bza-minutes-sep-28-21
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, Sophia Ginis, Nancy Nelson, Richard Orenstein, Kade Arms‐
Regenold – Youth Member, Chuck Segelbaum ‐ Planning Commissioner
Members absent:
Staff present: Myles Campbell, Planner
Approval of Agenda
MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Nelson to approve the agenda of September 28, 2021, as
submitted.
Motion carried, 4‐0.
Approval of Minutes
MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Carlson to approve the June 22, 2021, meeting minutes.
Motion carried, 4‐0.
1. Address: 1618 Kelly Drive
Applicant: William Delaney
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)(3) Accessory Structure Area
Limitations
To allow over the 1,000 sq ft allowance for accessory structures.
Myles Campbell, Planner, reviewed the property and the applicants request for a variance to allow
for a detached garage in the front yard. The home is located on Kelly Drive but is setback significantly
from the roadway. Staff reviewed the landscaping and forested areas nearby, the location of the
proposed garage, and challenges if the garage were to be placed in another area on the lot.
September 28, 2021 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
September 28, 2021 – 7 pm
2
Practical Difficulties
1. Garage is of reasonable size compared to the lot and to store multiple pieces of recreational
equipment. The exterior would match the existing home, and this in combination with the
distance from the street would minimize impacts.
2. The home’s deep setback leaves less rear yard as usable for a detached accessory structure.
Existing trees, patio area, and concerns around negative grading create additional difficulties in
meeting the code’s requirements.
3. The garage would be partly visible from Kelly Drive but would be somewhat screened by trees
and would match the home. Staff does not anticipate significant visual impact on the
neighborhood.
Other Considerations
Staff assesses whether the variance represents the smallest feasible variance or if there are other
options available:
Reducing the footprint by 50 square feet would eliminate one variance
Expanding the existing tuck under garage would eliminate potentially both variances
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 50 square feet over the allowed
1,000 square feet to a total accessory structure area of 1,050 square feet.
Chair Orenstein opened the discussion for questions. Members discussed height requirements for
the top plate and roof, frost footings, and code language. Members asked about garage size and
discussed its use for storage of a boat and other items versus vehicles. Members asked about
neighbor comments and staff noted they hadn’t heard from the neighbor to the north but there
was another neighbor present to comment.
The Chair invited the applicant to present.
William Delaney, Applicant, asked about frost footings and if he could build on a slab, he also said
he was comfortable moving the garage closer to his home so it was 12ft away instead of 18. The
applicant stated that he wants the additional garage to look like part of the house from the road.
Members and the applicant discussed garage height, materials, grading, and impact on neighbors.
The Chair opened the public forum at 7:28pm.
Callie Klogerson
1550 Kelly Drive (south neighbor)
The neighbor commented on the garage location as it blocks sight lines and expressed concern for
items stored inside.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
September 28, 2021 – 7 pm
3
Staff presented a written comment from Susan & Abdul Cunningham, 1635 Kelly Drive; they
support the variance request.
There were no other comments.
The Chair closed the public forum at 7:32pm
Board members discussed the application, use, material conditions, location conditions, grading
considerations, and the current driveway.
A MOTION was made by Segelbaum and seconded by Carlson to follow staff recommendation and
approve the variance request to allow for an accessory structure in the front yard with the
condition it be no closer than 101.4 feet to the front property line and the applicant must use
materials to match the appearance and quality of the home.
Motion carried, 4‐0.
A MOTION was made by Orenstein and seconded by Segelbaum to follow staff recommendation
and approve the variance request to allow 50 square feet over the allowed 1,000 square feet to a
total accessory structure area of 1,050 square feet.
Motion carried, 4‐0.
2. Address: 7825 Medicine Lake Road
Applicant: Red Barn Dairy Queen, Inc. (Dan Lommen)
Requests:
§ 113‐92, Commercial Zoning District, Subd. (i)(1)(e) Separation Between Structures
To allow a reduced distance between the principal structure and an accessory structure.
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, discussed the request to locate a standalone walk‐in freezer
closer to a principal structure than is allowed by code. The freezer has already been installed behind
the building, this request is retroactive. Zimmerman reviewed the property lot and location, that it’s
mostly paved and the lot sits partially in a floodplain, the freezer is outside of this area however. The
freezer was installed in early 2021 and staff was notified of the freezer by the Hennepin County
Environmental Health Department. After staff evaluation, it was determined the location was in
violation of the zoning requirement that accessory structures be at least 10 feet from a principal
structure.
Practical Difficulties
1. The freezer provides additional storage of goods critical to the operation the restaurant.
Conforming locations would be immediately adjacent to the principal building or a minimum
of 10 feet away.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
September 28, 2021 – 7 pm
4
Shifting the freezer any further from the building would impede the drive aisle to the south
and a different variance would be required.
Hennepin County would have preferred to have the freezer installed as an addition, but after
further review is comfortable with the current situation. Staff believes the use as proposed is
reasonable.
2. The site is small, but not dissimilar from other commercial properties in the area. Placing the
freezer 10 feet from the building would create violations related to site circulation, but other
options exist such as attaching it to the structure or moving it to a location further from the
building. Staff does not believe there are unique circumstances that are the cause of the
problem, and that other actions by the landowner could have avoided the need for a
variance.
3. The freezer is located behind the building, is hidden from view of the street, and is painted to
match the principal structure. Staff believes the use 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:
The freezer could potentially have been attached to the principal structure, which would
have avoided issues related to circulation and parking while also satisfying Hennepin
County.
Alternatively, it could be moved further from the building in place of one or more parking
spaces. This would trigger a parking analysis would could also require the need for a parking
variance.
The Fire Department reviewed the request and indicated that given the small footprint of the
freezer, first responders would travel around the freezer rather than pass through the narrow space
between the two structures.
Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the variance request of 5.4 feet off the required 10 feet to a distance
of 4.6 feet for an accessory structure from a principal structure. (No unique circumstances.)
Chair Orenstein opened the discussion for questions. Members discussed the code requirements
for separation between structures, access for emergency personal, and parking in the lot.
The Chair invited the applicant to present.
Susan Degge, attorney representing Dairy Queen owners, discussed how Covid lead to an uptick in
business and created a need for a secondary freezer. The owners thought of this as equipment, not
a secondary structure, thus explaining the variance request being after the fact. The freezer has
already proven to keep up with demand while reducing delivery traffic to the area. The freezer was
added and created to blend in with the primary structure.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
September 28, 2021 – 7 pm
5
Moving the freezer further away from the building is not something the health department wants
to see and it currently meets all requirements from the health department. Moving the freezer
would also take up usable parking lots.
Members and the applicant discussed staff’s determination that there are no unique circumstances
to warrant the variance. They discussed building regulations, expectations for servicing demand,
staffing, health code requirements, and that there isn’t prep done in the freezer.
The Chair opened the public forum at 8:12pm
There were no comments nor was staff contacted in advance by anyone.
The Chair closed the public forum at 8:15pm
Board members discussed the application, how the freezer blends in with the primary structure,
the safety beams installed around it, and that the addition isn’t visible from the road. Ginis stated
that hearing from both Hennepin County and the City’s Fire Chief that there isn’t a concern, leads
her to support the request. She added that she doesn’t support an after the fact request however.
Orenstein and Carlson both stated they were originally in support of the denial but have decided to
support the request based on the considerations given in the presentation.
A MOTION was made by Nelson and seconded by Ginis to not follow staff recommendations and
instead approve the variance request to allow a reduced distance between the principal structure
and accessory structure.
Motion carried, 4‐0.
3.Adjournment
MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Carlson and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the
meeting at 8:26 pm.
Motion carries, 4‐0
________________________________
Richard Orenstein, Chair
_________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant