Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 10/11/1984 APPROVED MINUTES . BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11 , 1984 7:30 PM, ADMINISTRATION BLDG. , SCHOOL BOARD ROOM 8100 SCHOOL ROAD BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Chairman Ron Krueger, Richard Lynch, Roger Sandvick, James Dickey and Hanley Anderson BOARD STAFF: Assistant Planner, Steve Durham and Recording Secretary, Lynda Diede ROLL CALL: Krueger was absent I. MINUTES MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Sandvick, to approve the minutes of September 13, 1984. Motion carried unanimously. II. VARIANCES A. Request #84-52, submitted by Bertwood Pendleton for property located at 15500 North Eden Road. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subd. 2 and Subd. 3, C, to permit • construction of a garage within 13' of the front property line. Code requires a minimum of 37.8 feet as per the average setback of the block. Bertwood Pendleton, 15500 North Eden Road, presented the request to the Board. He proposes to construct a garage 22' x 30' in front of the existing tuck-under garage. The style of the garage would be the same as that of the house. It would not pose a hazard to traffic on North Eden Drive. Lynch inquired if neighbors had been spoken to. Pendleton responded that he had spoken to neighbors and there was no opposition. Lynch questioned if the problem with an alternative plan would be excavation. Pendleton replied that the problem would be building a retaining wall . Sandvick inquired as to the cost of the alternative plan. Pendleton said it would cost $12,000. Sandvick asked how much it would cost to build the present plan. Pendleton replied $9,200. Lynch asked if there were any comments from the audience. There were none. Sandvick asked what the average setback was on the lot. Durham • replied that it was 37.8 feet. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 2 - October 11 , 1984 Dickey suggested that Pendleton look at different alternatives such as placing the garage against the house and partially filling in the area or putting the garage to the rear of the lot. There is no hardship demon- strated for the request. Dickey would like to see some estimates for the project. Pendleton stated that it would be difficult for him to build on the east side because of the hill . Trees would also have to be taken down. Sandvick inquired as to what was behind the house. Pendleton said that the sewer lines come in from the street on the west side. Lynch pointed out that if the garage were to go in the back it would re- quire a rather extensive driveway. Anderson stated that the house could be expanded and the garage left as is. Pendleton stated that he could not build straight back. Sandvick remarked that he would like to see some estimates of proposals. There seems to be other alternatives to utilize the existing house. Lynch stated that the asphalt surface is back 20' and the right-of-way is 15' . The existing setback is 35' from the property line, not 50' . It is a significant variance. Lynch recommended that Pendleton continue his request until next month. • Estimates should be brought in plus alternative plans that would be acceptable. There should be evidence of a hardship. Sandvick commented that it was a 64% variance. MOTION: Dickey made a motion to continue Variance Request #84-52 until November 8, 1984. At that time plans , photos, cost estimates and signatures can be obtained. Sandvick seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. B. Request #84-53, submitted by Welcome Home for property located at 7170 Flying Cloud Drive The request is for a variance from City Code,_ Chapter 11 , _Section 11 .66, Subd. 29 to ermit a maximum of 18 unrelated residents in a "family care home. Code permits 6 maximum. Barbara Lundstrom Willcox, presenting Welcome Home, spoke to the request. It was her understanding that the Planning Department recommended contin- uance of the request to the November 8, 1984 meeting. Lynch stated that recommendations are needed from other bodies within the City such as: the Human Rights and Services Commission, the City's Social Services Department and the Building and Fire Departments. Willcox remarked that she had met with neighbors and Don Sorensen, attorney, 7121 Willow Creek Road. • Lynch inquired if the structure was the old Sutton house. Willcox replied yes. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 3 - October 11 , 1984 Willcox stated that they have applied for licensure with the State of Minnesota Department of Public Health and Welfare and received recommen- 0 dations from the fire marshal . Sorensen stated that he can see no reason for a continuation of the request. Muncipalities can take no action without the authority of the state legislature. The zoning statutes in regards to the Board of Appeals and Adjustments is contained in the Minnesota State Statute Section 462.357, Subdivision 6 and reads : "The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the governing body as the case may be, may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under the ordinance for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. " Sorensen stated that this property is currently zoned rural . Rural zoning permits single family uses which are currently at 10 or more acres. According to the Building & Planning Departments, the property pre-existed the ordinance as a duplex. If as a duplex, it became a legal non-conforming use. Subsequently, to the passage of the ordinance, the property was improved to a triplex, which is an illegal non-con- forming use. This would make the property lose its status as a legal non-conforming use and the property would revert back to single family. Durham stated that the use of the house was for two families prior to the 1969 ordinance. • Sorensen remarked that a duplex could have 6 people per unit or a total of 12 people under the ordinance. The request is a change in zoning by use of a variance to a multiple designation. Sorensen felt that this is a situation under the state statute and is beyond the Boards power to grant. Lynch questioned if this variance should go before the Planning Commission. Durham stated that we are not addressing the zoning of the property, we are addressing the number of people that are allowed in a facility. Sorensen remarked that numbers in this case is a change in zoning. He read from Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.357, Subdivisions 7 & 8: "Subd. 7. Permitted single family use. In order to implement the policy of this state that mentally retarded and physically hand- icapped persons should not be excluded by muncipal zoning ordinances from the benefits of normal residential surroundings , a state licensed group home or foster home serving six or fewer mentally retarded or physically handicapped persons shall be considered a permitted single family residential use of property for the pur- poses of zoning." "Subd. 8. Permitted multi-family use. Unless otherwise provided in any town, muncipal or county zoning regulation as authorized by this subdivision, a state licensed residential facility serving from 7 through 16 mentally retarded or physically handicapped per- sons shall be considered a permitted multi-family residential use Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 4 - October 11 , 1984 of property for purposes of zoning. A township, municipal or county zoning authority may require a conditional use or special isuse permit in order to assure proper maintenance and operation of a facility, provided that no conditions shall be imposed on the homes which are more restrictive than those imposed on other conditional uses or special uses of residential property in the same zones, unless the additional conditions are necessary to protect the health and safety of the residents of the residential facility for the mentally retarded or the physically handicapped. Nothing herein shall be construed to exclude or prohibit resident- ial homes for the mentally retarded or physically handicapped from single family zones if otherwise permitted by a local zoning reg- ulation." Sorensen stated that it is a single family use. It can have under the statute no more than 6 residents. Even if it were rezoned multiple, under the state statute that is beyond the 16 and they are asking for 18. Sandvick recommended that Staff obtain a letter from the City Attorney and clarify Sorensen's legal opinions. Because Sandvick is a . licensed Doctor of Psychology in the mental health field, he would not cast a vote. Sandvick has had work relationships with Welcome Home. MOTION: Anderson made a motion to continue Variance Request #84-53 until November 8, 1984. The Board can determine with the City Attorney if we should be addressing the question. • Sandvick seconded the motion, adding that the Board respond to all the subdivisions and get a rebuttal to Sorensen's statements. Motion carried --3-0-1 . (Dickey abstained. ) Lynch recommended that we clarify the legal and get input from other bodies within the City. C. Request #84-54, submitted by MRTT Joint Venture for property located at 6646 City West Parkway. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .70, Subd. 4, F, to permit a sign 4 feet from the front property line. Code requires 10 feet setback from any street right-of-way. Ron Erickson of Korsunsky Krank Erickson Architects, reviewed the proposal of MRTT Joint Venture for the Board. Plans were displayed. The sign is not beneficial to the developer. It is a minor variance. It is an expensive sign of low profile. The sign sits on a pyramid shaped, 2' high brick base and is 2' high (total height 4' ). It is located 3' 5" from the property line. There is no interference with traffic sight lines. The sign would be difficult to move due to the landscaping and nature of the brick base construction. The sign was put in because of a construction field error. It would be a hardship on the development to move the sign. MOTION: Sandvick made a motion to approve Variance Request #84-54, submitted by MRTT Joint Venture. Anderson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 5 - October 11 , 1984 D. Request #84-55, submitted by McGlynn Bakeries, Inc. for property • located at 7752 Mitchell Road. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subd. 2, to ermit construction for a total F.A.R. of .35 Code permits .30 and Chapter ll , Section 11 .03, Subd. 3 H, to permit reduced parking requirements to i4a stalls. Code requires 278 stalls. lr S-0, Farrell Johnson, Buetow & Associates, Architects, spoke to the request. The variance is requested to accommodate manufacturing arrangements within the company. There is extreme pressure on the existing facilities because of growth of the company. The new addition would consist of 48,000 square feet. There are 146 parking facilities which accommodate the staff. If need be, 36 additional stalls can be added in the future. Lynch inquired how many additional square feet of building .35 F.A.R. would include. Johnson replied that it would be 15,000 more square feet of building. Lynch asked what the square footage of the expansion would be. Johnson replied 48,000 square feet. Dickey questioned how many tenants were renting space. Johnson stated that the owner is vacating all tenants because the space is needed. Dickey remarked that there viere 146 narking stalls at present. Johnson replied yes. • Dickey asked what the longest lease was. Johnson replied that it was up in March 1985. There were no comments from the audience. Durham noted that handicapped parking facilities should be spread out so that they are not all at one entrance. MOTION: Dickey made a motion to approve Variance Request #84-55, submitted by McGlynn Bakeries, Inc. with the following findings: 1 ) The architecture of the proposed building expansion reflect continuity in terms of building materials , color, and roof lines. Continuation of the mansard roof and office appear- ance be maintained. 2) All mechanical rooftop equipment located on this existing and proposed roof be screened. 3) All loading docks be screened from Martin Drive. 4) Freezer wall panel color selection be Egyptian White. 5) An 8 foot berm with 16 foot evergreens be placed along the west wall of the freezer. • 6) The four parking spaces for handicapped be split between the main entrances. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 6 - October 11 , 1984 Sandvick seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. • III. OLD BUSINESS None_ IV. NEW BUSINESS None V. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Sandvick moved, seconded by Anderson, to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 PM. Motion carried unanimously. •