City Council - 11/05/1985 - Joint Meeting a
Joint Meeting Minutes -Z- November 5, 1985
D h b b Durham said that as not been a problem to date; the fact that
there Is a variance process in place helps to alleviate that.
Bentley asked what constitutes a hardship. Durham reviewed what
constitutes a hardship. Redpath said he believes most hardships
are based on common-sense decisions. Redpath indicated that in
Bloomington a staff person makes the decision regarding the
variance/hardship and it goes before the City Council on the
Consent Calendar. Durham reviewed the procedures in use by other
Boards of Appeals in several communities in the area.
Pidcock asked if blanket variances were given. Durham said there
might be in the case of a height variance in a given project, but
generally that is not the case. Kruger illustrated an instance
where it might be done in a subdivision.
Councilmember Anderson asked what happens to a person who builds a
deck without a permit. City Manager Jullie said sometimes the
person has had to remove the deck; and a double permit fee is
charged.
Redpath said he thought that in some instances the Board of
Appeals should adhere to the letter of the law and allow the
proponent to appeal a decision to the City Council . Bentley said
he believed there should be strict interpretation of the City
Code; he did think that items should be looked at on a case-by-
case basis. Bentley said he thought the Board should look at
community standards rather than just whether or not the neighbors
approve or disapprove of something. Krueger said the Staff
Reports would have to include more details. Anderson asked if
perhaps some types of variances might be handled by City Staff;
he had heard comments that the process was a long one and
sometimes held up a project. Board member Anderson said he did
not know how Staff would decide on a variance, particularly if the
request were a unique situation; he expressed concern as to whom
would make the decision as to whether or not a variance would go
to the Board. Jullie noted the variance process is a statutory
procedure. Pidcock said she thought the neighbors should have
some say regarding a variance since they are the ones who have to
live with it. Redpath said he thought Staff should look into what
Code changes might be made to facilitate the process.
B. Review Planned Unit Development 2ur2ose in relation to PUD variances
sent to the Board of AdJ ustments and A22eals
Planning Director Enger said he believed some changes could be made in
the Code regarding parking spaces and building height in the Major
Joint Meeting Minutes -3- November 5, 1985
Center Area. Durham said all the buildings in the City West PUD have
had to go through the variance process for one reason or another.
Enger said perhaps the size of a PUD could be reduced; the Code could
be changed to reflect areas of need which would then eliminate the
housekeeping-variance items and leave only the variances due to
hardships.
Councilmember Anderson asked how long it takes to go through the
variance process. Enger said the process can be done coincidently
with the planning review process if the need for a variance is
realized early on in the process.
Bentley said he believed that more and more the developers are trying
to squeeze bigger projects onto smaller parcels. He said he thought
the City Council must look at what it is approving when it comes to
density. He said the idea of a PUD was to allow creative things and
to allow clustering and open space. Bentley said the City should not
look at PUDs as a means of avoiding the variance process..
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Pidcock, to direct Staff to look
into changes in the City Code which might improve the variance
process.
Councilmember Anderson said he would like Staff to look into what is
done in Bloomington. Bentley suggested certain basic variances could
- be written into a PUD by Staff. Enger said there is usually not
enough information on specific sites to make the proper determinations
at the outset. Sandvick said he would like to have some of the
decisions made with legal counsel present at the Board of Appeals
meetings. He said the City should take a look at the legality of the
Board also; he said he would like to have review by the City Attorney
included in the motion.
VOTE ON THE MOTION Motion carried unanimously.
Sandvick said he would like to see the City Attorney review changes to t
be made to the City Code and to have the City Attorney review the
process which is now in place.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to include review by the
City Attorney in the discussion of the City Code regarding the Board
of Adjustments and Appeals. Motion carried unanimously..
C. Review increasing Board of Adjustments and Appeals membership from 5
to members
Krueger said the addition of two members would help to alleviate the
problems the Board sometimes has with members who have to miss a
l
t
Joint Meeting Minutes -4- November 5, 1985
meeting or might have to abstain from voting on a matter. Sandvick
and Board member Anderson concurred and noted that Board member Lynch
had also spoken in favor of increasing the membership.
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley, to amend the City Code
to increase the number of members of the Board of Adjustments and
Appeals from five to seven members. Motion carried unanimously.
Bentley said he thought the question of undue hardship could be a two-hour
discussion topic. He said he would like to have the Board come up with a
more definitive response to that question; this might be done in the
discussion the Board has with the City Attorney.
Krueger said he did not think it was the Board of Appeals role to review
the decision regarding the zoning of the tennis club property. Enger said
whenever a proponent wishes to appeal a Staff decision, the proponent has
the right to appeal to the Board of Appeals.
Councilmember Anderson said the process of meeting with each of the Boards
and Commissions has been a good one. Krueger said he has been on the
Board of Appeals for ten years and this was the first time he recalled
meeting with the City Council. Hanley Anderson said he likes the way in
which the Board of Appeals is dealing with the hardship issue presently.
He said he believed the main problems of the Board to be too few members
and the PUD process. Sandvick said he felt the Council was looking for
guidelines in dealing with the "undue hardship" issue.
Mayor Peterson thanked the Board members for their work and for spending
another evening out by coming this evening.
V. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Pidcock, to adjourn the meeting at
7:15 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
W gaff
J
A