Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 05/08/1997 APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS THURSDAY,MAY 8, 1997 7:30 P.M. CITY CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 8080 MITCHELL ROAD BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Chair Kathy Nelson, Cliff Dunham, Delavan Dye, William Ford, Louis Giglio, Matthew Hansen,Michael O'Leary STAFF LIAISON: Zoning Administrator Jean Johnson and City Recorder Barbara Anderson MEMBERS ABSENT: Cliff Dunham,Delavan Dye CALL TO ORDER Chair Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Board members Dunham and Dye were absent. 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Giglio moved, seconded by Ford, to approve the agenda as published. Motion carried 5-0. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES- Apri110, 1997 Giglio requested that the Minutes be corrected to reflect that all members were present. He also requested that the Agenda be amended to reflect that Corrine Lynch was no longer a member of the Board. MOTION: Giglio moved, seconded by O'Leary,to approve the April 10, 1997 Minutes of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals as corrected. Motion carried 5-0. III. VARIANCES A. Request #97-06 by Thomas and Tracy Spainer for 8565 Darnel Road to permit construction of a 13' x 16' deck on the north side of the house, 5 feet from the side lot line(Code requires a 10' setback). Tom Spainer, 8565 Darnel Road,reviewed the variance request to construct a deck on the north side of the house with a variance for a 5' setback. There is a common area that • runs between the houses so the deck would not encroach upon his neighbor's side yard. They don't have much of a back yard area for his two children to play in and the deck would help with this. MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS May 8, 1997 Page 2 Ford asked about the common area and how wide it was. Spainer responded it was 10' wide. There is 18'from his house to the common area and the common area is 10'wide. Ford asked how much area there was in back of his house and Spainer responded that it was pie-shaped but there was about 20-30'to the back lot line. If he put the deck on the back there would not be much room for the children to play. Hansen asked if he would have to remove some trees and Spainer replied that he would have to take out one oak tree but it was dying anyway. Nelson inquired if they would be adding a door to provide access to the deck and Spainer stated it would come out of the kitchen area. He said that a 12'wide deck would be just as acceptable as a 13' wide deck. Nelson asked about water in the back yard and Spainer responded that the back was fairly wet but the side yard was dry. Johnson gave the staff report and noted that staff has not received any calls or letters in opposition to the proposal. There are other 5' setbacks in this area, so granting the variance would be consistent with others in this neighborhood. Hansen inquired about the homeowners association and if they would want to install sidewalks along these common areas in the future. Spainer responded that this area is used as if it belonged to the individual homes adjacent to them The common areas were platted as a way to get around some lot area requirement when the development was proposed, and this area is • not distinguishable from the actual lots. The Public Hearing was opened. No one present wished to speak. The Public Hearing was closed. Giglio commented that it was a reasonable variance request given the common area, and he would support it. Hansen asked if Spainer had discussed the deck with his neighbor to the north and Spainer responded that the neighbor had offered to help build the deck. Ford commented he was not sure as to what the hardship was given the fact that the deck could be constructed in the back yard without a variance,but he believed the request was reasonable since the common area had been used as part of the actual lot for all these years. Nelson commented she would be more comfortable with the deck being 12'wide thus creating a smaller variance. Hansen concurred, noting he did not feel that it was encroaching on the adjacent property given the common area. MOTION: Hansen moved, seconded by Giglio,to approve Variance Request#97-06 for Thomas and Tracy Spainer for 8565 Darnel Road to permit construction of a 12' x 16' deck on the north side of the house, 6 feet from the side lot line with the hardship being • there was a small back yard on the property. Motion carried 5-0. MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS May 8, 1997 Page 3 B. Request #97097 by Chapel Hill Academy for 17850 Duck Lake Trail to extend Variance 94-12; Approval to keep 48' x 66' modular building for classrooms for 2 additional years. The building has wood exterior (Code requires brick,stone and glass for 75% of the building's exterior). Robert Solfelt, 10508 Bluff Road, Vice-Chairman of the School Board at Chapel Hill Academy, requested an extension of a variance granted in 1994. Their enrollment has increased and Chapel Hill has two years remaining on their present lease. They have had to provide handicapped and emergency access as well as fire alarms to the modular units. The units have been painted and skirted, and landscaping has been planted around them to give them less of a temporary appearance. They had anticipated purchasing the King of Glory church but the offer has since been withdrawn. There are two years remaining on their lease but after that time they will be moving to a new facility. They are requesting the variance be extended to coincide with the expiration of their lease. He read a letter from the adjacent neighborhood stating they were in support of the variance being extended. This neighborhood is located on the west side of the school. O'Leary asked about the lease arrangement and what transpired to require extension of the variance. Solfelt responded that they had anticipated purchasing the King of Glory church site but that was no longer possible, so they will be moving to a new location in • two years. Giglio noted that they would need the variance to run through June of 1999 since their lease ran concurrent with the school year, and Solfelt affirmed this was correct. Ford asked if they were looking for new sites and Solfelt responded they were looking, but suitable sites were not easy to find. Ford inquired what they would do in the event the variance was not extended and Solfelt responded that they would have to find space to move the children who now use the portable classrooms, or they would have to make them into permanent structures, but that would be very expensive. The King of Glory Church has no use for the buildings once the school is gone, so it would really be an extra expense. Ford asked why the King of Glory Church changed its plans about the sale of the facility and Solfelt responded that they have had a new pastor come in and they have changed directions since they have not grown as much as they had hoped. He described the church area and the school area and how the space was used. Nelson inquired if it would be possible for them to get out of their lease in the event they found a suitable location and Solfelt responded that they could. He noted that the St. Hubert's church has the opportunity to get out of their facility this fall but they have not made an offer for the site. Nelson inquired if a suitable site became available would they move into it as soon as possible and Solfelt responded that was a reasonable assumption. Nelson inquired if they intended to remain in the present location for the next two years and Solfelt responded that they would unless something better came along. Nelson inquired how the temporary classroom structures were holding up and Johnson responded they had been inspected by the Building Inspector and the Fire Department and found to be sound and serviceable. Solfelt stated they had been painted and re- carpeted and they have installed air conditioning since the facility is used during the summer months. Johnson gave the staff report and stated they have received no inquiries from residents MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS May 8, 1997 • Page 4 or letters in opposition. The Building Inspector and Fire Department are okay with the structures. The Public Hearing was opened. No one present wished to speak. The Public Hearing was closed. Hansen inquired that since student enrollment has grown has the school reached capacity and Solfelt responded that they have doubled up on the kindergarten class and have considered doing that with the first grade as well. They have no room to expand further. If they did expand they would have to provide space off-site. Giglio asked who owned the temporary classroom building and Solfelt responded that they own them and will sell them when they move. They have maintained them in good shape and they have retained their value. The units come apart and are on wheels but they provided good footings and tie-downs when they were installed which have worked out very well. Ford commented that in June, 1999 the building would be gone and the site would be returned to its original state. Solfelt responded that they will have to remove the portico • and the footings. Hansen noted he would like to see these items removed at the end of June, 1999. The loss of the purchase agreement was sufficient hardship and he supported granting the variance request. Nelson stated she would want the building to be removed at the end of the two years. She hoped that a permanent location would be found sooner than June of 1999 and would like to be sure that the building was removed then the use was terminated. MOTION: Giglio moved, seconded by Ford, to grant approval of Variance Request #97-07 for Chapel Hill Academy for 17850 Duck Lake Trail to extend Variance 94-12; Approval to keep 48' x 66'modular building for classrooms for 2 additional years. The building has wood exterior (Code requires brick, stone and glass for 75% of the building's exterior) The variance is through June, 1999 unless the school vacates the site before that time, in which case the building must be removed within one month from the date of vacation,taking inclement weather into account. The hardship was determined to be the withdrawal of the purchase agreement by King of Glory Church. Motion carried 5-0. C. Request#97-08 by Radiator Warehouse West,Donald D. Tesch for 6390 Carlson Drive to extend variance 96-09: 1) Use of four portable metal storage units on the property for a period of one year(City Code does not permit outdoor storage in the I-2 District).,2) To place the storage units at a 0' (zero)setback from the south side • lot line(City Code requires a 20' setback for structures in the I-2 District), and 3) To permit expansion of a non-conforming use. MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS May 8, 1997 Page 5 Johnson noted that the proponent was not present and did not have a representative there due to a conflict. Nelson noted that the variance has actually expired and Johnson stated that because they were in the process of obtaining an extension the item could be continued. Nelson commented there had always been some question as to what was stored in those buildings and she was somewhat concerned given the ground condition in this area. She wanted to have the PCA inspect the site. The PCA could inspect the site within a month or the Hennepin County Environmental Division could inspect it. Hansen inquired if staff had received any complaints and Johnson responded that there was one. MOTION:Giglio moved, seconded by O'Leary, to continue Variance Request#97-08 for 30 days (or one month) until the next meeting and direct staff to have the PCA inspect the site. If the proponent(or his representative) was not present at that time the variance would be denied and staff would be directed to begin the process of having the units removed. Motion carried 5-0. IV. OLD BUSINESS V. NEW BUSINESS Johnson commented that there was a possible variance request for a three-season porch scheduled for the next meeting. She requested members to notify staff when they would be unable to attend meetings. Nelson stated she would be gone for the July meeting. VI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Giglio moved, seconded by Foot to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. LANG, PAULY, GREGERSON & ROSOW, LTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FIRST BANK PLACE 1600 IBM PARK BUILDING 650 THIRD AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-4337 TELEPHONE: (612) 338-0755 FAX: (612) 349-6718 ROBERT I.LANG EDEN PRAIRIE OFFICE ROGER A.PAULY SUITE 370 DAVID H.GREGERSON• 250 PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE RICHARD F.ROSOW EDEN PRAIRIE.MINNESOTA 55344 NL11RK J.JOHNSON TELEPHONE:(612)829-7355 JOSEPH A.NILAN` FAX:(612)829-0713 TODD A.SATTLER JENNIFER M.INZ REPLY TO MINNEAPOLIS OFFICE GERAINT D.POWELL JERRY D.PERRON 'Also Admitted in Wisconsin May 22, 1997 Mr. Chris Enger Eden Prairie City Offices 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 RE: Myron v. City of Plymouth City of Maplewood v. Vallukes Dear Mr. Enger: Last month the Minnesota Court of Appeals decided the case of Myron v. City of Plymouth. I thought you would find the decision interesting. In Myron, the Plaintiff purchased property in the city which he new at the time of purchase required a variance in order to make the property buildable. The variance involved the city's setback requirements. When the property owner made application for the variance, the city denied it on the basis that there was no hardship as required under state law because the purchaser had knowledge that a variance was necessary and, therefore, "created" the hardship himself. The Court of Appeals rejected this line of reasoning and held that denial of a variance request is neither mandatory nor permissible on the basis of that knowledge. The court held that the variance may very well be denied for other reasonable reasons and remanded the matter to the City Council. The court reasoned that since an owner who did not self-create a hardship is eligible for a variance, that owner's purchaser should also be eligible. Another case decided in February by the Court of Appeals also dealt with variances. In this case, City of Maplewood v. Vallukes, the city imposed conditions on the granting of a variance for a setback including requiring the land owners to indemnify the city for any claim that may arise from the driveway's use or maintenance, erecting a "no parking" sign on the driveway and paying their neighbors $75.00 each year for snowplowing. The property owners • challenged the conditions contending that the city did not have the authority to require them. The court held that the city does not have unlimited authority with respect to conditions that may be LANG, PAULY, GREGERSON & ROSOW, LTD. Mr. Chris Enger May 22, 1997 Page 2 imposed but rather the conditions must bear a reasonable relationship to the public health, safety and welfare and must be directly related and incidental to the proposed use of the property. The Court of Appeals directed the judgment be entered entitling the property owner to full use of their property without the burden of the conditions that were imposed. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, LANG,14� ULY, GREGERSON & ROSOW, LTD. Y % RFR/smk Richard F. Rosow Enclosure cc: Carl Jullie rfr\ep\enger.52]