09-28-99 BZA Minutes
.
e
e
1691
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
September 28, 1999
The regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held Tuesday,
September 28, 1999, in the Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN.
Chair Swedberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Those present were: Members Lang, Polachek, Sell and Swedberg; and Planning
Commission Representative Shaffer. Also present were Staff Liaison Mary Dold and Tammi
Hall, Recording Secretary.
I. Approval of Minutes - August 24, 1999
Chair Swedberg suggested the wording at the top of page three of the August 24 minutes be
revised as follows:
Member Lang removed himself from the Board and did not participate in discussion or
voting because he is employed by the Cuningham Group, architects for the Breck
project. After he removed himself the Board continued to have a quorum.
Chair Swedberg also suggested that the following sentence be moved to the end of the
second paragraph on page four: "Swedberg noted that there is extensive vegetation between
Breck School and the railroad tracks which minimizes the impact on the residential properties
that abut the railroad tracks on the other side."
MOVED by Polachek, seconded by Sell and motion carried unanimously to approve the
minutes of August 24, 1999 with the above corrections.
II. The Petitions:
1917 Xerxes Avenue North (Map 1) (99-9-29)
Nick Vana
Request:
Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A} Front Yard Setback for:
· 3.1 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 31.9 feet for the
existing house at its closest point to the front property line; and
Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd 7(B} Rear Yard Setback for:
· 2 feet off the required 26 feet to a distance of 24 feet for a proposed
deck at its closest point to the rear property line; and
Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(2} Side Yard Setback for:
· .34 feet off the required 11.24 feet to a distance of 10.9 feet for the
existing house at its closest point to the north property line; and
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting
September 28, 1999
Page 2
1692
e
. .68 feet off the required 11.24 feet to a distance of 10.56 feet for the
proposed deck at its closest point to the south property line
Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 12 Accessory Structures
· To allow the existing shed to remain less than 10 feet from the main
structure and zero (0) feet from the side property line.
Purpose:
the house.
To allow for the construction of a nonconforming deck onto the rear of
Chair Swedberg read the requested variances. Nick Vang was present with his neighbor, Mr.
Gustafson.
Dold stated that Mr. Vang's shed is located partially on the neighbor's property. She indicated
that she had discussed the situation with the City attorney, who concluded that there were two
alternatives for resolving the issue. He indicated that one alternative would be to remove the
shed. The second alternative would be to obtain an easement from the neighbor to allow the
structure to remain on the neighbor's property. The City attorney indicated that after the
easement was obtained both property owners would need to request variances to allow the
shed to be located zero feet from both of their property lines. Dold stated that the attorney
recommended the removal of the shed as the best solution. Dold also reported that she had
discussed the situation with Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development and Beth
Knoblauch, City Planner. Dold indicated they had concluded that the only alternative was
removal of the portion of the shed that is located on the neighbor's property. Dold stated that
the Board could consider the variances requested for the existing house and the proposed
deck but she suggested that if these variances were approved by the Board the approval must
include the condition that Mr. Vang can notobtain a building permit until the issue with the
location of the shed is properly resolved.
e
Swedberg stated that after looking at the structure, he had concluded that, due to the method
of construction, it would be impossible to simply expand the concrete slab on Mr. Vang's
property and slide the structure off the neighbor's property.
Mr. Vang stated that the property line appears to be in a different location on the new survey.
He indicated that he felt the shed may have been located within his property line according to
the original survey. He expressed concern with the accuracy of the new survey. Dold stated
that there is no signature on the survey. She informed Mr. Vang that he would need to obtain
a signature from the surveyor. Swedberg informed Mr. Vang that he would need to contact
the surveyor if he felt the survey was incorrect. Oold indicated that if Mr. Vang discovered that
the survey was incorrect he should contact the City immediately so that the issue could be
addressed at the next meeting.
Swedberg stated that the Board would be unable to proceed with consideration of the
variances for the existing house and the deck until the issue with the shed is resolved. He
e
.
e
-
1693
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting
September 28, 1999
Page 3
informed Mr. Vang that he should remove the shed or get a corrected survey if he determines
that the survey is incorrect.
Mr. Gustafson asked about the approximate cost for obtaining an easement. Oold responded
that she could not provide an estimated cost. She stated that Mr. Vang would need to inform
his neighbor that the shed was partially located on the neighbor's property. She indicated that
there would be some legal work with the county and both property owners would have to
return to the City to obtain variances for the structure after obtaining the easement.
Mr. Vang asked if it would be necessary to remove the cement slab. Swedberg responded
that he would need to remove the portion that was located on the neighbor's property.
Swedberg indicated that if the concrete blocks are removed, the cement slab may not actually
extend into the neighbor's property.
Oold stated that if Mr. Vang plans to move or tear down the shed she would suggest
considering the other variance requests for the existing house and the proposed deck so that
Mr. Vang does not need to appear before the Board again after he has resolved the issue with
the location of the shed. Oold also stated that Mr. Vang should not move the shed too far
forward since it is already only five feet from the house and code requires accessory
structures be located at least ten feet from the house.
Swedberg stated that if Mr. Vang decides to move the shed instead of tearing it down he will
need to come back before the Board to obtain a variance anyway. Swedberg also informed
Mr. Vang that once he obtains a variance he has one year to use the variance. He indicated
that if the structure is not built within one year, the variance expires.
MOVED by Sell, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to grant a delay in the
variance request for up to nine months to allow the property owner to resolve the issue with
the location of the shed.
IV. Other Business
There was no other business.
V. Adjournment
Chair Swedberg adjourned the meeting at 7:40 p.m.
H~
Mahlon Swedberg, Chair