Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 04/10/2003 Approved Minutes Board of Adiustments & Appeals THURSDAY,APRIL 10, 2003 7:00 P.M. CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD: Cliff Dunham, Chairperson; Louis Giglio, Ismail Ismail, Michael O'Leary, Greg Olson Anthony Ramunno and Randy Stroot STAFF: Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator Carol Pelzel, Recorder CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Dunham called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL—PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: Cliff Dunham, Ismail Ismail, Michael O'Leary, Anthony Ramunno and Randy Stroot Absent: Louis Giglio and Greg Olson I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Dunham asked that Approval of Minutes be moved to the end of the agenda. Motion/Second: Ramuno/Stroot, to approve the agenda as amended. Motion carried 5-0. II. VARIANCES A. Request#2003-01 by Marshall/Sailer for 9100 Eden Prairie Road. For approval for a 2.25 foot variance from a 50-foot front lot line setback requirement for the existing house. (47.75 foot setback due to Hennepin County Highway land acquisition for road improvement.) Mark Sailer, 9100 Eden Prairie Road, explained that they are requesting a 2.25 foot variance. During the County Road expansion at Eden Prairie Road and Pioneer Trail, property was acquired to widen the road. This acquisition resulted in their house not being in compliance with the required front yard setback of 50 feet. Currently they have a setback of 47.5 feet, approximately 2.25 feet short. The applicant displayed pictures of the property prior to the road construction and after the construction was completed. Sailer said they estimate that the County took 30 feet. Dunham asked how people get in and out of the property. Sailer explained a parking lot has been located in front of the building and another lot exists off Pioneer Trail. Johnson presented the staff report explaining that prior to the County taking of the property for intersection improvements, the house was approximately 75 to 77 feet behind the property line. The taking of 30 feet reduced the setback to 47.5 feet. This is a minor variance at 2.5 feet and is the result of the County taking the property. To date,no calls in opposition were received on this request. Dunham opened the public hearing. Having no one appear, Dunham closed the public hearing. O'Leary said he does not see any reason for not approving this request. The property was in compliance until the County took the land for road improvements. The property has been landscaped with a retaining wall and fencing and O'Leary said he does not see this as a problem. Motion/Second: O'Leary/Ismail, to approve Request#2003-01 for approval for a 2.25 foot variance from a 50-foot front lot line setback requirement for the existing house with the hardship being the fact that the County required land for road improvements. The motion carried, 5-0. B. Request#2003-02 by Temporary Living Center, Inc. for 7170 Bryant Lake Drive. Approval to expand a nonconforming use on the property located in the Rural Zoning District and in a Shoreland area by adding a 24' x 40' addition to the north side of the existing house structure. The proposed addition is 12.75' from the side lot line (a 50' minimum setback is required), 34' from the rear lot line (50' minimum setback is required), 105 ' from Nine Mile Creek(a 150' minimum setback is required), and the proposed addition will create a one side/both side lot setback of 12.75'/l 14.75' (50'1150' minimum setbacks are required). Jacque Robinson, 7170 Bryant Lake Drive,presented a brief overview of Temporary Living Center(TLC). She explained that they are a 16-bed facility and halfway house for girls. Robinson stated they are asking for the addition of office space and multiple setback variances. They understand that they are in a rural area. She indicated they could have asked for the addition of a game room. Robinson explained that they serve 16 girls and have served a total of 121 so far. They have 15 staff members and feel they are under a hardship because of the need for additional space. She indicated that when she first opened the halfway house she did not know what she knows now. She was not aware that they would need the kind of office space they need now. They are committed to the community. Robinson displayed pictures showing the improvements that have been made to the house since she has owned it. She also displayed a layout of what they are proposing to do. The changes made are positive to the environment of the community. They want to create a home for teenage girls. Robinson said it is their intent to build the addition in the same era as the house. The offices will not look like offices,but will be part of the home. The addition would be placed on the north side of the house. Ismail asked if the addition would be flush to the front of the house. Robinson said it would not. They feel that their proposal is the most attractive way to do the addition. Robinson said she did not know what she knows now about variances and building on. They have looked at adding a basement but the problem with that is not only the additional costs but that the house would have to be emptied. It would require them to have the facility shut down and the girls would have no place to go. There currently is only a crawl space. Stroot asked how many of the girls would be able to go home. Robinson responded that two or three would have homes that are supportive of their recovery while they would not want to send the remaining girls home. They are not ready to go home, that is the reason for the facility. They are contracted by Hennepin County to help those girls who do not have the money to pay. Some of the girls have financial backing but can't make it on their own. Dunham asked what other options they have looked at. Robinson responded that they have looked at building onto the garage and the only other option they have is to add a basement. Currently her office is the size of a walk-in closet. There are always two or more staff members on duty. During the day they have five or six staff members working. Another option would be to have a mobile home placed on the property. They currently have no privacy and they have a 12-foot by 12-foot area that houses three staff members. They do not have the ability to move their technicians or counselors off site. Ismail asked how many clients and staff members they had when they first opened and if they see themselves growing in the future. Robinson explained that in their first week or two of operation they had five clients. They operated 24 hours a day and had a program director and technicians. They were able to manage with ten girls in the house, any additional girls required additional staff. They currently house 16 girls and this is more than any group should handle. The last thing they want to do is to add girls to this house. Robinson stated that they do not want to take on any more girls. They currently have eight full-time staff and seven part-time. Ismail asked if they intend to add staff and/or girls. Robinson said it is not their intent to grow. Stroot asked what would happen if a 17th girl appeared at their door asking to move in. Robinson said they would not accept her. They have a waiting list of ten girls. They are not licensed for more. The girl would be required to stay in a treatment center or go to another facility. Robinson pointed out that their facility is the only one of its kind in the seven-county metro area. O'Leary asked if the variances were granted and they are licensed for 16 girls, what would stop them from expanding this facility. Robinson said she has no idea. They asked for a 16-bed facility and the only reason they did not go smaller is because it is not cost effective to have fewer girls. Ismail commented the parking on site appears far short for the employees and people. Johnson presented the staff report explaining that the property is located at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive and is a non-conforming use and has been for a number of years. The property does not conform to the rural setbacks, rural lot size and rural lot width and depth. They are proposing an expansion that would also be enlarging the non-conforming use. Johnson pointed out that sections of the City Code pertaining to this request were included in the Staff report. Section 11.75 of the City Code states that the Code's purpose is to prohibit the enlargement of non-conforming uses and expects that non-conforming uses will be eliminated or altered to conform to the City Code. The proposal includes the addition of 24 feet by 40 feet of office space,which is a significant addition to the property. Johnson stated that City Staff also has some concerns with the addition of the office space expansions since it would be contrary to the Code. Staff did discuss the rezoning of the property which could result in variances that would be significantly less than what is being requested this evening. Johnson said she did receive a letter this evening in opposition to the proposal. The letter from Mr. Azine is at the Board's desk this evening. Stroot asked if the rezoning would apply to only this lot. Johnson said if would only affect this property. Ismail asked if Staff discussed rezoning with the applicant. Johnson responded affirmative. If the property were zoned to residential, the side setback could be 10 feet and 15 feet instead of 50 feet and 100 feet. That would give the applicant enough room for the structure. Shoreland variances may still be needed. Dunham asked if the Water District has reviewed this request. Johnson responded the grading amount may not require watershed district review. Dunham opened the public hearing. Donald Sorenson, 7121 Willow Creek Road, said that the issues before the Board tonight are issues of zoning and use. The need for such a facility or its location is not part of the issue. There are two issues that the Board must consider,the issue of expanding a non-conforming use and the granting of variances. The Board can only do what the State authorizes them to do under State Statutes. The zoning code and ordinances are the creation of State Statutes as are non- conforming uses. The City Code is almost a regurgitation of State Statutes. The structure was built before a zoning ordinance was in effect. Once the ordinance was developed the property became non-conforming. They are allowed up to six people in a single-family district. Sorenson presented a copy of a Historical Society document that refers to this particular piece of property and structure. This property was originally built in 1895 and was first used as a general store and post office and a stop over for travelers. Sorenson presented a brief history of the property. Sorenson explained that a non-conforming use is to eventually end as required by statute and by local Code. The City Code specifically states that the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Chapter 11.76 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. It also states that the Code is intended to limit the number and extent of non-conforming uses by prohibiting their enlargement. Sorenson said that the law clearly states that the Board has no choice but to deny this request since they cannot permit expansions of this non-conforming use regardless of the variance issues. The non-conforming use situation is not to prolong the use but rather to retire it. Sorenson stated that the size of this property is .93 acres and there is very little difference in the lot size from the single-family homes that surround it. This is a smaller lot than the existing single-family homes in the area. Sorenson said in his opinion this Board is legally prohibited from permitting this expansion. They are requesting 960 square feet of additional structure. A non-conforming use may only allow routine maintenance and repairs. They are not only changing the size of the structure but they are also introducing an office use in a rural district. The applicant is intending to introduce further non-conforming uses to the property. Sorenson pointed out that the applicant has been unable to show a hardship. There is no hardship except for the expansion that the present owner wants to make which is not something that exists on the property. The property can be put to a reasonable use. Sorenson said he believes the property owner purchased the property with full knowledge of its restrictions. She cannot claim that she did not know what the restrictions were. Sorenson believed the Board is legally prohibited from expanding a non-conforming use and the variance procedure is not applicable. The variances being requested are variances that are contrary to the specific language of the State Statutes and local Code. Sheldon Azine, 7113 Crown Oak Road, said he agrees with the comments made by Sorenson. This is a land use issue not a question of the appropriateness of TLC. He is not here saying that he does not want this facility in their neighborhood. Azine said he would like to emphasize that they applaud the applicant's efforts in improving this property,however,had the County or their corporate clients seen this property as it was they would not have provided funds for this facility. It was necessary for them to correct this property in order for them to function as they are functioning now. Azine pointed out that when this property was acquired it already was non- conforming relative to zoning and setback requirements. The proposed addition of office is not permitted in a rural zone. This addition would only exasperate an already non-conforming use. Azine indicated that an undue hardship is a key requirement. TLC has not demonstrated a hardship. The conditions may not be ideal but they are still able to service their clients. The owner should have been aware of the non-conforming issue. If TLC really feels that additional space is necessary, they should pursue the basement option. Azine said they have no information as to what the cost would be for adding a basement. The basement option would have a less affect on the neighbors in the area and would not exasperate the non-conforming nature of the site. Azine said one of the responsibilities of the Board under the City Code is to work toward elimination or alteration of variances so they become conforming or ultimately go out of existence. This request only adds to a non-conforming variance. This Board should not grant the variance and is not permitted to do so under City Code. Bruce Duoos, 7160 Willow Creek Road,pointed out that this property does have limits. It is a long narrow strip of land with a creek. The property has been used many different ways over the years and the way it is now is appropriate. This is a well-run facility and is an appropriate use but does have limitations. Several neighbors did consider purchasing the property which would allow them to control it. However, there were limits of the land which would not allow townhouses and the things necessary to make it a nice piece of residential property were not there. It is a severely limited piece of property. Duoos suggested that the applicant consider using a bedroom or two for office space. If they need space for administration and counseling perhaps another way to accomplish that would be to have fewer women. They are not mandated to have 16 people. Duoos said when you look at the variances required on this property, all three sides would need a variance. Dan Groge, 7061 Willow Creek Road,pointed out the issue here is that the Board has to draw the line. It is a non-conforming use and it has to come to an end despite the hardship for this program. Groge said he feels the Board has to vote against this request. Robert Solohub, 7052 Crown Oak Road, said he voices agreement with the previous speakers. His only question is that the proposed expansion seems to be a one-story addition. He questioned if the applicant would later request additional bedrooms on top of the proposed expansion. Solohub said he sees requests for additional variances in the future if this is approved. Steven Hayden, 12232 Chadwick Lane, explained that his wife is an intern at TLC and he would like to talk about the need for the alcohol treatment and halfway house. Dunham pointed out that this Board is not dealing with the use of the property but with the variance request issue. Hayden said he wanted the Board to know that there is a dramatic need for this property and the people to staff it. JoAnn Hayden, 12232 Chadwick Lane, questioned why the Board allowed the history of the property to be presented. The property does exist and is being used as a halfway house for girls. There is a great need and this property will continue to be used as a halfway house whether or not this request is approved. Hayden said she is speaking for the need for more office space for the staff. There is not enough space or privacy. Steve Hayden said this property is better now than it has been in the past. He questioned why the neighbors are against another improvement to the property. Who knows what would happen to this property if TLC moved somewhere else. John Schweitzer, the contractor for this project, said their intention was to create an efficient property that would work with the neighborhood. It is their understanding that if this property were rezoned to a residential single-family dwelling unit, the existing structure may fall within setback requirements. They also understand that the current zoning does not allow that. They do have the ability to make this property conforming, however, the rezoning would eliminate the TLC use. It is a temporary use and is something that works for the City. Ismail asked what the estimated cost would be to develop the.basement. Schweitzer said they did talk about that option. The plan presented this evening is the most financially viable option. The option being presented this evening would cost approximately$180,000. To add a basement with similar square footage under the existing structure would cost approximately$270,000. Dunham closed the public hearing. O'Leary stated when a structure is nonconforming it is expected to be eliminated or become conforming. The Code is clear on non conforming uses. O'Leary said he feels what TLC is doing is a great thing. Even when neighbors come in and say they are in favor of a particular variance it does not necessarily mean that that variance will be approved. If the next person that moves next door objects to the variance there is nothing that can be done. O'Leary pointed out that adding on to this property does impose on the adjoining properties. Ismail said the amount of variances are large. This request considerably exceeds the code regulations. Stroot said he agrees that what TLC is doing is wonderful,however, it is unfortunate that they are dealing with a building and lot which is non conforming. This Board has to set aside what is being done inside of the building and has to deal with the building and the lot lines, and the variances are too much. Motion/Second: O'Leary/Stroot, to deny Variance Request#2003-02 with the following findings and conclusions as follows: a. Adding a 24' x 40' office use addition is contrary to the intent of Code regulations which prohibit a variance for a use that is not permitted for the zone (office use is not permitted in the Rural District). b. The variance request is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the City Code as it enlarges the non-conforming use. Non—conforming uses do not carry a purpose to accommodate enlargement. The City Code purpose is to prohibit the enlargement of non-conforming uses and expect elimination or alteration to conform to Code. The requested enlargement of 52 percent is significant and would increase the non- conforming issues in relation to required Rural setbacks. c. The request involves multiple setback variances of significant deviation from the Code minimums. d. No "undue hardship"has been demonstrated as defined in Statute. e. The property can be put to a reasonable use as it exists. f. The property owner purchased the property with knowledge of its physical condition, non-conforming status, and City Code limitations on non-conforming uses and structures. The motion carried, 5-0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of December 12,2002 Motion/Second: Stroot/Ismail, to approve the December 12, 2002,minutes as presented. Motion carried 4-0-1 with Dunham abstaining because of absence from that meeting. IV. NEW BUSINESS Dunham explained that this is the last formal meeting of this Board. He thanked the Board and staff for the wonderful job they have done with this Board. Ismail said he has enjoyed working on the Board and is disappointed it is being disbanded. He feels that by adding this Board's duties to the Planning Commission there may be inefficiencies to the process. O'Leary stated variance requests may add time to the Planning Commission meetings. He was notified through a letter and telephone call that this Board was disbanded. He had hoped the two groups would be merged together and variance board members could serve on the Planning Board. Stroot stated he was surprised it happened so quickly this year and there was no time to discuss. Johnson explained that the City started the process of reviewing and possibly combining various Boards and Commissions approximately four years ago. At that time they looked at combining the variance issues with the planning issues because issues can be similar. Also, combining the two Boards provide streamlining for the residents/applicants. Residents/applicants have an opportunity for two meetings per month. Johnson noted that both of the Boards' agendas items have been declining. Meetings have been cancelled for both Boards due to the lack of items to be considered. Johnson also noted that the Board did discuss this matter at their February 6, 2002, meeting and discussed the draft letter. The letter was updated in 2003. At past Board meetings, usually at the end of the calendar year and prior to member selection process, members have inquired about the status of the possible change, and staff has provided information that the issue is still pending. Johnson distributed the minutes from the Feb.6, 2002 meeting. Johnson explained that when the new Board members were interviewed for this Board they were told that the functions of the Board may be combined with the Planning Board. Ramunno recalled being informed during the selection process. O'Leary said if the Council is combining the two Boards,there should be members from this Board serving on the Planning Board. Johnson noted Kathy Nelson from the Board of Adjustments and Appeals was appointed to the Planning Board. Individuals wishing to serve on the Planning Board will have the annual selection process to participate in, or make themselves available for seats that may open up prior to the annual selections. Dunham said he thinks they all want to serve the City the best they can. They need to look at the overall process of getting approvals for zoning, setbacks,PUD's, etc. As the City becomes older they will find it to be more productive to do all of this under one Board. It will certainly be advantageous to the applicant in getting their variance request heard sooner since the Planning Board meets twice a month and not just once. Dunham said he does not believe the combining of the two Boards is necessarily a cost savings for the City. As the City matures the number of requests will be much less than when the City was growing. Board members expressed his appreciation to Dunham for the excellent job he did in serving as the Chairperson for this Board. V. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:55PM.