BZA_Meeting Minutes - 11-26-2024
MEETING MINUTES
1. Call to Order and Land Acknowledgement
• Chair Nelson called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. & read the Land Acknowledgement.
a. Members Present: Corrado, Nelson, Orenstein, Parkes, Commissioner Brookins
b. Student Member: Vacant
c. Staff Members Present: Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner
Steven Okey, Associate Planner
d. Council Liaison: Not Present
2. Consent Agenda
• Orenstein made motion to approve, Brookins seconded. Unanimous approval.
3. Staff Introduction
• Steven Okey, Associate Planner, was introduced to the board.
4. Public Hearings
a. 5509 Lindsay Street
Applicant: Vladimir Sivriver & Iryna Sivriver
Request: Request for a variance to reduce the front yard setback for new single-detached
dwelling.
• Kramer presented the staff report.
• Applicant spoke
o Explained previous plan revisions, how we arrived at current plans
o Suggested update to zoning code to shorten second front yard setback on
corner lots to better align with neighboring cities.
• Nelson opened the public hearing. No one in person or online. Nelson closed the public
hearing.
• Board discussion
o Orenstein: We granted the variance once and we should grant it again.
o Nelson: went through findings of fact, agrees with staff on their
recommendations.
o Brookins: doesn’t think this application has demonstrated practical difficulties.
Noted that the zoning on the lot hasn’t changed since the applicant bought the
property in 2020.
o Corrado asked if this variance would apply to sheds and other accessory
structures. Kramer replied no, this variance would only apply to the principal
structure.
• Orenstein made motion to approve, Parkes seconds. Unanimous approval.
November 26, 2024 – 7 pm
City Hall: Council Chamber
Hybrid Meeting: Teams/Phone
City of Golden Valley BZA Meeting Minutes
November 26, 2024 – 7 pm
2
b. 901 Xenia Avenue South
Applicant: Imaginality Designs, LLC
Request: Request for a variance from the maximum allowable square footage for permanent
signs to allow for one additional sign on the property.
• Kramer presented the staff report.
• Nelson: how did nearby buildings get their signage approved? Kramer replied that the
city doesn’t have clear record of how those signs came to be. Past process has been
unclear.
• Corrado: would other buildings be required to reduce their signage to 50 square feet to
come into compliance with code? Kramer stated no.
• Board invited applicant to speak and Corrado asked how Golden Valley sign code
compares to other cities. Applicant replied the process is tougher here. She explained
the different city code considerations her company looks for when proposing signage.
• Board discussion
o Brookins excited for sign code update. He’s worked with Imaginality before and
likes their work.
o Brookins states he’s convinced by the request after hearing the signage size
maximums of other uses of similar size in the I-394 district.
• Nelson opened the public hearing. No one in person or online. Nelson closed the public
hearing.
• Brookins made motion to approve, Orenstein seconded. Unanimous approval.
c. 1130 Toledo Avenue North
Applicant: Gwen Mackey & Sean Mackey
Request: Request for two variances, one to reduce the rear yard setback and one to reduce the
separation requirement between structures to allow for a shed.
• Kramer presented the staff report.
• Corrado asked how the size of the solar panel array would be impacted if the variance
was denied. Kramer replied it depends on what alternative the applicant pursues to
come into compliance with the zoning code.
• Corrado asked if the variance was denied would solar panels be allowed on the house.
Kramer replied yes; the variance neither applies nor effects the installation of solar
panels on the house.
• The Board invited the applicant to speak. Sean Mackey explained the history of the
project. The pavilion was constructed with a permit, but the shed was not. The pavilion
is constructed with posts spaced nine feet apart.
• Besides the location of the shed requiring a variance for the buffer between structures,
the shed is otherwise meeting all zoning code requirements.
• House will provide just over half of the energy needs of the property. The pavilion and
shed have south-facing roofs which provide much more solar energy.
• Mackey explained the details of the proposed solar energy system.
• Corrado asked what alternatives the applicant would pursue if the variance is denied.
Mackey replied they would probably reduce the size of the shed.
City of Golden Valley BZA Meeting Minutes
November 26, 2024 – 7 pm
3
• Brookins asked if the building inspections division had any concerns with the current
location of the structures. Kramer replied they do not have any concerns.
• Brookins asked if there were any other zoning code violations on the property. Kramer
replied there are not.
• Orenstein asked staff to explain economic considerations and practical difficulty. Staff
explained that economic considerations by themselves don’t constitute a practical
difficulty, but there is an exception in the code for inadequate access to direct sunlight
for solar energy systems. Orenstein stated he doesn’t believe the Board would grant
these variances if the proposals had come to the Board before the structures were
constructed.
• Corrado wondered if the practical difficulty was created by the landowner building
without all required permits.
• Nelson stated she is conflicted on this application.
• Brookins said he is struggling with findings. He stated the structures don’t change the
essential character of the locality. He’s not concerned with other code violations and is
glad the building inspections division has no concerns.
• The Board members agreed the structures are a reasonable use of the property and do
not change the essential character of the locality.
• Mackey explained the applicants used Google Solar Tracking to calculate the best areas
on the site for solar energy. They found the south-facing roofs of the pavilion and shed
provided the most energy.
• Parkes stated she believed the Board might have granted these variances before
construction, based on the strength of the argument of access to direct sunlight for
solar energy generation.
• Corrado was concerned that while individual variances don’t set a precedent for future
requests, if the board approves these variances on the basis of solar access, other
applicants may use the same argument for after-the-fact variance requests.
• Kramer led a discussion with the Board on options for tabling the application for a
future meeting
o She asked if there was additional information the applicant could provide that
would help the Board’s decision. Board members replied no.
o The Board discussed how they could approve the variances with additional
conditions. There was consensus that the Board would like the approval to be
contingent on a guarantee that the solar panels would be installed. However,
the group decided tabling the applications would not bring them any closer to a
final vote.
• Board members discussed if the variance applications proved a unique circumstance not
created by the landowner. Board members debated if the south-facing roofs of the
pavilion and shed were enough to satisfy the practical difficulty requirement, rather
than only an economic consideration.
• Staff explained the process of appealing a variance denial to City Council.
City of Golden Valley BZA Meeting Minutes
November 26, 2024 – 7 pm
4
• Board members asked staff if the language in the zoning code could be updated to
provide better guidance for what kind of solar energy system meets the requirements in
Section 113-27(c)(2).
• Nelson opened the public hearing. No one in person or online. Nelson closed the public
hearing.
• Brookins moved to approve both variances and cited the solar energy component of the
project as the deciding factor. Parkes seconded.
• Four aye votes, one nay (Nelson). Both variances approved.
5. Staff Comments
a. Joint PC/BZA training in January
b. Next board meeting January 28
6. Adjourn
Brookins made the motion, Parkes seconded. Unanimous approval. Meeting adjourned at 8:55pm