bza-minutes-dec-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, 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 December 28, 2021, as
submitted.
Motion carried, 5‐0.
Approval of Minutes
MOTION made by Arms‐Regenold, seconded by Nelson to approve the November 23, 2021 meeting
minutes.
Motion carried, 5‐0.
1. 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
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, reminded the group this item was tabled from the previous
meeting.
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow for a second garage stall. This application differs from
the previous application as the applicant is proposing to shift about a foot and a half. While this will
still be a 2‐car garage, it will have one large garage door instead of two small ones. Staff reviewed
setback requirements and proposed street view.
December 28, 2021 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
December 28, 2021 – 7 pm
2
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
previous variance request could be reduced by shifting the second stall forward on the lot; that
is not possible with a single door design.
The site has ample rear yard space in which a detached garage could be added.
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 (south).
Chair Orenstein opened the discussion for questions.
Members and staff discussed the 1.5 foot difference from the prior request to this one. They
reviewed the possibility of moving the second stall forward and the proximity to the setback.
Chair Orenstein invited the applicant to speak.
Mike Smith; Owner
Jeff Ajack; Owner
Kyle Huberty; Architect
Applicant discussed the property and potential updates that can also maintain the character. The
applicant looked at moving the garage forward but it would require removing a few mature trees.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
December 28, 2021 – 7 pm
3
Adding a detached garage to the rear puts a 9‐ft driveway next to the setback and would require 3
large coniferous trees to be removed.
The applicant believes the lot is unique due to its placement on the lot and its relation to the road.
The applicant went on to discuss the curb view and the aesthetic of the neighborhood.
Chair Orenstein asked the applicant to address the fire code issues.
Applicant responded that the spacing between the homes is adequate and the fire code
requirements will be built into the second stall. Additionally, the encroachment won’t impact the
neighbor as that planned wall abuts the rear of their home and they use their side yard as a rear
yard.
The applicant went on to discuss alternatives they reviewed that either felt impactful to neighbors
or didn’t match the aesthetic of the home.
The Chair opened the public forum at 7:25pm
No in person commenters
No callers
The Chair closed the public forum at 7:27pm
Members discussed the home’s location on the property, discussed the alternative of a detached
garage and not needing a variance however it alters the character of the neighborhood more than
the variance request plans. The conversation went on to discuss the variance requirements and
process to ensure it’s attached to the plans submitted and only for the specified corner of the
home.
A MOTION was made by Nelson and seconded by Carlson to approve the request of 9.5 feet off the
required 12.5 feet to a total distance of 3 feet off the side property line, according to the plans
submitted on December 28, 2021.
Motion passed: 4‐1
Aye ‐ Carlson, Nelson, Orenstein, Ruby
Nay ‐ Arms‐Regenold
2. 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
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, reminded the group this item was tabled from the previous
meeting but this time the second request is no longer on the table and the remaining has been
adjusted.
Staff reviewed 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‐foot setbacks. The current garage
is a tuck under and the homeowner would like to convert the existing garage into home space and
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
December 28, 2021 – 7 pm
4
add a 3‐car garage that has access to the road opposite of the current driveway access. The previous
proposal was for a 32x32 detached garage and the applicant has amended that to 28x32.
Practical Difficulties
1. 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. 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 dropping to the east of the 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. 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.
Other Considerations
Staff assesses whether the variance represents the smallest feasible variance or if there are other
options available:
Reducing the garage width further (to 24 feet) would reduce the impact to the setback and
preserve additional open space.
The existing garage could be renovated and expanded in place to avoid a 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.
The Chair invited the applicant to present.
Scott Crooker, Applicant, stated the goal for the garage was to store his vehicle safely as well as for
storing a recreation vehicle instead of parking it on the driveway. He added that the plans will allow
for the shifting retaining wall and stairwell to be addressed.
Nelson asked the applicant to discuss the current garage size.
The applicant discussed the size of the original garage, the original height being lower than
standard now, and when new doors were installed, whomever installed them purchased too large
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
December 28, 2021 – 7 pm
5
of doors and cut the joists to accommodate. That lowers the ceiling even more and in order to raise
the ceiling, the floor of the home would have to be raised up. Members asked the applicant about
the size of the garage, a tandem garage, and expanding the tuck under garage to the side of the
home. Staff reviewed the exact location of the two front yard setbacks in addition to displaying the
type of variance needed if the applicant decreased the garage size even more.
The Chair opened the public forum at 7:52pm.
Darren Deberg
433 Westwood Dr.
The memo covers the concerns of many, additionally the neighborhood was designed to maintain
the natural topography. The homes were built to compliment the hills and the applicant’s proposal
resembles a ranch style home on a hill.
Cheryl Scott
437 Westwood Dr.
I like the applicant, I like that there’s a young person moving in, and I respect the Planning
department for what they’re doing. They’re recommending denial because that’s what the
neighborhood needs. They have the education and knowledge of the city and there are other
options for this property, it’s half an acre so there are alternatives.
Claire Deberg
433 Westwood Dr
I love the energy around the applicant’s recreation, I don’t think it’s an interesting enough reason
to build such a large garage. When the home was purchased, you knew the size of the garage stalls,
the neighborhood, and I’m glad you love the neighborhood.
Staff added there was a letter emailed to staff and staff shared it with members.
Jeff Dotterweich
336 Burntside Drive
This neighbor opposed the variance request. He didn’t think adding a large garage was necessary
and the applicant could work with the tuck under more.
Michelle, Applicant’s Mother
The applicant’s vehicle needs to have the mirrors folded in to fit in the current garage and the roof
is so close to the ceiling, there’s barely clearance. There isn’t just 19 feet to the road from the
proposed structure, there is an additional City Blvd and so there is 29ft of yard between the curb
and the proposed structure location. The garage is crumbling and falling apart.
There were no call‐in commenters.
The Chair closed the public forum at 8:00pm
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
December 28, 2021 – 7 pm
6
Arms‐Regenold asked staff where there is space to expand without a variance, and there is room
to add length to the existing garage but not width. Ruby asked the height of the current garage, the
applicant stated it’s under 7 feet. Carlson added the proposed garage size doesn’t fit the character
with the neighborhood plus the negative reaction from neighbors both cause him to pause. Nelson
added she too closes her mirrors when parking her car. The Chair added he understands the need
and want but struggles to see how this garage won’t impact the essential character of the
neighborhood. The applicant pointed out his immediate neighbor also has a detached garage. He
added that he didn’t realize there would be such negative response from others when his
immediate neighbors have supported his plans. Arms‐Regenold added that he thinks the best the
group can do is a standard 24ft garage, Nelson added that it would be nice if the applicant were
able to fix the tuck under but she would consider a 24x24. Nelson added that this level of input is
rare. Ruby stated the images look like a third garage stall could be added to the tuck under with a
creative solution.
The group discussed that they feel concerned approving anything larger than a 24‐foot garage and
encouraged the applicant to create a creative solution with their architect. The applicant agreed to
table.
A MOTION was made by Orenstein and seconded by Nelson to table the request until January
2022 meeting.
Motion carried, 5‐0.
3.Vice‐Chair Election
Nelson nominated Chris Carlson to be the Vice‐Chair, he accepted the nomination, and Chair
Orenstein seconded the motion.
Motion carried, 5‐0.
4.Adjournment
MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Arms‐Regenold and the motion carried unanimously to
adjourn the meeting at 8:20 pm.
Motion carries, 5‐0
________________________________
Richard Orenstein, Chair
_________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant