITIONAL PAVED DRIVEWAY, ELECTRICAL, TREE REMOVAL ETC.1/16" = 1'-0"A053Garage Option #2No. Description Date1/16" = 1'-0"A05Garage Option #14BENEFIT: BUILDING GARAGE AS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WOULD REQUIRE REMOVAL OR RICK DESTRUCTION OF MATURE TREES AND DISRUPT THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF SITE AND NEIGHBORHOODCOST: LOCATION OF GARAGE IN BACKYARD NEGATIVELY IMPACTS THE VIEW AND FORESTED QUALITY OF NEIGHBORS BACKYARD AND CHARACTER OF NEIGHBORHOOD PROVIDED BY MATURE TREESBENEFIT: PHYSICAL PRESENCE OF BUILDING ATTACHED GARAGE HAS LESS OF PHYSICAL IMPACT ON SITE AND NEIGHBORS AND IS DESIGNED TO REFLECT THE CHARACTER AND QUALITY OF EXISTING HOUSEUNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE: IRREGULAR ANGLED HOUSE ORIENTATION ON LOT COMBINED WITH SLOPING BACKYARD LIMITS REASONABLE GARAGE OPTIONS BENEFIT: SITE WORK REQUIRED FOR GRADING SLOPE, TREE REMOVAL, DEMO AND CONSTRUCTION, MAKES BUILDING AN ACCESSORY GARAGE COST PROHIBITIVE. ATTACHED STRUCTURE IS AFFORDABLE OPTIONBENEFIT: SMALLER FOOTPRINT ATTACHED GARAGE MINIMIZES DRIVEWAY AND HARDSCAPING WITHOUT ENCROACHING ON NEIGHBORS USEABLE YARD AND OR VIEWSCOST: MATURE TREES WOULD BE DAMAGED OR REMOVED IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE DRIVE AND GARAGE FOOTPRINTOPTION #1: VARIANCE REQUIRED. MINIMIZES SITE DISTURBANCE, PRIORITIZES GREEN SPACE WHILE PERSEVERING CHARACTER AND QUALITY OF NEIGHBORHOODOPTION #2: VARIANCE NOT REQUIRED. DISRUPTS SITE IN FAVOR OF DRIVEWAYS, DESTROYS TREES, IMPACTS ADJACENT PROPERTIES VIEWS AND ESCALATES CONSTRUCTION COSTS COSTS AND BENEFITSCOST: NECESSARY GRADING TO BACKYARD SLOPE WOULD INFLATE CONSTRUCTIONS COSTS AND IMPACT THE SITE DRAINAGEBENEFIT : DETACHED ACCESSORY GARAGE CAN BE BUILT WITHIN 5FT OF PROPERTY LINEBENEFIT: NO VARIANCE REQUIREDCOST: HOMEOWNER WOULD LOSE VALUABLE BACKYARD SPACECOST: VARIANCE REQUIRED AS HOUSE FOOTPRINT ENCROACHES ON SETBACK: CAN BE ADDRESSED THROUGH VARIANCE APPROVAL AND PROVIDING ONE HOUR FIRE RATING WALLCOSTS AND BENEFITS