bza-minutes-aug-25-20
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
This meeting was held via Webex in accordance with the local emergency declaration made by
the City under Minn. Stat. § 12.37. In accordance with that declaration, beginning on March 16,
2020, all Board of Zoning Appeals meetings held during the emergency were conducted
electronically. The City used Webex to conduct this meeting and members of the public were
able to monitor the meeting by calling 1‐415‐655‐0001 and entering the meeting code 133 743
2368.
Call To Order
The meeting was called to order at 7 pm by Chair Orenstein.
Roll Call
Members present: Chris Carlson, Sophia Ginis, Richard Orenstein, Chuck Segelbaum – Planning
Commissioner, Lauren Pockl – Planning Commissioner
Members absent: Kade Arms‐Regenold, Nancy Nelson
Staff present: Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman and Planner Myles Campbell
Approval of Agenda
MOTION made by Ginis, seconded by Pockl to approve the agenda of August 25, 2020, as submitted.
Staff took a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously.
Approval of Minutes
MOTION made by Pockl, seconded by Ginis to approve the July 28, 2020, meeting minutes after edits
were made to correct name misspelling. Staff took a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously.
1. 2565 Byrd Ave N
David Uhr, Applicant
Request: § Section 113‐152, Screening and Outdoor Storage, Subd. (c)(1)(a) 2 ft. over the allowed 4
ft. in height for fences in a front yard to a total of 6 ft.
Myles Campbell, Planner, started by stating the applicant is requesting a variance from City
Code in order to construct a six‐foot fence on a property that has three front yards. Campbell
provided some context for the location and zoning of the property. The property has streets
along three sides: Byrd Ave N, 26th Ave, and Kewanee Way. There is also a grade drop from the
east to the west. The limit for fence height in front yards is four feet, so there is very little area
where the applicant could construct a six‐foot fence. Campbell stated that the additional height
is being requested for privacy as well as security for a large dog and a small child.
August 25, 2020 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
August 25, 2020 – 7 pm
2
Staff reviewed the application and after analysis found an extensive six foot fence would not be
a reasonable use and would alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the variance request of 2 ft. over the allowed 4 ft. in height for
fences in a front yard to a total of 6 ft.
Segelbaum asked for a review of when front yard fences are allowed an exception to be six feet in
height. Campbell explained that it is for principal arterials with higher levels of traffic and that none
of the three adjacent roads met that classification. The Board discussed if the limit on fence height
was due to aesthetics or concerns around public safety and concluded it was mostly due to
aesthetics and preserving the viewshed along public streets.
Chair Orenstein asked the applicant to comment and David Uhr pointed out that traffic heading
south on France Ave has a direct view into their house and yard and that there are other six‐foot
fences in the area, though he said they may have been constructed prior to the current regulations.
In addition, the grade of their lot means there would be little privacy with a four‐foot fence.
The Board looked at images of a six‐foot fence just down the street. Ginis asked if the Board had
ever approved a fence variance in a similar situation in the past. Jason Zimmerman, Planning
Manager, stated that he was aware of one such case a few years ago where a property with three
front yards was granted a variance for a six‐foot fence. In that case, the area that functioned as a
rear yard was across from a wooded area and not a residence.
Uhr stressed that a priority was for privacy along 26th Ave because of the cars that paused at stop
signs at the intersection with France Ave.
Orenstein asked if the applicant was open to any other options. Uhr replied that they were not
interested in shrinking the size of the fenced‐in area. Segelbaum asked if the applicant had
considered landscaping for screening. The applicant stated they were also looking for security in
containing their dog. Zimmerman read an email from the neighbor to the south objecting to a six‐
foot fence along their property line because of the decrease in openness and visibility.
Pockl asked if there was a lot of foot traffic along the street. The applicant confirmed that there is,
as well as a number of wild animals including coyotes, foxes, and turkeys.
Orenstein noted that there were no other members of the public wishing to speak. Carlson
mentioned that he was sympathetic because the property is very exposed from all sides. Ginis
stated that while she wanted to provide some privacy for the applicant’s rear yard, she did not
want to create a negative impact on the homes across the street. Segelbaum indicated he was
open to providing some additional privacy along 26th Ave but that maybe vegetation could address
that.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
August 25, 2020 – 7 pm
3
Orenstein mentioned that consistency was important for the Board and taking into account dogs
and children was outside of that consistency.
MOTION was made by Orenstein and seconded by Segelbaum to follow staff recommendation and
deny the variance request of 2 ft. over the allowed 4 ft. in height for fences in a front yard to a total
of 6 ft.
Uhr asked if there was room to compromise and allow higher fence along one side of the property.
Pockl asked if the applicant wanted to table the request to look at other options. Orenstein said
they could appeal to the City Council if they didn’t like the decision.
Staff called a roll call vote and the motion passed 4‐1 with Carlson voting against.
2. 500 Ardmore Drive
James Kraschel, Applicant
Request: § 113‐88, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. (i)(2) .05 feet off of the required 3 ft.
to a distance of 2.95 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line.
Myles Campbell, Planner, gave the Board a background on the lot and its location south of
Highway 55. The lot is a corner lot and is made up of two 40‐foot lots; the home is entirely located
on the southern lot. The home was built before 1980 and therefore has a 3‐foot setback
requirement instead of the current 5‐foot setback requirement. A recent survey shows the lot is
just under the required 3’ by 0.5 of an inch. The applicant would like the opportunity in the future
to split the lot but the non‐conforming side setback must be addressed in advance.
Staff find this request to be in line with the zoning code, R‐1 district, as well as the 2040
comprehensive plan. Aside from the fraction of an inch off the code requirement, the lot functions
as required by the code.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance request of .05 feet off of the required 3 ft. to a
distance of 2.95 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line.
Board members stated that the request seems straightforward.
Chair Orenstein asked for comment from the applicant.
James Kraschel, Applicant stated he also felt the request was a small one and straightforward.
Chair Orenstein asked if there were any members of the public wishing to speak.
Seeing none, the Chair closed the public comment section.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
August 25, 2020 – 7 pm
4
A MOTION was made by Chair Orenstein and seconded by Ginis to follow staff recommendation
and approve the variance request of .05 feet off of the required 3 ft. to a distance of 2.95 ft. at its
closest point to the side yard (north) property line.
Staff called a roll call vote and the motion passed unanimously.
3. 5509 Lindsay St
Vladimir Sivriver, Applicant
Request: § 113‐89, Moderate Density Residential (R‐2) 20 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a
distance of 15 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line.
Myles Campbell, Planner, gave the Board a background on the home and showed its location west
of Highway 100 and stated the area has a mix of zoning. The lot is currently owned by MnDOT and
the applicant hopes to build a new single‐family home on the lot. Being a corner lot, both yards
that face a street are considered front yards and thus have a required setback of 35 feet. The
applicant would like a variance off the secondary setback. Staff observed a number of homes in the
area have reduced setbacks albeit not as great as the one requested.
Staff find the request generally in line with the Zoning Code, the regulations of the Moderate
Density Residential Zoning District, and the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. While the home overall is
scaled and designed in a complementary fashion to the property, the proposed plan shows a three‐
car garage as the primary cause of the encroachment into the setback. Staff feels this would be an
unreasonable use for which to grant a variance.
Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the variance request of 20 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance
of 15 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line.
Staff would recommend approval of a modified variance, of 11ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a
distance of 24 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line.
Board members asked a few clarifying questions of staff regarding code language and
requirements.
Chair Orenstein asked for comment from the applicant.
Vladimir Sivriver, Applicant illustrated his intention for building on the property. He discussed the
garage size need and the sharp angle of the property thus creating the variance they are
requesting. Sivriver added that while working with Golden Valley staff has been helpful, he wishes
Golden Valley would follow other city codes and adopt a second street reduction in setback. Ginis
asked to hear more from the applicant and staff to understand what the possible reiterations were.
Staff started that the house width was reduced and set back further south because the lot is wider
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
August 25, 2020 – 7 pm
5
as it moves south. Staff is sympathetic to the need for living space but the third garage stall request
is what directly leads to the larger variance. The Board reviewed the site plan and the lot while
discussing with the applicant possible alternatives.
Chair Orenstein asked if there were any members of the public wishing to speak.
Seeing none, the discussion continued.
Board asked staff if three‐car garages were common in Golden Valley and if there’s a history of
BZA approving variances for a three‐car garage. Staff responded that three‐car garages are not
uncommon but that they are usually on wider lots. Requesting a reduction in setbacks for a
three‐car is not something the BZA has a history of approving. Commissioner Segelbaum added
that he’s grateful the applicant would like to reinvest in the city but cannot approve a variance
that asks for more than 50% of the original setback. Commissioner Pockl stated that it seems
the Board agrees that they want to see the applicant build but have concern on the extent of
the variance. Pockl added that perhaps the applicant would like to table and return with a
modified request. After discussion the applicant stated he can accommodate the modified
variance as presented to staff.
A MOTION was made by Segelbaum and seconded by Orenstein to follow staff
recommendation and approve the modified variance, of 11ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a
distance of 24 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line.
Staff called a roll call vote and the motion passed unanimously.
Adjournment
MOTION made by Ginis, seconded by Pockl and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting
at 8:48 pm.
Staff called a roll call vote and the motion passed unanimously.
________________________________
Richard Orenstein, Chair
_________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant