bza-minutes-oct-26-21
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, Nancy Nelson, Richard Orenstein, Kade Arms‐Regenold – Youth
Member, Sophia Ginis – Planning Commissioner, Lauren Pockl – 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 October 26, 2021, as
submitted.
Motion carried, 4‐0.
Approval of Minutes
MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Carlson to approve the September 28, 2021 meeting minutes.
Motion carried, 4‐0.
1. Address: 1537 Aquila Ave N
Applicant: Lynn Cooper
Requests:
§ 113‐88, Single‐Family Zoning District, Subd. (g)(2) Accessory Structure Area Limitations
To allow 100sq ft over the maximum of 1,000 sq ft allowed for accessory structure area.
§ 113‐88, Single‐Family Zoning District, Subd. (g)(3) Accessory Structure Height Restrictions
To allow 1 foot and 1.5 inches over the maximum of 10ft allowed for the height of a detached
accessory structure.
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, reviewed the property and the applicant’s request for a
variance to construct a second garage in her rear yard with the desired footprint and at the desired
height. Staff reviewed the location of the home, it’s location within the city and proximity to the
General Mills Research Nature Area. The current garage is detached, was built in 1972, and is 672 sq
October 26, 2021 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
October 27, 2021 – 7 pm
2
ft. The homeowner has two travel trailers and would like to replace a current temporary shed with a
second garage to store the trailers.
Zimmerman went on to discuss the city code requirements, the two requests made by the applicant,
and the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Practical Difficulties
1. Detached accessory space for storage of vehicles, equipment, and other items is a
reasonable use on a single‐family lot. The property is large enough that all required setbacks
could be observed should the second garage be constructed. Therefore, staff believes the
variance requests propose to use the property in a reasonable manner.
2. In this case, the need for variances is due to the two travel trailers owned by the applicant.
Rather than have them sit outdoors, she would prefer them to be enclosed; neighbors have
expressed support for this as well. However, the personal choices to own multiple trailers,
various bicycles, and other equipment, as well as store them on the lot in an enclosed
structure, cause the need for the additional square footage. The height of the longer travel
trailer necessitates the request for a structure that is taller that what code allows. These
circumstances are caused by the landowner and are not unique to the property.
3. While not entirely common, there are certainly examples of single‐family lots with more
than one garage or other accessory structure. In fact, a neighbor of the subject property has
two garages. Given the size of the lot and the relatively small additional area and height
being requested, staff believes the proposed 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:
One factor in determining the amount of additional square footage requested is the availability
of an easy and affordable “garage in a box” option from a local home improvement store. The
applicant indicated that the 400 square foot version was the smallest option available – a
custom built structure might be able to be tailored to remain under the maximum amount of
accessory space while still enclosing both trailers. It should be noted, however, that the height
of the larger trailer would still require a 10‐foot garage door and a variance from the maximum
height restrictions.
Recommendation
Based on the listed factors, staff recommends denial of the variance request for 100 square feet
over the maximum 1,000 square feet allowed for a total of 1,100 square feet of accessory structure
area, and recommends denial of the variance request for 1 foot 1.5 inches over the maximum of 10
feet allowed for the height of a detached accessory structure. (No unique circumstances.)
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
October 27, 2021 – 7 pm
3
The Chair invited the applicant to present.
Lynn Cooper, Applicant, stated she received a letter from the City stating her trailer could not be in
the rear yard unless it was covered and that was the catalyst for this process. In order to
accommodate this, the applicant put up a temporary structure and has neighbors complaining. To
clarify, the applicant stated that “pop up garage” isn’t a temporary structure but is a complete and
permeant structure that requires a building permit.
The Chair asked about a custom garage and the applicant listed the height and size requirements
she would need to meet her need to cover both trailers. The applicant reiterated that she needs a
10ft high garage door to fit her trailer in, thus the need for an 11ft and 1.5” high garage in order to
have a load bearing wall the appropriate size. The garage will match the existing and have a slab.
The Chair opened the public forum at 7:15pm.
There were no in person or online commenters.
Two neighbors wrote a letter to City staff stated they were not opposed to the variance. Staff
displayed this letter and two signatures.
The Chair closed the public forum at 7:17pm
Chair Orenstein opened the discussion for questions. Members asked about trailer location
regulations within the zoning code. Staff responded that a trailer may be in the front yard if it’s on
a driveway. A trailer may be in the side or rear yard as long as it’s 5 ft from the property line and
screened from view. This could be a shed but is often a 6ft fence or vegetation. Staff doesn’t seek
these violations out but if there is a complaint, staff will address it.
Board members discussed details of screening, height requirements, accessory structure footprint
requirements, and if the issue requiring a variance is caused by the property owner or not.
Members went on to discuss if all three requirements for approval were met, and if the applicant
researched all alternative options.
The applicant spoke up that her neighbor complained about her trailer being in the rear yard
without being screened. The applicant then placed the pop up shed to cover the trailer and the
same neighbor then complained about the glare off the shed. She added she’s trying to find a
reasonable solution that fits her need while also keeping her neighbor happy.
A MOTION was made by Orenstein and seconded by Carlson to follow staff recommendation and
deny the variance requests for 100 square feet over the maximum 1,000 square feet allowed for a
total of 1,100 square feet of accessory structure area.
Motion carried, 5‐0.
A MOTION was made by Orenstein and seconded by Nelson to follow staff recommendation and
deny the variance request for 1 foot 1.5 inches over the maximum of 10 feet allowed for the height
of a detached accessory structure.
Motion carried, 4‐1.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
October 27, 2021 – 7 pm
4
2. Address: 2933 Quail Ave N
Applicant: Matt Harambasic
Requests:
§ 113‐88, Single‐Family Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(a) Principal Structures – Front Setback
To allow 2.8 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 32.2 feet for a front yard setback.
§ 113‐88, Single‐Family Zoning District, Subd. (f)(1)(c)(1) Principal Structures – Side Setbacks
To allow 0.4 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 14.6 feet for a side yard setback.
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, discussed the requests would allow the homeowner to
rebuild an attached garage with the desired dimensions. Staff reviewed the location of the home, its
location within the city, and the unique layout of the lot and the garage in relation to the home and
lot. The homeowner would like to rebuild as the garage is structurally unsound and must be rebuilt
but the homeowner would like a slightly different footprint. The garage is currently non‐conforming
and while the garage would come in to compliance, a small portion would be 32.2 feet from the
property line.
Practical Difficulties
1. Rebuilding a structurally deficient attached garage is a reasonable use for a single‐family lot.
The applicant is proposing to push the new structure further from the front property line,
though it would still be a few feet within the front yard setback, improving the condition from
the street. Therefore, staff believes the variance requests propose to use the property in a
reasonable manner.
2. The applicant purchased a home with an existing nonconforming situation and, with the
reconstruction of the attached garage, would actually be improving the nonconformity by
locating the bulk of the new build outside of the front yard setback. As the main portion of the
home is not being rebuilt, staff finds the landowner is not causing the unique circumstances
that require the first variance.
With the expansion of the principal structure to the south, however, the applicant is choosing
to add interior space (though he intends to keep the garage width to a standard 24 foot two‐car
dimension). The addition of this space is what causes the southeast corner of the lot to extend
slightly into the side yard setback. While the intrusion into the side yard is very slight, it arises
because of the actions of the landowner and therefore staff believe the circumstances related
to the second variance are not unique but could be avoided.
3. Given the improvement to the nonconforming front yard setback, and the minor intrusion into
the side yard setback, staff believes the proposed use would not alter the essential character of
the area.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
October 27, 2021 – 7 pm
5
Other Considerations
Staff assesses whether the variance represents the smallest feasible variance or if there are other
options available:
The applicant could choose to reduce the amount of interior space being added in order to
keep the new garage out of the side yard setback. Alternatively, the width of the garage could
be reduced slightly. However, staff does acknowledge that keeping the garage at 24 feet of
width maintains a standard size for a two‐car garage and avoids construction waste, and that
the amount of the structure that extends into the side yard setback is very minimal.
Recommendation
Based on the factors above, staff recommends approval of the variance request for 2.8 feet off of
the 35 feet required to a distance of 32.2 feet for a front yard setback, and denial of the variance
request for 0.4 feet off of the 15 feet required to a distance of 14.6 feet for a side yard setback. (No
unique circumstances.)
Chair Orenstein opened the discussion for questions. Members discussed the code requirements
for setbacks and how side yard setbacks are determined. They reviewed standard sizes for a two‐
car garage and when a structure is rebuilt, that the expectation is it is brought into compliance or
requires a variance if it was previously legally non‐conforming.
The Chair invited the applicant to present.
Matt Harambasic, Applicant, stated that his goal for this property is to increase efficiency and
longevity. Applicant went on to discuss the details of the garage and variance. The garage is not
structurally sound, according to structural engineers, and cars cannot be parked in the garage at
this time. Member Ginis asked the applicant what’s happening in the interior of the project that
necessitates the 0.4 feet into the setback. The applicant responded that minimizing construction
waste is a main goal and this allows for equal 8ft increments, which in turn reduces material waste.
Ginis went on to ask the applicant why they were including some livable space in the remodel. The
applicant explained that the concrete wall, shared by the garage and home, is the issue as the
footings are not sound. The house can’t exist as is without the footings and that wall.
The Chair opened the public forum at 7:55pm
There were no comments nor was staff contacted in advance by anyone.
The Chair closed the public forum at 7:57pm
Members discussed the unique circumstances, use of the lot, and adding conditions to a possible
approval. They also discussed the length of a standard two‐car garage, rebuilding walls and
potentially demoing the home’s interior. The garage was originally detached and a separate builder
attached the garage to the house. Members pointed out that the homeowner is increasing the
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
October 27, 2021 – 7 pm
6
front yard setback but this increase, caused the need for the side yard setback variance request
due to the home being built at an angle on the property.
A MOTION was made by Orenstein and seconded by Nelson to follow staff recommendations and
approve the variance request for 2.8 feet off of the 35 feet required to a distance of 32.2 feet for a
front yard setback.
Motion carried, 5‐0.
A MOTION was made by Orenstein and seconded by Nelson to approve the variance request for
0.4 feet off of the 15 feet required to a distance of 14.6 feet for a side yard setback as shown on
the submitted plans with the application.
Motion carried, 5‐0.
3. Address: 6440 Wayzata Ave
Applicant: Spire Credit Union
Requests:
§ 113‐151, Off‐Street Parking and Loading, Subd. (b)(9)(a) External Landscaping
To allow 23 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 12 feet at its closest point to the property
line.
Myles Campbell, Planner, discussed the goal of the request is for a variance from the minimum
required external landscaping for off‐street parking. Staff gave a full background on the property,
previous uses, and that the lot is currently almost all impervious surface. He went on to review the
subdivision and CUP requests going before City Council later in the month.
Campbell compared the existing site with what is being proposed, reviewed the parking and
circulation proposals as well as Spire’s parking calculations.
Practical Difficulties
1. While above the minimum parking required, the applicant has provided data from other branch
locations to demonstrate the need for additional parking. The amount of landscaping proposed
is still a significant improvement over the existing conditions. The variance request is
reasonable.
2. The site is being completely redeveloped, offering full opportunity for site planning, and the
site’s subdivision is also contributing to the lack of space for surplus parking the applicant is
seeking. Staff does not believe these constitute unique circumstances in support of a variance.
3. The proposed development on the whole will increase the amount of greenspace on the site.
The proposed setback would still be more substantial than those provided at adjacent
properties and others in this area. As such, staff believes the proposed use would not alter the
essential character.
Other Considerations
Staff assesses whether the variance represents the smallest feasible variance or if there are other
options available:
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
October 27, 2021 – 7 pm
7
While data is provided based on other Spire locations, staff’s first preference would be to leave
this area unpaved initially to allow time to evaluate site‐specific operations. If the parking lot is
demonstrated to need additional parking, a variance could be revisited and have stronger
grounds for approval. If not needed to support operations, additional greenspace is preserved.
Recommendation
1.Staff recommends denial of the variance request of 23 feet off the required 35 feet to a
distance of 12 feet at its closest point to the property line for 7 parking spaces.
2.Staff would recommend approval for the 5 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 30 feet
for the drive aisle at its closest point to the property line.
The Chair invited the applicant to present.
Pat McCann, Applicant, introduced himself and went into explaining the parking lot entrances,
parking, and building entrances for members and staff. Members and the applicant discussed the
need for parking requested, limitations from the drive through, and setback compliance. Members
discussed alternatives for parking spaces and the applicant brought in HTG Architect, Josh Longo,
to discuss some of those details as reviewed with staff prior to the BZA meeting.
There were no public comments on this item.
A MOTION was made by Orenstein and seconded by Carlson to follow staff recommendations and
approve 5 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 30 feet for the drive aisle at its closest point
to the property line.
Motion carried, 5‐0.
A MOTION was made by Nelson and seconded by Orenstein to table the variance request of 23
feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 12 feet at its closest point to the property line for 7
parking spaces.
Motion carried, 5‐0.
4.Adjournment
MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Carlson and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the
meeting at 8:50 pm.
Motion carries, 5‐0
________________________________
Richard Orenstein, Chair
_________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant