Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 11/12/1992 APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS WORKSHOP MEETING THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 129 1992 7:30 P.M., CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7600 EXECUTIVE DRIVE EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Sharon Roe Anderson, Donald Argue, John Freemyer, Dwight Harvey, Arthur Weeks, Michael Wilkus STAFF PRESENT: Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator and Recorder I. CALL TO ORDER -- ROLL CALL - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE • Chairman Harvey called the meeting to order at 7:32 P.M. Roll call was taken as noted above. H. APPROVEL OF AGENDA Weeks moved and Wilkus seconded to approve the agenda. III. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 8. 1992 Harvey said that Akemann should still be listed as a member of the Board until he is replaced. Freemyer noted that on page 3, he had said that if a retaining wall were needed, then that would be raising grade. MOTION: Weeks moved and Wilkus seconded to approve the minutes as corrected. The motion carried 6-0. IV. SWEARING IN OF NEW MEMBER CORRINE LYNCH • Corrine Lynch read the Oath of Office to the members of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, two Board members witnessed her swearing in. At this point in the meeting, the Board members did have Lynch review her background, and then the Board members each gave her background on themselves. V. WORKSHOP DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Building permit issuance process. Jean Johnson introduced Kevin Schmieg, the Director of Inspections, Safety and Facilities. Mr. Schmieg gave the following background to the Board. The City does approximately 4,700 permits per year and 10,000 inspections per year. This is done with six inspectors. Mr. Schmieg then reviewed the standard deck permit application process. The process includes the applicant submitting two plans and filling out an application form. The City does require that permits be posted at the work site. Decks are inspected for footings and then only a final inspection is made. Mr. Schmieg then mentioned that the number of inspectors that he has are not capable of spending the time that would be required to do measurement checks at each site and at each time they do an inspection. They are allowed approximately nineteen minutes at each inspection site, and then they move on to the next site. What the City relies upon is the survey that is done for the deck showing the proper setback. • The Board and Mr. Schmieg then reviewed if quick measurement checks could be done. It was the consensus of most, that the stakes as they appear at the site and the assumed location of an adjacent house would not be reliable. The Board then questioned how the City might prevent builders from selling patio or sliding glass doors to homeowners when there can be only a small or no deck built because the home is already at the setback limit. Mr. Schmieg responded that he would not be able to prevent a builder from installing a sliding glass door or patio even if there was no room to construct a deck. He believed the Uniform Building Code would allow such an installation to be made. Mr. Schmieg further mentioned that the existence of the patio door, french doors or sliding glass door does not equate to the right of a deck, and that it would be very difficult to monitor this, because some of these units are installed after the City process of reviewing a building plan has been completed. It was further discussed that although house plans are to be posted at the site, some builders refrain from doing so because of theft of plans. The Board and Staff then reviewed whether or not double checks could be made on surveys and notations placed on those surveys that would indicate that the structure is at its setback, and no further additions could be made. • ---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 2 During this discussion, it was brought out that it would be difficult to see that these surveys are passed on to a home buyer because many homes are done spec without an owner known. Also, the builder is the one who picks up the plans and the permit may not be passed on to the new buyer. Further into the future, the new buyer may not pass it on to the next buyer. The second idea was whether or not Staff could require all surveyors to dilineate on a certificate of survey where the setback lines are. In reviewing this option, it was noted that a home placed toward the center of a lot would not be easy to illustrate which side would be at a 10 foot and which one would perhaps meet the 15 foot minimum, because it is an either or situation. Board members were very concerned on how to protect the public, but at this point in the meeting, the options that were reviewed did not seem to be the solution. It was agreed that Staff should consider future options and be open to things that might be utilized in other communities that assist Eden Prairie residents in these problems. At this point in the meeting, Mr. Argue left (time 8:45). B. Guidelines for Special Meetings The Board reviewed the guidelines for special meetings that had been passed out at a previous board meeting. The Board suggested that it be retitled as Guidelines for Board of Adjustments and Appeals Scheduling a Special Meeting. The third item under the fifth bullet was eliminated. The Board members then decided that it would be best if these items were in use at this time and to wait for the new board in 1993 would not be necessary. Mr. Freemyer did feel that it would be appropriate to wait for the 1993 board to act on this. MOTION: Anderson moved, Lynch seconded to approve the Guidelines for the Board of Adjustments and Appeals Scheduling a Special Meeting. The motion carried 5-1 with Freemyer voting nay. C. Drag Letter From the Board of Adjustments and Appeals to the City Council The Board spent time reviewing the letter and discussing what changes might be made. The changes were accomplished, and the letter was approved for final typing. All board members concurred with the contents of the letter. • ---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 3 MOTION: Anderson moved, Weeks seconded to strongly urge the City Manager to include this letter in the Friday "For Your Information" packet of November 13, 1992. The motion carried 5-0-1. VI. OLD BUSINESS VII. NEW BUSINESS The Board inquired about agenda items for the next month's meeting. Johnson reported that there is one project to date that has made application for a variance. VIII. ADTO + At 9:25 p.m., Lynch moved, Anderson seconded to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried. SI IEPMINJJ:bs ---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 4 November 12, 1992 The Honorable Mayor and Fellow Members of the City Council City of Eden Prairie Ladies and Gentlemen: It is a privilege for all of us to serve as members of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals for the City of Eden Prairie. We have accepted this responsibility with a combination of pride and humility, with a genuine desire to serve both the Council, who appointed us, and all the citizens of Eden Prairie, of who we are a part. We understand our responsibility to be the consistent application of the City's zoning ordinances as contained in the City Code (enacted by you and your predecessors) except in cases where their strict application would cause "undue hardship" to an applicant applying for a variance. In applying the "undue hardship" standard, we rely on the definitions contained in the City Code, which defines our duties and responsibilities, and the State of Minnesota statutes which empowered the City to create our Board. These text book "hardship" definitions have been further refined by us to be responsive to our perception of those ordinances the Council appears to feel the most strongly about. In other words, some softening of the "hardship" standard is often exercised in those cases where the Council's comments or actions appear to indicate the particular ordinance is viewed as less important for strict enforcement than others. Our perceptions are based on the comments expressed in our joint meetings with the Council as well as the results of appeals of our decisions to the Council. By whatever means "hardship" is determined, we, as a Board, have been extremely careful to define in our decisions the "hardship" test the proponent has either met or failed to meet. This background brings us to our current frustration with recent actions of the Council in overriding our decisions. In our April 1992 joint meeting, we were left with the distinct impression that the Council would be supportive of the Board in decisions involving variances from: (1) Shoreland ordinances; and, (2) residential set-backs from front and side lot lines. During that same meeting, we again emphasized the State and City Code definitions of "hardship" and encouraged the Council to utilize the same definition or, if swayed by the circumstances to conclude differently than us as to how the definition should be interpreted in a particular case, to clearly express the reasons for the different conclusion. The Council agreed that this was the only means by which interpretations of "hardship" could then be consistently applied by both bodies. Mayor and Council Members • November 12, 1992 Page 2 Since our joint meeting, three appeals of Board decisions involving the types of variances referenced above have reached the Council. In all three cases, the Board spent considerable time in allowing proponents time to present their case and listened to comments from interested neighbors and citizens well into the evening. Imagine our consternation upon learning that, after having contributed these substantial amounts of time, when these appeals reached the Council, they were overridden in an almost perfunctory manner with little or no time given to allow City staff input to the matter. Furthermore, in all three cases, the Council failed to identify the "hardship" which is required by statute to grant a variance. If we are to be effective in our decision-making role, (not advisory as some Council members continue to presume), it is essential the Board receive feedback from the Council as to the Council's definition of "hardship", again as required by statute, in the appealed case. Your cooperation in providing this feedback is appreciated. Sincerely, Dwight S. Harvey John Freemyer Arther B. Weeks Sharon Roe Anderson Michael J. Wilkus Don Argue MEMBERS, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS CCLTR.BOA AGENDA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS WORKSHOP THURSDAY, November 12, 1992 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 EXECUTIVE DRIVE BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Sharon Roe Anderson, Donald Argue, John Freemyer(Secretary), Dwight Harvey (Chairperson), Corrine Dalquist Lynch, Arthur Weeks (Vice Chairperson), Michael Wilkes BOARD STAFF: Zoning Administrator, Jean Johnson Recording Secretary, Sharon Storholm Tentative Times (7:30) CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA (7:35) H. MINUTES • Minutes of October 8, 1992 (7:40) III. SWEARING IN OF NEW MEMBER CORRINE LYNCH (7:45) IV. WORKSHOP DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Building Permit Issuance Process (8:30) B. Guidelines for Special Meetings (8:45) C. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS (9:00) VII. ADTOURNMENT AGNNOVJJ 0