07-24-12 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
July 24, 2012
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday,
July 24, 2012 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair
Nelson called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Members, Baudreau-Landis and Nelson, and Planning Commission
Representatives McCarty and Schmidgall. Also present were City Planner Joe Hogeboom
and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Member Maxwell was absent.
I. Approval of Minutes — June 26, 2Q12 Regular Meeting
MOVED by Boudreau-Landis, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to
approve the June 26, 2012 minutes as submitted.
II. The Petition(s) are:
1231 Unity Avenue North
Brett Cumminqs, Applicant (12-07-10)
Request: Waiver from Section 11.72 Fences Subd. 3(A)(1) Fence Regulations
• 2 ft. taller than the 6 ft, height allowed for fences located in side yards
Purpose: To allow for the eonstruction of an 8 ft. tall fence along the side yard
(north) property line.
Hogeboom referred ta a survey of the property and explained that the applicant would
like to construct an 8-foot tall fence along the north, side yard property line. He stated
that the adjacent property to the north is a church and is zoned Institutional. He
explained that Institutional properties are allowed to construct 8-foot tall fences, but
residential properties are not. He added that typically fences do not require a building
permit, however 8-foot tall fences do require a building permit so if this variance is
approved the applicant will have to apply for a building permit.
Baudreau-Landis asked why other zoning districts are allowed to have 8-foot tall
fences. Hogeboom stated that an 8-foot tall fence would be out of character in the
residential zoning districts and typically commercial and industrial properties aren't
located in residential areas.
McCarty asked Hogeboom if he looked at other residential properties that are adjacent
to institutional properties similar to this situation. Hogeboom said he is not aware of any
other situations like this one.
Nelson asked if the fence would be 8 feet tall along the entire north, side yard property
line.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
July 24, 2012
Page 2
Brett Cummings, Applicant, explained that only a portion of the fence will be 8 feet in
height and that the fence will drop down gradually to be 5 feet in height when it is near
the house.
McCarty asked if the fence could be 8 feet in height just near their porch in order to
provide privacy.
Cummings stated that the entire church property is visible from their back yard porch
and he is concerned about the aesthetics if only one section of the fence is 8 feet tall.
Nelson asked if the proposed fence would impact the neighbors to the east. Cummings
said he talked with the neighbors to the east and they have na concerns about the
proposed fence.
Boudreau-Landis questioned if a 6-foot tall fence would be tall enough to give them
privacy. He asked the applicant if he had thought about landscaping along the north
property line instead.
Cummings stated that they have two dogs so landscaping without a fence wouldn't
work. He added that their deck in the back yard is elevated so if the fence were 6 feet in
height it would really seem like it was 4 feet in height and wouldn't provide privacy.
Nelson referred to the variance standards and stated that she feels that the fact the
adjacent church could construct an 8-foot tall fence along the same property line makes
this situation unique, the request is reasonable and it won't impact the surrounding
properties.
. Schmidgall asked about the activities at the church. Cummings stated that the parking
lot is busiest on Saturdays and Sundays but there are also various activities during the
week.
Hogeboom asked the applicant if he had talked to the church about them possibly
installing an 8-foot fence instead. Cummings said he did talk to the church, but they
were concerned about the on-going maintenance of the fence.
Nelson asked about the fence material. Cummings said it will be a stained cedar fence.
Boudreau-Landis referred to a photo of the property and asked if the shed shown has
been removed. Cummings stated that the shed in the photo belongs to the church and
that his shed has been removed.
Nelson opened the public hearing.
Leland Haug, 1221 Unity Avenue North, said he is very much in favor of allowing the
proposed fence because it will "seal off" the church parking lot and will give the
neighbors a lot more privacy.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
July 24, 2012
Page 3
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Nelson closed the public hearing.
Schmidgall said ordinarily he wouldn't be in favor of allowing an 8-foot tall fence in a
residential area but in this case he would be alright with it because the adjacent church
property could put up an 8-foot tall fence along the same property line without requiring
a variance.
Boudreau-Landis agreed and said the proposal seems reasonable.
McCarty said he thinks there are other ways to block views but he is also in favor of this
request.
MOVED by Schmidgall, seconded by Boudreau-Landis and motion carried unanimously
ta approve the variance request to allow for the construction of an 8 ft. tall fence along
the side yard (north) property line.
III. Other Business
No other business was discussed.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 pm.
��
' �. � --.--�_._W..�_�__ ...1
Nancy J. elson, Chair Joseph S. geboom, Staff Liaison