bza-minutes-aug-24-21REGULAR 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, Andy Johnson– Planning
Commissioner
Members absent: Sophia Ginis
Staff present: Myles Campbell, Planner
Approval of Agenda
MOTION made by Nelson, seconded by Carlson to approve the agenda of August 25, 2021, as submitted.
Motion carried, 4‐0.
Approval of Minutes
MOTION made by Nelson, seconded by Carlson to approve the June 22, 2021, meeting minutes.
Motion carried, 4‐0.
1.Address: 6454 Western Ave
Applicant: Dustin Pederson
Request: § 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (g)(1)(a) Accessory
Structure Location
To allow for an accessory structure in the front yard of their home.
Request: § 113‐88, Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Subd. (g)(1)(b) Accessory
Structure Front Setback
13 feet off the required 35 feet to 22 feet at its closest point to the front yard property line
Myles Campbell, Planner, gave a brief background on the address, its location in the city, and
background on the property characteristics.
The applicant wishes to build a new shed on the property. According to City Code requirements, such
structures cannot be located in the front yard and must be setback 35 feet from the front property
line.
August 24, 2021 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
August 25, 2021 – 7 pm
2
The applicant is requesting a variance from these requirements, as due to the lot’s irregular shape
and frontage on two roads, very little yard area is considered eligible for an accessory structure.
Campbell displayed a number of images, including a survey showing the shed’s proposed location.
Practical Difficulties
1. The shed is reasonable in scale and would be screened from view from both right‐of‐ways
2. The parcel has both an irregular shape and fronts onto two streets, limiting the amount of
available “side” and “rear” yard by code definition.
3. The shed would not be visible from Glenwood and would appear as a by‐right side‐yard shed
from further along Western, not impacting the essential character of the neighborhood.
Other Considerations
Staff assesses whether the variance represents the smallest feasible variance or if there are other
options available:
Locating the shed in the allowed rear yard would require removing the existing patio area.
A smaller setback variance would be possible, but only by moving the shed closer to the home,
requiring a third variance.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow for an accessory structure
in the front yard of their home.
Staff recommends approval of the variance request of 13 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a
total distance of 22 ft. at its closest point to the front yard property line.
Chair Orenstein opened the discussion for questions. Members discussed the code requirements
for separation between structures, frost‐footing requirements, and a fence running along the east
property line.
The Chair invited the applicant to present.
Dustin Pederson, applicant, thanked staff for the summary and added that they’d prefer to not
have frost footings as a condition of approval, in case of buried utilities in the area where the shed
would be located.
Andy Johnson, Planning Commissioner, asked the applicant what other options they had
considered and exhausted prior to the variance. The applicant noted that locating the shed in the
allowed area would likely impact the patio area, which they would like to preserve, and that it
might impact their neighbor to the west more heavily than its proposed location.
The Chair opened the open forum 7:17 pm. Staff informed the Chair that they had received no
written comment on the request, and that no callers were present on the webex meeting.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
August 25, 2021 – 7 pm
3
The Chair closed the open forum at 7:18pm
Board members discussed the application, Nelson thanked the applicant for outlining the location
thought process. Orenstein thanked staff for the analysis. Johnson added that the circumstance is
unique and the options available aren’t sufficient without the variance. Carlson echoed these
comments and that the shed aesthetics will appeal to the neighborhood.
A MOTION was made by Orenstein and seconded by Johnson to follow staff recommendations and
approve both variance requests, without requiring frost footings.
Staff took a roll call vote and the motion carried.
2.Adjournment
MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Carlson and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the
meeting at 7:25 pm.
Staff called a roll call vote and the motion passed unanimously.
________________________________
Richard Orenstein, Chair
_________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant