Loading...
07-27-93 BZA Minutes 1.300 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS July 27, 1993 I The special meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held Tuesday, July 27, 1993, at 7:30 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. The following Board members were present: Chairman, Larry Smith Mahlon Swedberg Emilie Johnson Herb Polachek Mi ke Sell 93-7-26 (Map 12) Residential 112 Paisley Lane John F. Watkins The petition is for waiver of Section: front setback, for 26.4 off the required 35 feet from Paisley Lane to a distance of 8.6 feet to the proposed garage addition at its closest point. The petition was in order, consent had been obtained from all adjacent pro- perty owners. Present for the meeting were Mr. and Mrs. Watkins, Mr. Gene Volk, their contractor, Mr. Cradit, the designer, Mr. and Mrs. Art Flanriagan and Mr. Frank Hetman, adjacent property owners. Present representing the City, Mr. Jay Ipsen, Chief Building Inspector. 11.21 Subd. 7 A I Chairman, Larry Smith, called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. and asked Lloyd Becker for a staff summary on this petition. Lloyd Becker identified himself as Staff Liaison and Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals as part of his responsibility as Director of Zoning & Inspections. For the benefit of those in attendance, Becker reviewed the file information provided to the members in their agenda packet. On May 17, 1993, Jay Ipsen responded to a request by Mr. Gene Volk to make an observation of the site of the proposed construction. The observation form notes that the property stakes were located. On May 26, 1993, Jay Ipsen approved Building Permit No. 19153 for a bedroom and garage addition. On June 2, 1993, Jay made a footing observation for the new foundation area where the previous garage had been. On June 28, 1993, a second footing observation was made by Jay for the new garage portion of the foundation. I I I I 1301 Board of Zoning Appeals Page 2 July 27, 1993 At that time, a substantial amount of excavation had been made and piles of soil were in the area. Jay said the contractor1s lead man confirmed the setback had been checked and he cautioned Jay around the footings because of the substantial rain and piles of soil. Jay said he had no reason to question the setback, based on his observation that day and the substantial front yard area of the lot. Lloyd Becker said that routinely he will weekly do a follow-up on permits that have been issued and apparent construction activity. It was on July 9, 1993, in the course of that weekly review, that he observed the foun- dation under construction at 112 Paisley Lane. Because it appeared to him it may infringe into the front setback, this was brought to the attention of Jay Ipsen that afternoon. On Monday morning, July 12, 1993, Lloyd Becker ordered construction halted until the property owner could confirm the location by a registered land surveyor. The survey found the fo~n~ dation infringed into the front setback. Mrs. Watkins said this addition had been under consideration for almost ~ year. In 1992, they located the property stakes, strung lines from point to point and met with their designer, Mr. Cradit. Mr. Cradit said that while he normally has the client provide a current survey, the information provided by the owner, in this case, seemed sufficient and subsequently at a later date the construction plans were drawn based on the property lines identified to him. Mr. Volk said, as the contractor, he also had examined the site himself and subsequently with Inspector Ipsen. Mr. Cradit noted his plans were dated June of 1992. Mahlon Swedberg asked Lloyd Becker to clarify for him the procedures and information required for a building permit. Becker did so and noted that most homes built as Golden Valley developed had lot surveys in the street file which show the proposed structure and the setbacks. On that information and plans when approved, the permits were issued. Today, an as-built survey of the foundation is required to confirm the setbacks. As in the past where existing property irons can be foundj the Building Inspector may verify setbacks in that manner. In 1977, for example, a garage addition at 112 Paisley Lane was constructed by the prevous owner, James Watkins. That permit shows that the setbacks were verified by on-site inspection. Those same irons appear to have been used today. Mahlon Swedberg asked about the sequence of footing observations. Mr. Volk said in most remodeling and additions to existing structures, the work area is confined because of the excavation and piled soil before backfill. The existing attached garage and foundation were removed and new foundation constructed. That was the first phase in May. The second phase was the garage addition in June. It was the only way the work could proceed on the site. Mr. Volk said the property stakes were again referred to at the time the footings were placed. 1302 Board of Zoning Appeals Page 3 July 27, 1993 Chairman Smith noted this is a unique subdivision and neighborhood with several short cul de sacs abutting Paisley Lane, unusual large and varied lot configurations and variations of setbacks to different homes. Mike Sell concurred. I At the close of discussion by the Board, Chairman Smith opened the meeting for comment from others in attendance. Mr. Frank Hetman, 124 Paisley Lane, identified himself as the adjacent neighbor to the construction. Mr. Hetman said he was present when the Watkins found the property irons, strung lines from iron-to-iron to identify the area of proposed construc- tion and there was no reason to suspect the irons or setbacks. Mr. Hetman said he has known the Watkins as neighbors for years and in no way would they ever intentionally mislead anyone. Mr. Hetman said, however, this error occurred and it is not critical and noted a large lilac bush in the area is a greater infringement in the setbacks than the present construction. Mr. Hetman noted his many years on the City Planning Commission and as the City developed from time-to-time similar situations occurred and they were addressed in a manner of the best interests of the community and neighbor- hood. Had not the question of setback been raised by Mr. Becker, he, as the adjacent neighbor, would never have questioned the front setback. Mr. Hetman said he signed the petition in favor of approval and asked that it be granted. Mr. Art Flannagan identified himself as a resident at 316 Meander Road. Mr. Flannagan said he walks the area daily and saw the construction and never questioned the setback. Mr. Flannagan had served on the City Council for many years as the City developed and until recently for many years on the Board of Zoning Appeals. Flannagan said the Board should take into consideration the narrowness of Paisley Lane, the substantial right-of-way beyond the road surface, the curvature of the street and the varied align- ments and lot configurations. Mr. Flannagan said a mistake may have been made, precedence is not a factor because the conditions are unique to this property alone and he supports approval of the waiver as requested. Hearing and seeing no others, Chairman Smith closed the discussion. Mike Sell said he had been to the site, stood on the foundation, evaluated the alignment of the road and setbacks of adjacent homes, the curvature of Paisley Lane and the effect of this construction is minimal. I Chairman Smith questioned what effect reducing the structure by 10 feet may have. Sell noted the angle of the front lot line and that a 10 foot reduc- tion would be marginal to the closest point from the lot line. Mike Sell moved to approve the waiver as on the agenda, noting the uniqueness of the subdivision, variable lot sizes, lot configurations, the curvature and variable elevations of Paisley Lane, the substantial right-of-way from the edge of the drive surface to the front lot line, the hardship related to th~ placement of the existing home on the lot and the existing topography. Second by Herb Polachek. Mahlon Swedberg said he would like to comment on the motion. Swedberg said he would vote in favor of the motion because of the characteristics noted by Mike Sell and, in addition, the cause of the setback problem cannot be assigned to any party or individuals for the cir- cumstances that have occurred. I 1303 I Board of Zoning Appeals Page 4 July 27, 1993 Swedberg said while consent or lack of consent on a petition does not in itself direct the Board in any determination, the comments by adjacent pro- perty owners for approval and a letter of support from a property owner directly across the street does have significance in the decision. Chairman Smith called for the vote on the motion of approval and upon vote it was unanimous for approval. There being no further business to come before the Board, it was upon motion, second, and vote to adjourn at 8:20 P.M. c16~~ I I