Zoning board: front yard starts at primary dwelling; denies 6-foot solid fence at 3320 W. Lyndale Ave.

The Zoning Board of Appeals on Jan. 23 determined that the city had not erred in identifying the front yard at 3320 West Lyndale Avenue and then voted to deny a request to leave a 6-foot solid fence in the front yard.

On the first question — whether staff incorrectly identified the front yard — the board unanimously (4-0) affirmed staff’s determination that the front yard is measured from the primary dwelling toward Lyndale Avenue rather than from the outer edge of the porch. The zoning administrator explained that the porch appears to be a projection into the front yard and that staff had no independent evidence that the porch is a load-bearing portion of the primary dwelling.

Following that determination, the applicant sought a variance for a 6-foot solid fence that would have exceeded the city’s decorative-fence standard (decorative fences in front yards may be up to 3 feet tall and must be mostly open). Staff recommended denial, citing lack of exceptional property circumstances and noting that changes the owner made after purchase — including a garage enlargement in 2023 and retention of an existing shed — reduced rear-yard area and weakened the argument that the lot faces an exceptional hardship.

After public comment from the property owner, Marsha Hernandez, who described the porch as a structural element built with the house in the 1930s, and from neighbors in support, the board voted to deny the 6-foot solid-fence request. The roll call produced a 3-1 result: Don Reid recorded the lone opposing vote; the other board members voted to deny the variance.

The property owner told the board she hired a contractor who installed the fence without a permit and that the contractor said he would not appear at the hearing. She said the fence is cedar and that the concrete it is anchored to predated the work; she raised concerns about removing the panels because of drilled holes and possible permanent damage. The owner provided photographs, before-and-after appraisals and argued the lot is nonconforming and unique in the block.

Board members and staff discussed options the applicant could pursue if she wants to preserve some fencing: move the fence back from the lot line; reconfigure sections facing the street to be more open or decorative; reduce height; present evidence that the porch is load bearing (an engineering or building-inspector report); or apply for an alternate variance with a new submittal. Staff noted the applicant can work with planning staff to develop a revised design and that a new or supplemental application would likely be required for formal consideration.

Board members and staff also discussed enforcement and timelines. The board suggested a pragmatic enforcement window (several months) to allow the applicant to pursue corrective steps; staff said typical enforcement windows vary and suggested a month or two but the board indicated six months would be reasonable to allow the applicant time to arrange alternatives or pursue documentation. If the fence remains nonconforming after that period, staff indicated it would pursue code enforcement action.

No new variance was approved. The denial means the existing 6-foot solid portions located in the front-yard area are not in conformance with code; the owner was advised to work with staff on next steps, including documentation that the porch is load bearing or a revised plan that reduces height and increases openness toward the street.