Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 06/27/1989 - Joint Meeting CITY COUNCIL AND BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS JOINT MEETING Tuesday, June 27, 1989 7:30 PM, Council Chambers at City Offices 7600 Executive Drive, Eden Prairie, HN CITY COUNCIL: Richard Anderson (Chairman), Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcor_k, Douglas Tenpas , Gary Peterson BOARD MEMBERS: Steve Longman (Chairman), Bill Arockiasamy, Michael Bozonie, Dwight Harvey, Scott Anderson, John Freemye r, Neil Ake mmann CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Assistant to the City Manager, Craig W Dawson RECORDING SECRETARY: Sharon Swenson PLANNING COMMISSION: Assistant Planner, Jean Johnson I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Acting mayor Richard Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:30 PK n. Perernnn absent. II. BOARD PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION Dawson explained that this meeting was one of a continuing series of meetings between the Board and the Council. It had been several years since the last ; meeting and there had been a membership turnover on both groups since that blue. Communication issues needed to be discussed. Johnson gave a stummary of the variances, stating that the average number per year came to 40-60. She explained the process of applying for a variance, and clarified the zoning, platting„ and PUD processes. She noted the summary of the 1988 variances in the packet. She added that the degree of the variance requested was a major issue that the Board wished to discuss. Pidcock asked if the code should be adjusted, since there seems to be a number of variances as neighborhoods upgrade. Tenpas felt the Council should examinethe development and review process. Harvey asked how much time was spent on development projects at the City Council levd at the first reading ? Acting Mayor Anderson answered that it can be considerable, expecially when they involve lake frontage. The developer may be giving something to the City as negotiation takes place. I 2 Harris noted that the quality of the project was also considered and whether ft fit into the design of the City. Harvey asked if there were any "sacred" code sections. Discussion took place on R1-44 and R1-22 zoning district standards. Pidcock believed it was important to preserve our natural enviroment . especially bluffs and lakeshore. Tenpas felt that the Staff did a good job of working with the developers before -projects came to the Council. He thought before they were presented to the Council, the applicants probably had a pretty good idea of what would or would not be approved. Longman noted that the issue for the Board was that after they had spent about 3 hours on a variance. what decision would the Council make? Five of the six decisions that the Board considered to be most important were overturned by the Council. He added that he realized the applicant would be caning to the Council on these variances, and that Council members may see them differently. But, he added, that if five of those six in the last two years had been over- turned, why did the Board spend so much time deliberating those variances? Harvey asked what information the Council had available when they near the variances. Tenpas answered that the Council Members read the minutes of the Board and reviewed the same reports that were available to the Board Members. Longman cited the examples of Touch of Class and Cabriole. Center. S Anderson suimested that possibly the Chairman of the Board of Appeals speak at variance appeals at Council Meetings. In this way, the opinion of the Board could be clearly stated. Harvey asked if appeals of Board decisions were a public hearing. R Anderson answered no, they were public meetings. i Longman felt it was unfortunate that the Board members believed they had to be at Council meetings defending their decisions. Harris noted that regarding the two variances cited (Touch of Class and Cabriole Center) the Council took other issues into consideration. Denying people the use of their property can involve legal matters. R Anderson noted that the vote on the Touch of Class variance was not unanimous. Harvey stated that at the Council Meeting, Touch of Class presented it's reasons why the Board decision should be overturned. The Board members were rot asked for their opinions. Four members had been present. I 3 Harris noted that anyone who wishes to speak at the Council meeting may do so. She said she could not recall a time when a member of the Board presented an issue. R Anderson reminded those present that the Board is a recommending body. He suggested that when Board members feel strongly, they should come to the Council meeting and address the Council personally. Many aspects need to be [ffken 'nt? sideeerstion and he had personally been upset at decisions made ougBozonie asked what the Council view on economic hardship was. Harris said it was part of many factors that were considered. S Anderson explained the history of the Touch of Class variance for the benefit of those not familiar with the background. Freemyer said he had been taking classes on land use planning and planning ordinances. The statutes say the final decision is to come from the City Council, but the City Council can use only the same criteria as the Board of Appeals. The Council may disagree, but need to follow the same criteria. Tenpas felt it -aas a commercial use that blends in with a residential area. Pidcock explained that the applicants did not want to change the exterior to brick because of the planned highway development. R Anderson noted that both State law and City ordinances came into play here. Longman stated that regarding the Touch of Class, the Board was not taking or restricting the use of the property--just asking them to bring it closer to code. Tenpas said Staff attended the meetings where there are questions on variances. yf Arockiasamy believed that this joint meeting was an excellent idea. He said that he had been a member of the Board of Appeals for many years and this was the first time he had attended a joint meeting. The Board is an extension of the Council. Meetings such as these should be held every six months and the instances where the Board decisions were overturned should be discussed. Hey thought there were two groups of variances--contingent and non-contingent— andhe explained the differences. These can involve existing property or developments. Developments were more difficult and if the Planning Commission and the Council reviewed these first, there should be some communication with the Board. Regarding the Touch of Class case, there was a compromise the first time it was reviewed by the Board. After one year, they came back and had not done anything so it was extended another year. After the second year it was the same-- nothing had been done and they stated that they did not want to do anything. He agreed that it was not appropriate for the Board to speak as a body at the Council Meeting, only each as a resident. If the Council had invited opinion, Board members would have spoken. The applicant had given a brief presentation, �- there was not discussion or deliberation, and the request was granted. Board members had been under the opinion that the Council would consider this an important decision because of their presence. 4 He continued as he quoted from the code:"'undue hardship because of unusual circumstances on the property;' He agreed with that reason, but went on to give the definition of "undue hardship" as being: the property cannot be put to a reasonable use." Touch of Class was already using the property. It could continue to be used, with the expense of a few more dollars. Harvey added that Touch of Class was symptomatic of a problem. Procedural things may be done to help the problem. The Board had an obligation to explain to the applicant why the variance was approved or denied. The knowdwherredthey ha�ma�a mmista°Ke. the Council in return. They wished to Pidcock noted that people arrive at their decisions from different points of view. F Harvey felt that just as the proponet needed an opportunity to present his case, so did the Board need that opportunity. 4 d Harris said the Board did not make a mistake--the Council had used the same information, but looked at future plans and road changes. It was not an economic hardship alone. Tenpas said he aml.d understand the Council decision taking into consideration the road plars for that area. Maybe some modification in the code regarding the use of brick should be considered. Dawson noted that the Bard needs to take the code as it's direction. Changes to the code would be initiated by the Council and Planning Commission. Akemann said the Board was not able to find undue hardship. The hardhsip was uncertainty--which cannot be used as a hardship. Would it be possible to limit or set a percentage of the variance that must be completed within a one year time frame? i.i.A-awuci saki sne believed the one year limit came from State S:atutes. if the proponent does not comply or get an extension, they can be taken to court. Freemyer felt that code needed to be looked at from time to time and reviewed or revised. A mckiasamy felt the shoreline variances should be reviewed carefully as well as the height of the buildings. Harris said she felt the Board should consider having representation at the Council meetings when such issues cane up. She thought- the use of signs, brick, and glass should be reviewed. Longman noted that glass and masonry eliminated maintenance problems. Pidcock noted that Touch of Class bui,lding,will need to add brick or move to another site within 2 years. 5 R Anderson noted that non-conforming use issues were the toughest. He would like to see the Board make up a list of things it would like to see the Council consider. He added that members should came to the Council meeting on any matter on which they have strong feelings. Harvey noted two upcoming issues: Access easements to lakes for owners of none-lakefront properties and preservation of trees. R Anderson told the Board to write up its recommendations and submit to r Johnson. Harvey suggested two more issues: Horsepower of motors on lakes and outside storage of recreational vehicles. f Freemyer noted that the proponent from Cabriole Center had stated that he did not laiow that economic hardship was not a"hardship: Tenpas said the value of the mortgage is based on the rental value of the property. The present owner of the building was not the original owner. As long as those lots were considered one lot, nothing could be developed on x the second lot. S Anderson said tax allocation could be a real problem. It could have been done a condominum association as was City West. Dawson added that the cross-parking easement was required before the final plat was approved. Freemvyer said if there will be lots of "phase developments" in the future, what can be done to eliminate the problem? Dawson suggested flexibility when considering criteria related co "when circumstances are not of property owner's making." Arockiasamy felt there will be tail buildings in Major Center area--if that was indeed true, why should they go through the variance process? Discussion mok place on building height, multiple-family units, shorelines, trees, Wooddale Church steeple. Pidcock thanked the Board for its coct ents and work on each decision. Harris added that the dedication of such . as the Board members makes Eden Prairie great. Nothing is cast in concrete and the code may need to be re-examined. ----- 6 Johnson affirmed that Staff will do research on the topics that had been mentioned at this meeting. R Anderson suggested to Johnson that theater signs be added to that list. He reminded the other members of the Council that anytime they get a decision, it should be carefully considered. Bozonie felt that,regarding the multi-theaters, it seemed that the code was saying that 9 or 12 screens together was not desirable. If a developer were to ask, would he be told that there could be a compromise or that his proposal does not fit the City. If it were granted, it may promote other developments similar in nature. Freemyer felt the Board did not have the right to say no-it cannot be done. Tenpas expressed his appreciation to the Board. i S Anderson felt there was an incredible opportunity in Eden Prairie now i with the Major Center area. He suggested using a minimum floor ratio instead of a aamxim m floor ratio. 1 ~ III.ADJOURNMENT PDTION: Pidcock moved that the Council/Board meeting adjourn_ Tenpas Seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Adjournment at 9:40 PM