bza-agenda-jul-25-23
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 and the land acknowledgement was read by Chair Carlson.
Roll Call
Members present: Chris Carlson, Elizabeth Greiter, Nancy Nelson, Richard Orenstein, Adam
Brookins – Planning Commissioner
Members absent:
Staff present: Jason Zimmerman – Planning Manager, Myles Campbell – Planner, Lia Siro –
Planning Intern
Approval of Agenda
MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Chair Carlson to approve the agenda of June 27, 2023, as
submitted.
Motion carried.
Approval of Minutes
Member Nelson noted two edits: The previous minutes listed the wrong Commissioner, page 6, 2nd
paragraph should be “and” not “a”.
MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Commissioner Brookins to approve the June 27, 2023
meeting minutes pending changes.
Motion carried.
1. Address: 2320 Aquilla Ave N
Applicant: Nathan Elliot
Requests:
A variance of 2’ off the required side wall articulation of 2’, resulting in a sidewall of 38’ in
length.
A variance of 15” off the required 15’ to a total distance of 13’9” from the side property line for
a home addition.
Myles Campbell, Planner, noted this item was tabled from the previous meeting. He reviewed the
location and noted some changes to the request due to calculations and a need for an articulation on
the side wall. Campbell reviewed the lot, it’s size, the two‐car attached garage, location of mature
trees on the lot, and the side setback that was approved by BZA in June 2023. At that meeting the
July 25, 2022 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
July 25, 2023 – 7 pm
2
need to add a sidewall articulation was mentioned and the applicant has proposed three options to
meet that requirement.
Waive the articulation requirement
o Keeps the setback encroachment the most minimal, allows the existing roofline to be
carried back along the new addition
2’ bump out
o Brings the setback down to 11’9”, more indoor storage but less clean roof
eaves/overhang
o No variance for articulation
1’ bump out
o Brings setback down to 12’9”, similar pros and cons to 2’ bump out
Staff presented each option and reviewed diagrams for clarity.
Practical Difficulties
1. The tandem design limits the encroachment into the side yard by the largest amount possible
and maintains the current architectural character of the home. Staff finds this request
reasonable.
2. The home’s location within the setbacks restricts the ability to expand what is existing today,
and in addition there are a number of mature trees behind the home that restricts the ability to
build a detached garage to the rear of the existing home. Staff believes the site exhibits unique
circumstances.
3. The garage addition would be to the rear of the existing structure and not very visible from the
street, although it would be slightly closer to the neighboring structure. The amount of
encroachment into the setback would be minimal however, and staff believes that the
requested variances will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood and city.
Other Considerations
Staff assesses whether the request represents the smallest feasible variance or if there are other
options available:
Jogging the wall in would not allow enough space to park a vehicle
A conforming detached garage in the rear yard would increase impervious surface and require
additional tree removals
Recommendations
Staff recommends approval of a variance of 15” off the required 15’ to a total distance of 13’9” from
the side property line for a home addition.
Staff recommends approval of a variance of 2’ off the required side wall articulation of 2’, resulting in
a sidewall of 38’ in length.
Members and staff reviewed potential articulation alternatives and staff’s recommendation.
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
July 25, 2023 – 7 pm
3
Chair Carlson invited the applicant to speak.
Nathan Elliot, applicant, did not have other things to add and thanked staff.
Chair Carlson opened the public hearing 7:20pm.
Whitney Buck
2340 Aquila Ave N
I’m the neighbor next to the garage and I agree option A is the best option. This house is unique because
the layout is different and Nathan and Chad are only the second owners of the house. Their proposal is
the most appealing aesthetically. The yard behind the garage is an empty shed and broken concrete, their
idea is more appealing. The lawn layout doesn’t lean towards other options.
There were no online/remote comments.
Chair Carlson closed the hearing at 7:23pm.
Members unanimously agreed with staff findings and thanked the applicants for their willingness to find
alternatives to the original request.
MOTION made by Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Brookins to approve the variance of 2’ off the
required side wall articulation of 2’, resulting in a sidewall of 38’ in length.
Motion carried
MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Commissioner Brookins to approve the variance of 15”
off the required 15’ to a total distance of 13’9” from the side property line for a home addition.
Motion carried
2. Address: 2700 Orchard Ave N
Applicant: Karin and Christian Twigg
Request: A variance of 2 feet over the maximum of 4 feet to a height of 6 feet for a fence in the
secondary front yard
Myles Campbell, Planner, noted the property’s location in the City as well as the fact that it has two
front yards without being a corner lot. This double frontage lot, Orchard Ave to the west and Noble
Ave to the east, results in no “rear yard” by zoning code as both yards face a public street, and a
limitation on the height to which a fence can be built as 4ft is the max height in a front yard. Staff
reviewed the request to replace the existing 3ft chain‐link with a 6ft privacy fence. Staff reviewed the
neighboring lots, traffic on the road, and applicant need.
Practical Difficulties
The desire for additional privacy is understandable, but staff feels that other reasonable options
have not been considered by the applicant. Code allowances for additional fence height make a
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
July 25, 2023 – 7 pm
4
clear distinction between arterials and collectors based on the average daily trips and posted
speed limits. Staff does not find this request reasonable.
The fact that this lot has two frontages and therefore two front yards is an uncommon
circumstance, not only along Noble but in the entire city. Staff believe the site does exhibit
unique circumstances.
Other properties along Noble have fences at 5 or 6 ft in height, including the neighbor to the
north of this property. Staff believes the proposed use would not alter the essential character
of the area.
Other Considerations
Staff assesses whether the request represents the smallest feasible variance or if there are other
options available:
A 4‐foot privacy fence would still have a large impact in regards to vision and noise, especially
given that the home is at a lower elevation than the roadway
Evergreen trees and shrubs would be another option that would be allowed by right to get
year‐round visual and noise breaks from the roadway
Recommendations
Based on the factors above, staff recommends denial of the variance request of 2 ft. over the
allowed 4 ft. in height to a total of 6 ft. for the fence.
Member Greiter asked staff if other 6ft fences in the neighborhood were built legally. Staff
responded that the one adjacent to the applicant seems to be legally non‐conforming: it was
originally built before the height restrictions were in place. The discussion also included other lots
with dual front yards and exceptions for lots on different road designations. The group also discussed
the grade change between Noble and the rear yard of this lot.
Chair Carlson invited the applicant to speak.
Karin and Christian Twigg, applicants, added that main reason for the fence is that the grade of the
house is lower than Noble and as such, folks can easily see over the fence and down into the house.
Bedrooms face the rear yard and thus that rear sidewalk. This privacy fence would afford the family
members greater privacy. Adding vegetation and a 4foot fence would be a greater financial impact
than a 6ft privacy fence.
Chair Carlson opened the public hearing 7:39pm.
There were no in person comments but staff noted a few letters from neighbors were received and all
were in support of the applicant’s request.
There were no online/remote comments.
Chair Carlson closed the hearing at 7:40pm.
Nelson said she drove around the area and saw numerous 6ft tall fences, adding to staff’s previous
comment about many being considered legally nonconforming. Chair Carlson added most houses face
City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting
July 25, 2023 – 7 pm
5
Noble and these few houses where the applicant lives don’t. The discussion continued around frontage
roads, road classifications, privacy fences in general, and privacy.
MOTION made by Chair Carlson, seconded by Nelson to approve the variance of 2 feet over the
maximum of 4 feet to a height of 6 feet for a fence in the secondary front yard.
Motion carried
There was not a Council update.
3. Adjournment
MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Chair Carlson and the motion carried unanimously to
adjourn the meeting at 7:48 pm.
Motion carried.
________________________________
Chris Carlson, Chair
_________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant