Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCMin_93Jan25MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 25, 1993 7:30 p.m. PRESENT ALSO PRESENT Kay Andrews Lisa Lampi Peter Bachman, City Attorney Lee Barry Ken Salzberg Paul Ciernia, Council Liaison Len Boche Susan Hoyt, Administrator/Planner Steve Huso Paul Kuettel Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Lee Barry, Chair. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the October 26, 1992 planning commission meeting were approved as written. REQUEST FOR ALL NECESSARY VARIANCES FOR A GARAGE. AT 1433 WEST IDAHO IN: CHAPTER 9, SECTION 2.04, SUBD. 1(c); CHAPTER 9, SECTION 2.04, SUBD. 2(b); CHAPTER 9, .:SECTION 4.01, SUBD 5(e~ A. BACKGROUND Administrator Hoyt reported that Mr. Tom Brace and Mrs. Gunta Brace, property owners of 1433 W. Idaho, are applying for all necessary variances for a nearly completed 988 sq. ft. garage. She explained the circumstances surrounding this request are unique because a building permit was issued for the garage construction on October 23, 1992. Construction proceeded until an adjoining property owner questioned the size of the garage and the city then determined the building did not conform to at least two sections of the zoning code and a permit should not have been issued. A stop work order was verbally issued on November 18, 1992 and a written order on November 25, 1992. No work was done on the garage after November 18, 1992. H. VARIANCEB REQIIIRED FOR EBISTING GARAGE 1. Side and rear yard setback variance -__Chpt 9,2.04, Subd.1(cl The garage has a one-foot rear yard setback and a two-foot side yard setback. Because the garage is not located entirely within the rear 20$ of the lot but in the rear 31$ of the lot, a five- foot rear yard and a five-foot sideyard setback are required. 2. Rear yard lot coverage, Chpt 9, 52.04, Subd. 2(b~ This section requires that detached accessory buildings shall not occupy more than 40~ of the area of a required rear yard and not • exceed 1,000 sq. ft. The required rearyard is 30 . lot width is 50 ft. so the required rear yard is 40$ and maximum coverage of a detached accessory sq. ft. The garage in question is 988 sq. ft. or required rear yard. feet and the 1,500 sq. ft x structure 600 65~ of the 3. Maximum number of off-street parking spaces for a dwellingx unit, Chpt 9, X4.01, Subd. 5(e) No more than four parking spaces are permitted for each dwelling unit. This property has a minimum of five off-street parking places - four in the new garage and one in an existing, attached garage. C. ALTERNATIVES Administrator Hoyt and Peter Bachman, city attorney, determined there were three alternative actions for the commission to consider: 1) grant all necessary variances for the garage as built at 988 sq. ft and lift the stop work order. Reasonable and enforceable conditions may be attached to the variance to ensure compliance to the code and to ameliorate the impact of the variance on adjacent properties; 2) deny all variances and require the garage to be down-sized to 600 sq. ft. 3) grant the variances necessary to downsize the garage to 780 sq. ft. and offer to pay the Braces the costs of downsizing the garage. D. PROPERTY OWNERS STATEMENT Mr. Brace addressed the commission. He said in June, 1992, he inquired about building a four car garage and received the zoning code information for garages. He determined that he would build a 988 sq. ft. garage because it did not exceed the 1,000 sq. ft. maximum in 9-2.04(1)(c) and (2)(b). He talked with David Kriesel, city building official, and was told he did not need a variance and received the required permits from the city prior to starting construction. He then went ahead with the project. He also explained that two inspections were made by the building official prior to the stop work order. Mr. Brace felt the language in the code was very confusing as to rear yard coverage. He had measured the depth of his entire rear yard, taking into consideration setbacks, eaves, etc. The city building official told him his calculations were correct. Mr Brace stated that as part of this application for a variance, he personally circulated a petition among his neighbors and asked • 2 them to sign stating they did not object to the garage and knew that it was oversized. Signatures from owners of seven properties along the alley appeared on the petition. Mr. & Mrs. King, 1427 W. Idaho, did not sign the petition. Mr. & Mrs. Callahan at 1437 Idaho signed the petition. He removed the existing two car garage (board by board - 22 x 26 ft.) and began construction of the new garage. He said that he would not have removed the existing garage if he had not been able to construct the new garage. To date, he has spent $10,000. If he must downsize the garage to 780 ft., a contractor gave him an estimate that it would cost $9,400. He added that he had consistently kept his neighbors informed of his plans for the garage. Mr. Brace submitted a report from R.M. Parranto & Associates, Inc. showing that his garage plans would increase the property value, and this property would be an asset to this block and neighborhood, not a detriment. E. NEIGHBORS' COMMENTS Mrs. King, 1427 W. Idaho, spoke against granting the variances and asked that the garage be downsized or removed because she felt the surrounding properties would be devalued. She submitted • a report from Appraisal Research Associates, Ltd stating that after viewing the King property and the adjacent owner's new garage, that the King property has "suffered a loss of at least 5$ of its value and possibly more". She said that it was very important to enforce city codes to maintain property values. Ms. Lynnanne Warren, 1426 W. California, was in attendance and said she felt Mr. Brace has a right to do what he sees fit with his property. He has improved it considerably and she had no objection to the oversized garage. Another neighbor, Mr. Bruce Callahan, 1437 W. Idaho said Mr. Brace has kept all neighbors very informed and that he signed the petition in support of Tom Brace, but was concerned about any property devaluation that might result from the structure. F. DISCIISSION BY COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Salzberg asked why Mr. Brace couldn't complete the garage without any variances being granted. City attorney, Peter Bachman, said the garage would become a non-conforming use and any resident could sue the city to try to get the city to enforce its code. Also, if it was destroyed for any reason, the non- conforming garage could not be rebuilt back to the same size. • 3 Discussion followed. • Commissioner Boche asked if the garage was downsized to 780 sq. feet would Mr. Brace remove the additional length from the northside or the southside of the garage. Mr. Brace responded that he assumed that Mrs. King would prefer that the additional length came off the southside of the garage. Commission Barry said that to bring the garage closer to the way it was originally configured on the site would require taking the additional length off the northside of the structure. Mr. Brace confirmed that the south wall of the new garage was in the same location as the south wall of the old garage. The new garage wall was one foot closer to the east and three feet closer to the westside property lines. Commissioner Salzberg said that he would like to discuss the issue as though a variance was being requested prior to the construction of the garage. He said that given the variance for the 760 foot garage at 1427 West Idaho, he would be inclined to approve a variance for the 780 sq. foot garage at 1433 West Idaho. Commissioner Boche asked if the commission could legally grant • the variances for the garage with the conflicting information from the two appraisers. Attorney Bachman responded that the commission could do that with appropriate findings. Commissioner Boche stated that the worst of the three alternatives was a compromise - downsizing the garage to 780 sq. feet. He said that the commission should either enforce the code or admit a mistake and that not a great deal more of the backyard was consumed by the new garage. This did not mean that he liked the garage, but he found the middle alternative the least attractive position. Commissioner Kuettel said that as a new commissioner he spent hours reviewing the materials and driving by the garage at various times. He said that had a request for a variance come up prior to the construction, he would not approve it. However, this was after the fact of a city error which made a tremendous difference, and that he agreed with Mr. Boche that the middle alternative was the worst one. He suggested approving two of the three variances, but possibly conditioning the use of the attached garage as part of the approval. Chairperson Barry said that he differed from Commissioners Boche and Kuettel, that he felt the middle alternative, downsizing to 780 ft was appropriate. He agreed that the non-conforming garage was not Mr. Brace's fault. He said looking at the city as a • whole and to following Commissioner Salzberg's approach to review • the variance application as though it had not been built and no mistakes had been made. Commissioner Barry said given the prior history of what the city accommodated in this area for the same sort of things that Mr. Brace wanted to do, a 780 sq. foot garage was reasonable. He added (not as a legal opinion) that from his experience litigating real estate values with the County of Hennepin that it is not unusual to have two very different appraisals. Commissioner Salzberg reiterated his support for the 780 sq. foot garage alternative by saying that if the structure continues to stand it harms the city and if it doesn't it harms the homeowner. One way to solve the problem is to pay the homeowner for damages incurred and to make the structure smaller. And, he said he could have supported a variance for 780 sq. feet had it come before the commission prior to any construction. Commissioner Boche said that the same number of variances were necessary for 780 sq. feet as the 988 sq. feet. Commissioner Kuettel said that if granting these variances set a precedent, it was probably that the city would be much more careful granting building permits for garages. Commission Huso said that he supported the 780 sq. foot garage • alternative because it was only 25$ rather than 50$ over the code allowance for area than the 988 sq. foot version. He concurred with Mr. Kuettel about the damages to Mr. Brace and felt that Mr. Brace should be compensated for these. Commissioner Andrews said she favored the 980 sq. foot garage for many of Mr. Boche's reasons. She said she thought going to 780 sq. feet and 600 sq. feet would only enrage this property owner. Commissioner Salzberg asked the city attorney again about letting the structure stand without granting a variance. Attorney Bachman explained that this option had been discussed with the Braces but that it would not have the finality that would come from the other options presented by staff. Whereas a variance was a legal decision on the property. If the intent of letting the garage stand and not granting variances was not to have it rebuilt if it was 50~ destroyed, the commission could. grant the variances and condition them that this structure not be rebuilt if there is 50~ or more damage to the structure. Commissioner Lampi said that there were conflicting appraisal reports and that she supported variances for the 988 sq. foot existing garage because the garage was not completed and it had been a city error. • 5 Chairperson Barry asked for a motion. Commissioner Boche moved granting all three variances for the 988 sq. foot garage. Commissioner Kuettel seconded it. Commission Boche said that he recommended the proposed findings. Chairperson Barry asked if there was further discussion. Commissioner Huso said that the 780 sq. foot is the best way to handle it because it was a finding of fact that "there is not a reduction in economic value of adjoining neighbors" concerned him. He said there might be a reduction in property values and to the Callahan property. Commissioner Boche said that he would recommend the findings except #9. Number nine reads, "there is substantial and conflicting evidence in the record regarding whether the variance will substantially diminish or impair property values or improvements in the area. The city has reviewed this evidence carefully and finds the granting of the variance will not substantially diminish or impair property values or improvements in the area." Commissioner Huso asked Attorney Bachman if adopting all findings was necessary. Attorney Bachman stated that some findings should be made on all relevant points (identified in the city code 15). He said that findings need not be beyond a reasonable doubt but should reflect the commissioners' viewpoint. Commissioner Boche withdrew his motion and wanted the matter to be laid over until the next meeting after the council was asked to hire an appraiser to appraise property values that might be affected in the neighborhood. • Chairperson Barry said that this would require four or five appraisals at a substantial expenditure by the city and that getting a consensus would be difficult. Following more discussion on the usefulness of appraisals, Chair Barry declined to withdraw the motion. Commissioner Boche asked that the motion be withdrawn without finding #9. Chair Barry agreed to do so. C. Boche moved to lay the matter over until the city had an 6 appraisal on whether the other five surrounding property values • were affected. The motion died for lack of a second. C. Kuettel moved to grant all variances as needed for the 988 sq. foot garage based upon the findings. C. Lampi seconded the motion. C. Salzberg asked that the condition that the structure not be rebuilt if it were over 50$ destroyed be added. Discussion on this specific condition followed. Mr. Brace was asked if he would hold the city harmless from any damages if he was granted the variances. He said he could not respond to that question because he was only prepared to seek assurances for thier four car garage. Chairperson Barry asked for further discussion. C. Boche asked for a roll call vote. C. Andrews aye C. Barry nay • C. C. Boche Huso aye nay C. Kuettel aye C. Lampi aye C. Salzberg nay Chair Barry stated that the necessary variances for a 988 sq. foot garage passed by a 4 to 3 vote based upon stated findings. And that the planning commission would be recommending the granting of the variances to the city council. A motion was made to extend the planning commission meeting beyond 10 p.m. Unanimously approved. REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A VARIANCE_AT 2097 FOLWELL AVENUE In May, 1992, the planning commission approved a variance for a sideyard setback for a proposed new home at 2097 Folwell. This variance granted a 1 1/2 foot variance in the eastside lot line for the northeastern rear five feet of the structure. A surveyor on the job called attention to the fact that the required sideyard setback is not 5 feet on this property, but 20$ of the lot width (21', 4") because the property abuts an existing public right-of-way. The five foot setback requirement is for property abutting residential property. • The commission was asked to amend the previously granted variance to 17 feet, 10 inches from the eastside property line of the northeastern five feet of the structure and a maximum of 16 feet, 4 inches from the eastside property line for the remainder of the structure. Boche moved and Andrews seconded to amend the variance as requested as it meets all the criteria for granting a variance. Unanimously approved. Meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. ee Swenson, Reco ding Secretary C Susan Hoyt, Administ ator • • 8