01-26-99 BZA Minutes
e
.
.
1649
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
January 26, 1999
The regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held Tuesday, January
26, 1999, at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden
Valley, MN. Chair Sell called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.
Those present were: Chair Sell and Members Lang, Swedberg and Hughes (alternate); and
Planning Commission Representative Shaffer. Also present were Staff Liaison Mary Dold,
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, and Tammi Hall, Recording Secretary.
I. Approval of Minutes - December 15, 1998
MOVED by Swedberg, seconded by Lang and motion carried unanimously to approve the
minutes of December 15, 1998 as submitted.
II. The Petitions:
7410 Ridgeway Road (Map 17) (99-1-1)
Bernard and Barbara Ness
Request:
Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback for 0.4 feet off
the required 35 feet to a distance of 34.6 feet for the existing house at its
closest point to the front property line; and
Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setback for 0.13
feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 14.87 feet for the existing
house at its closest point to the south (side) property line; and
0.2 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 14.8 feet for the existing
house at its closest point to the north (side) property line; and
0.2 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 14.8 feet for the newly
constructed deck at its closest point to the north (side) property line.
Purpose:
To allow the newly constructed deck to remain in the side setback to the
rear of the house.
Chair Sell read the requested variances.
Staff Liaison Dold indicated that Mr. Ness would not be attending the meeting since.he is out of
the state for the winter. Staff felt that since the variances were very minor it was not necessary
for him to come back to attend the meeting. Lang stated that the setbacks are very minor and
appear to have no adverse impact on the neighbors.
/
1650
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
January 26, 1999
Page 2
e
MOVED by Lang, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to approve the request
for variances as stated above.
4335 Tyrol Crest (Map 10) (99-1-2)
Steven M. Treff
Request:
Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback for 0.26 feet
off the required 35 feet to a distance of 34.74 feet for the existing house
at its closest point to the front property line; and
Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setback for 12 feet
off the required 15 feet to a distance of 3 feet for the newly constructed
carport at its closest point to the west (side) property line
Purpose:
To allow the newly constructed carport to remain in the side setback.
Chair Sell read the requested variances. Steven Treff and Walter Treff were in attendance.
Staff Liaison Dold reviewed the requested variances. She indicated the Inspections
Department had received a complaint, from a neighbor, concerning a carport that was
constructed into the side setback. The inspector contacted the applicant informing him that a .
permit was not obtained for the construction of the carport and that it was a non-conforming
structure because it was in the side setback. The inspector informed the property owner that, in
order for the carport to remain in its present location, a variance would need to be applied for
and approved. Dold indicated that the carport is on hinges and can be removed during non-
winter months. She said that staff believes there is no way to monitor the seasonal removal of
the carport. She added that the City does not issue seasonal variances. Swedberg stated that;
if approved, the Board would be allowing a permanent variance on a temporary structure.
Shaffer added that according to city code a temporary structure must be its own entity and
cannot be connected to a house. Lang stated that for purposes of considering the variance
request, the Board must look at the carport as a permanent structure. Hughes questioned if the
structure is sound. Dold indicated that no building permit was issued for the carport, and added
that the City Inspector reported that the structure was sagging under the weight of snow when
he visited the property. Dold said according to the Inspections Department, an engineer would
have to determine if the structure was sound.
Steven Treff stated the carport was constructed to protect a third vehicle during the winter
months. He indicated they had hired a builder for some other construction on the house for
which they obtained a permit. They discussed the possibility of constructing a carport with the
builder. Treff indicated the builder reviewed the city requirements and determined, incorrectly,
that a temporary structure required no permit. Lang asked if the carport was built at the same
time as the garage. Treff responded that the garage was built in 1990 and the carport in
October or November of 1998. Shaffer asked if it would be possible to park the third vehicle in
the garage by parking end-to-end. Treff responded that the garage is approximately 18 inches .
too short to park vehicles end-to-end. Swedberg asked if the blacktop under the carport was in
place prior to the construction of the carport. Treff said it was. He indicated it was probably 10
e
e
e
/
1651
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
January 26, 1999
Page 3
to 15 years old and it extends approximately 20 feet past the end of the carport. Planning and
Development Director Grimes stated that Golden Valley has no regulation regarding parking a
vehicle next to your garage as long as it is not under a structure. Treff stated they had
investigated the possibility of constructing a garage to the rear of the house but it is not feasible
due to the terrain. They determined the cost would be prohibitive because of the fill that would
be required to place the garage within the setbacks. Sell asked if the Treffs had spoken with the
neighbor who complained to the City about the structure. Steven Treff responded that they
have spoken with her but are unsure what would be acceptable to her. It is their understanding,
at this point, that it would be acceptable to her if it was removed in non-winter months. Walter
Treff stated that it can easily be removed. Swedberg asked if there are footings for the
structure. Walter Treff responded that there are footings and added that the legs of the carport
fit over the metal posts in the footings and are bolted in place. Steven Treff stated that they
would agree to any dates the City would set for the temporary removal of the structure.
Swedberg responded that there is no way for the City to monitor the removal of the structure in
non-winter months. He added that it must be treated as a permanent structure and, as such,
the Board would have a problem with the amount of the variance. There was brief discussion
regarding the responses of the neighbors. Dold stated that the neighbor who originally
complained has been very vocal in her opposition to the location of this structure. Shaffer
stated that allowing the variance 12 feet into the setback could create additional problems. He
stated the neighbor may put up a fence on her property to avoid the view of the carport and the
remaining space between the two structures would not be wide enough to allow access by
emergency vehicles and the fire department. He added that he would also be concerned
because the variance is permanent and stays with the property even if the present owners were
to sell.
(,
MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Swedberg and motion carried unanimously to deny the
request for variance for the side yard setback.
Chair Sell told the Treffs they have the right to appeal to the City Council and the Council can
choose to overrule the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Steven Treff asked how long they had to remove the structure. Dold stated she would discuss
the situation with the building inspector and they would notify Mr. Treff by letter.
Steven Treff asked for clarification on the variance of 0.26 feet for the front yard setback.
MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Swedberg to approve the request for variance for the front
yard setback as stated above.
III. Other Business
A. Review of requirements for submittal of application (neighbor notification)
Chair Sell thanked Dold for the research she conducted with other cities on this project. There
was discussion regarding the fees charged in surrounding cities for variance applications and
the number of variances reviewed in other cities in comparison with Golden Valley.
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
January 26, 1999
Page 4
1652
e
Dold stated that staff is concerned with administering two different application processes. She
also indicated that the amount of the variance needed could be less than one foot at the time of
application but end up being more than one foot when the current survey is completed, which
could cause some confusion for applicants. She said staff feels that it is better for residents to
notify their neighbors of a variance request rather than the neighbors receiving notification only
from the City. Grimes stated that this also gives the resident an opportunity to explain the
variance to the neighbors. He added that if the only notification the neighbors receive is from
the City, the neighbors may have more questions and contact the City for information rather
than discussing it with the applicant. This would result in more staff time responding to
questions from neighbors. Swedberg stated that he felt it would improve the image of
government to eliminate some of the cumbersome procedure for very small variances. There
was further discussion regarding the administration of the proposed change in application
procedure.
MOVED by Swedberg, seconded by Hughes to accept the recommendation of staff and
maintain the existing procedure in respect to variance applications.
IV. Adjournment
Chair Sell adjourned the meeting at 7:51 p.m.
~k$LL
Mike Sell, Chair
~,2e~n
e
.;t.
e