Loading...
2 Approval of Minutes CHANHASSEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS P~EGULAR MEETING (~ CTOBER 14, 1996 Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order. P~IEMBERS PRSENT: Willard Johnson, Carol Watson and Mark Senn ~.~FAFF PRESENT: John Rask, Planner I · ' iEQUEST FOR SIDE YARD, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, LAKESHORE SETBACK RIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON PERTY ZONED RSF, LOCATED AT 9225 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD, DAVID HAIME. J~hn Rask presented the staff report on this item. Johnson: I have a question... Do you wish to say anything at this time? I~vid~ Duhaime: Sure. Well, we went back to the drawing boards and looked at. .. we staked out e~'ery single location. We measured down to the 100th of an inch. Revised the architect plan and e~erything and tried to squeeze that house in as tightly as we possibly could. I feel like I'm w~r~ng very hard to get this to conform. To what's there and really do have some legitimate p}..ysical... I can't move it closer to the lake because we will definitely impact on the damage to that tree, which is now shown on that survey. If we go closer to the lake. I'm further set back thlan the other houses anyway, and one of the things we looked at is even if you take a garage and trp. to put it on the back, which was one of the suggestions, I've got a 35 foot thing back there in th~ back and the house next door is, what is it, 4.7 feet from that lot line. Actually part of the ce~rnent structure of that garage is on that property line, which I don't care about in particular. It d~esn't matter but it kind of points out just how tight that area is. And I guess the point I want to rntike is, if you look at how over the years people have dealt with these problems, I want to point o~ back when I first applied for this, the west wall of the existing home on the southern comer w~s 3.9 from the lot line, and that's going to be improved to 5 feet from the lot. The west wall of th~ existing home on the northern comer, on that same side, is currently 2.1 feet from the lot line, ard that will be improved to 5. So the 5 foot side on both comers of the house goes from 3.9 in o,?~ comer and 2.1 feet on the other comer, to 5 feet in both cases. On the east side, the side wi,ere the vacant lot is. The southern comer is 6, which is nearest the lake, is currently 6.8 feet frCm the lot line. Now that will be improved to just in excess of 10 feet. So actually that comer of'i~hat house is conforming. Again that same east wall against the vacant lot, on the norther c ~c~rner down toward the street is currently 6.8 feet from the lot line. And that would be improved in ~hat I propose to 7 feet. So when we frrst came, when I came here on the 23rd what I was lo~king for was to be able to be 5 feet from the lot line on both sides. And I think Councilman S __~{~, before the meeting expressed some thought. That were it to be 5 feet on the one and 7 feet o~the other, perhaps that was something under the circumstances, given the tree and the nature _ / Board of Adjustments and Appeals - October 14, 1996 of the lot, etc, that he could live with and so that's really what we architected toward when we revised all of this. Was for that, the possibility that maybe if it got that far, you guys could see through, or see clear to letting it pass with the effort that we've put forth. The other thing the architect tells me, if you do make this house any more narrow, you are going to have to go two story because you're going to end up with using the I ½ story design, a second story that amounts to a narrow hallway that goes, it's going to look like a hallway so you're going to have to move the wall back out and use a traditional roof. And that's something that the neighbor, well the neighbors on both sides, neighbors on both sides expressed their feelings that they'd rather have the 1 ½ story. I don't see her here tonight but also across the street from the garage, that neighbor has expressed her feelings that she'd rather have it 1 ½ stories because she can then see the lake through that lot as she has ali these years and feels that it would be more restricted if it was 2 story. The other thing, again in the report, if you look at what others have done there, we are looking for 5 and 7 with side yard setbacks. Neighboring homes have as small as 3, and this is on page 4 of this variance. In that chart that was provided. They have 3 feet, 3 feet and 2 feet as their minimums on sides. One side or the other respectively. And I guess I'm just trying to feel like at this point, it's very difficult to get a house to fit in there and I think a lot of work has been done to conform and I think the hardships that are talked about as those that might justify a variance, I feel are beaten back here and with all this consideration I hope you will allow this thing to pass. Johnson: Carol, do you want to go first? Watson: So what we have here is an improvement of 2 1/2 feet on the one side, is that correct? Rask: Correct. At least. Watson: I mean we have a 5 foot and a 7 foot. Rask: Yes. Watson: And we had a 5 and a 5 ½ so. Rask: Well no actually you had a 5 and it was 3.9, so it was a little less than 4 the first time it came through. It was written up wrong the first time. They re-surveyed it so this is what they came in with originally was 3.92 now. Watson: That's what We saw last time? Rask: Yeah. And about 6, a little over 7 here it looks like so they did make some drastic improvements as far as that lot line is concerned. Watson: But basically, if they thought they were doing 5 and 5 ½ the first time, right? It's just that the lot was not. Rask: Correct. Yeah, after they re-surveyed. l~ioard of Adjustments and Appeals - October 14, 1996 Watson: So we have a 2 ½ foot improvement? .Ka~ sk: Correct. ~atson: Okay. Let's not try again to put too much stuff on here. It's fine but it was obviously Odt in left field the first time so what we've got is an improvement but not what we asked for. T~at's all I have. Jo.' hnson: Mark. Senn: Well I don't know. What all I started to say was I think you guys know this too. I don't like these deals. I don't like these little lots that we have to, how would you say, cram them... They're developable lots and there's not a whole heck of a lot we can do about it. We have to b'~ild houses in there. I think what I try to do with these, I listen very closely to what the n&ighbors had to say when they were in. And the other thing is, if you go out there and you see a c0, uple of what I'm going to call towers that have been built already, I think that's the worse solution unfortunately and I think the neighbors kind of came through loud and clear on that. That they'd just as soon not see more towers out there. I liked to see the fact that the driveway g~de has been improved, so that's good. They are bettering the existing setbacks...which are d~l right now, and 6.8 on the other s~de. The tree s going to stay, which I know was something t.~ neighbors want to see. It stays one story, which was probably the number one concern. I th~nk if we force this thing any further, I guess that's the way I look at it. I think we force it to ar_other one of the tower situations and that I just don't want to see. I don't think it's going to set ar'ything that I'm uncomfortable with as it relates to the lot next door... The lot next door is a s~arate situation. Has no structure on it. Has no existing setbacks in place. They're less than th-s. What I like I guess about the 7 and 5 is basically it balances it between two sides and I think it's roughly around, or what should end up being roughly around 16 feet or so of separation on eaCh side so, that's kind of where I'm...' It's kind of like the best we can achieve so. As far as h4w it's being presented...I don't have any problem with it. Jc anson: I'd rather have seen 7 and 7 on it. Watson: How tall is a 1 ½ story house with a peaked roof like that? D&vid Duhaime: Well the size is roughly usually. [ W~,~ttson: No, no, the top. D~vid Duhaime: The peak, this one would be another 14 feet. So roughly about 22-23 feet. Wl~tson: And two story with a standard roof is how tall? D~id Duhaime: Well that depends on how steep the rOof is. [ Board of Adjustments and Appeals - October 14, 1996 Senn: Standard is roughly 30 feet. If you take your 9 foot ceilings on two floors, which is what most are being built at now. 8 to 9. Watson: It's just hard you know. It seems like we just have to go in and set the standards. Johnson: ...problem is, I seen a house over the weekend that was 5 feet from the property line. How that guy's going to get to his back yard...I don't know. Senn: I know it's a problem. Watson: Well and you know, it doesn't look good. I mean it looks like downtown Minneapolis. It certainly doesn't look like something you'd do on the shore ora lake that we spent all our lives trying to preserve. Senn: How do we change that now unless we force him to buy two lots and put them together? Watson: Well you know we have standards that we stick to. Senn: Then they're just going to build a...house. I mean we've got that going out on Red Cedar Point. We've got it going out in this area too. I stand back and look at those things and I think they're terrible. Watson: Well I don't think this is that much shorter. This one isn't going to appear that much shorter. When you get 1 ½ stories and you peak the roof like that, it isn't going to look that much shorter. I mean I realize it's a few feet shorter, sure. But I mean from the standpoint of what you're standing there and looking at, you're going to be looking at something that's high. It isn't whether it's 22 feet high or 28 feet high isn't going to make a damn bit of difference by the time you're actually standing on the lot and looking down towards it. Johnson: Are these below grade? Road grade by quite some. Senn: Yeah, that's a pretty good drop there. Johnson: So he eats up a pretty good portion of the home, you know if you're going to use your sight over the top. Senn: Well again, I'm just kind of going back to the premise of the neighbors and they said their preference was the lower profile, 1 ½ story versus the 2 story roof. Again, there is no good solution so... Johnson: As I travel I watch all these other cities and... I say gee, these people are doing... It may sound dumb but I don't have any problem with a two story home. I know the neighbors don't like it. I can understand that. Just like years back when I had some guy move in with a two story house. That's before things were like we have now. ~oard of Adjustments and Appeals - October 14, 1996 S~nn: Well the guy on the west said he'd much rather see the 5 feet. That's kind of, again what I v~as kind of going back to. To me the aggravation over creating a situation effectively that the n.*ighbors don't like. -, J~nnson: I just don't feel that you should be able to stick your finger out, I mean arm out the d~'or or window and touch your house. I don't like that situation. Senn: ... 16 feet from the neighbors. Again, that's their choice. ; ~gtson: I hardly know anybody who lives 16 feet from you. Johnson:~ If times change there and neighbors change, and I've seen it happen, when a guy says.., put some fence fight straight up and there's no room whatsoever° I know a couple instances. W'atson:~ But a fence is going to have to be 1 foot inside your property line, fight? R~sk: Not even. Just off the property line. : W~tson: ... especially privacy fences. You know solid structures. Jo~mson: I know where a couple of those are. W~tson: If anyone wants to make a motion. It isn't going to be me. Segn: Well, I don't know if it will go anywhere but I'll make a motion to approve it as submitted, under the revision. With the 5 and the 7. Otherwise, one of you have got to make a different one. Jo .gnson: It will die for lack of a second. I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion to deny it... 7 ant. 7. Watson: I second that. - Jol~son: Discussion. Jo.l~nson moved, WatSon seconded that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals deny the side,, yard setback, impervious surface and lakeshore setback variance requests for a single family residence at 9225 Lake Riley BoUlevard. All voted in favor, except Senn who opI~osed, and the motion carried with a vote of 2 to 1. Ra~: Just...your denial was for the reason that you wanted to see 7 foot setbacks along both pr?erties. Johnson: I wanted to see 7 and 7. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - October 14, 1996 Rask: With a split vote, as you're aware, serves as a recommendation to the City Council. It will be in front of the City Council on October 28th for reconsideration. ZONING MAP INTERPRETATION FOR LOCATION SOUTH OF TRUNK HIGHWAY 212 AND EAST TRUNK HIGHWAY 169, ON THE FORMER SITE OF SUPERAMERICA~ LARRY HOPFENSPIRGER. John Rask presented the staff report on this item. Senn: John, I looked back and got out the old maps and you know, at least from what I saw on those maps, I couldn't think it was anything else other than BF so where are you getting the basis from off the maps that you think it's A27 Rask: I'll just briefly go through that. There's a chronology of events included in there too. Senn: Well I understand but in all fairness let me ask you the second question... I mean as long as I remember that parcel, which goes back quite a ways, it's always been a BF use and it's always been a fairly intensive commercial site. I don't ever remember it being anything else. In my mind that's what it's always been. I can't imagine how that parcel would be separated and be something else. So I'm just kind of curious that you come up that you'd want it to be something else. Rask: Well, zoning on the comprehensive plan for the city has it guided for open space. It's always had that designation. Just to go through, and these are probably the handouts you're referring to. In '72 it was clearly outside of the BF district. Senn: But it's use was commercial. Rask: It's use was commercial. Senn: And it's use was commercial long before that, correct? Rask: Correct. As far as we have records on the property. In '86 it was clearly outside of the BF district again. Senn: Which one now? Rask: This zoning map of '86. It's clearly outside. Moving to '89 is where it jumps into the BF district, and I think what happened here, and...line where the drive thru was here on the comer, that wasn't BF either prior to '89. The applicant there had requested a zoning change from A2 to BF at that time. So up until '89 you had no commercial zoning south of 212. Just pure speculation at this point. I think what happened is when we remapped this, this little parcel in here showed up within that BF district. We have no reZoning... i~oard of Adjustments and Appeals - October 14, 1996 ~°'enn: Okay, but before you jump on the next one, okay. If that's true, then why isn't there d~cumentation showing a commercial use in existence on that property long before it had it as a l~n-conforming use? I mean nowhere have I found anywhere, any documentation which says t[at's a non-conforming use. That must exist through what you just said to be true. If this is no z~ ning south of Highway 169, and this is A2. Then where's the non-conforming use? l~'atson: Is it...that you just didn't do it? R, ask: Yeah, we don't have good records of what was there at the time. We know it's been used f~ro o ~ S~nn: In regards to how far back it goes. If it wasn't zoned properly for it be there, there has to b~ a non-conforming use. R~sk: Sure. You don't get a non-conforming use permit. You have the status. Unfortunately baCk then we didn't' go through and normally we do with lot lines. We don't have clear d .~. umentation on every use that's out there and every use that's non-conformance. S ,~nn: It was there before the City was. Watson: Yeah. And I don't think the old township probably, the zoning was not exactly an issue M~,rk here back then. Seem: I understand that but I think you can say the same point about maps, except for it existed dt~;ing the same period then. W~,tson: Well absolutely. Se.m: I mean how can you take the premise one way and not the other way so I mean to me you co~e up to the '86 one, which is the first real attempt of documenting something... Why wasn't it a.1 straighten out at that point? And again, there's nothing straightening it out which to me tell me gee, that's what it's always been. I mean how do you... Watson: It doesn't mean because we didn't document it appropriately in 1986 that the zoning wai appropriate before. Unfortunately one does not necessarily follow the other. Se~n: No, but if in '86 that was clearly A2, then there should have been documentation put in pla ';e in '86, which we were clearly doing by 1986. Making that a non-conforming use or at least cal~ng it that or saying it's that or whatever. Waison: It would have been nice. Right, it would have been nice. Senh: So what I'm saying is now all of a sudden...and say whoops, we just. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - October 14, 1996 Watson: I know. But i't doesn't mean the zoning...A2. It just means we didn't document a non- conforming use. It does not mean that the zoning was BF. Johnson: Well take that piece of property over on TH 41 that's now a housing project. There was a factor over there. Between TH 41 and TH 7. Right straight out practically out here. Watson: Oh, across from Tanadoona. The road from Tanadoona. The guy that ran, he ran... Johnson: Because that one come in for expansion and they wouldn't let him expand because he was non-conforming but it was not zoned. I mean he was in agriculture. Senn: Well but he was clearly, there wasn't any. Watson: No there wasn't, you're absolutely right, there wasn't any but there wasn't any documentation. There wasn't any non-conforming use. Senn: That's why I'm having trouble here. Watson: I mean it would have been nice if we'd gone back and picked all these things up in '86 and cleaned up all these little things. Senn: Well I agree. But I mean at the same point I don't think it's fair to go back and say now gee. Watson: But what they asked us Mark was, what is the zoning. Senn: What is the zoning in the 1986 map? I don't know how it can be any clearer than BF. I mean how can you look at that '86 map and say it's anything other than BF. And the back up to that evidence is, what then at that point in time there should have been some documentation put in place as a non-conforming use. We were doing that in 1986. Watson: Oh I understand that. I was here. Senn: So what I'm saying is, one's not following the other. Watson: But see then I'm having trouble trying to follow why it's BF because we have never documented that it WaS A2. I mean that it was a non-conforming use on an A2 zoning before. I'd like to think that that was. Senn: Except for changing the official map... Watson: I don't think we did. Senn: You can honestly look at that map and tell me you don't think it's in the BF zone? That was again revised in '89 and still not look at it as though it's in the BF zone? {Board of Adjustments and Appeals - October 14, 1996 Watson: I think the line went through it but I don't think that necessarily... It engulfs the property. On the outer edge of the property. ~Iohnson: ...said what you feel it should be, and that's what...and that's the way I feel. What I'd :.ike the gentleman to have is...yes. But the way the law interprets, I can't go along with that. ~enn: Well when Roger asked me what I feel it should be, I can't go down there and look at it ~nd say that it should be anything else other than BF. Watson: Simply because there's gasoline on it? 'i Senn: No. Because if you take that parcel where it's sitting, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense ..may other way. And what's around it and everything else. J~>hnson: That motel is not a BF. ? t!ask: No, that's also in A2 and again. '~/atson: ...that was all A2. -__ J~hnson: See that's where I go along. V~fitson: That's how we... S!nn: Did you stick a non-conforming on the motel? [ P4~sk: Yeah, it's a non-conforming use. And where we may not have documented all the uses ddwn there, in the comp plan again it clearly states that those uses, commercial uses on the south si[e of TH 212 are...because of the lack of sewer and water and access problems along TH 212, th~ comp plan clearly states that the City would like to see the eventual elimination of those uses. Aliso in relation to the flood plain issues. [ W~.tson: So the dump is. _r R~k: That's non-conforming also. In a big way. , W~tson: In a big way, okay. Se ~[n: Well again, I'm not trying to change your guys mind. I'm just here for...I'm just telling yo~, now is my first chance to look at it. I mean you guys can just stick with what you stuck with originally. It's going to go to Council tonight anyway. It's already on the agenda because the.~'ve appealed it so I mean that's find but I'm just telling you why I feel the way I do. £ Board of Adjustments and Appeals - October 14, 1996 Watson: Well I certainly agree that there should be documentation for non-conforming uses. Which means they should have to come in periodically, but you see why would you even allow a non-conforming use down there with no sewer and water in that flood plain. Not on the day that my... What I had thought that that was that petroleum products and junk from cars. I don't think so. And then you look at the Minnesota River and you say, my goodness the pollution is so bad. And you say gee, how do you suppose that happened? Senn: Again, like I say. I mean...we don't need to spin any wheels here. Johnson: Do you want to address something for it, or do you want to just let it go to Council? Applicant: Pardon me? Johnson: ...it's going to go to Council so. Applicant: Then it appears to me that there's nothing I can do to say to address Councilmember Watson's or Councilman Johnson's to sway how they feel right now at this point? Watson: Well I'm not a council person. Johnson: I'm not a council person either. I'm on the Board of Adjustments. Watson: Yeah. Johnson: Mr. Senn is a Council person. Watson: Yeah, he's our Council person but I mean it's going to go to Council anyway. Johnson: Even if we took a vote on it, it would be a split vote and it would have to... Senn: Effectively they're just saying they don't want to reconsider their motion. I mean they don't have to so I mean... Applicant: ...task board member wants them to review and reconsider your previous stance from the last... Watson: There was no new information. Nothing, the last time when I made this decision and I was very clear on why I made the decision I made. And there isn't anything here, you know anything new. Applicant: Well I think there are some additional things that should be discussed. Now as you're all aware, Mr. Hopfenspirger's point was that initially when he applied, initially when he Was interested in this property, he approached the city. The City told him... His business is commercial property. He's not going to dabble in a piece of property zoned A2 with no chance of going commercial because that's not his business. He's maintained that he has spoke with i Board of Adjustments and Appeals - October 14, 1996 i. Kate Aanenson and with Bob Generous on several occasions. They relayed to him that it was ~BF, and he had clients, one by the name of Eric Swenson that also indicated that Kate Aanenson ~ad told him that it was BF. And I have a letter from that gentleman. May I approach? This is a ~etter from Eric Swenson and Eric Swenson was a perspective tenant of this parcel back in 1995. ~d if you look at the last sentence in that...paragraph, he was clearly directed to speak with ~ate Aanenson. Now the last paragraph... On August 28, 1995 1 spoke with her, Kate 3~anenson, about the use for a convenience store under it's present zoning, which she stated was BF. On September 15, 1995 you, meaning Larry Hopfenspirger, and I met with Kate in her ~onference room in Chanhassen. At this meeting we discussed conditional uses for a BF zone, ~cluding motor fuel stations, truck/trailer, auto, sporting goods, and boat sales/rental. We asked ~ we could have tobacco under a convenience store conditional use and she said only if it was in Oonjunction with the motor fuel. The zoning was A2 or agricultural was never mentioned. Now this is from someone other than Mr. Hopfenspirger. This is from an objective third party that ~as supposed to own...was a conditional use permit under the BF. Now John, can you put that '~6 map up... And as Councilman Senn was speaking to before, that subject property is clearly Within the boundaries of BF. Now that last ...that was drawn in 1986, so as of February of' 1986 i~,must have been in the BF district. Now it was revised on August 24, 1989 still within the BF ~strict. Historic use of the property, as Councilman Senn has indicated, we have a North Star g~_s station. We have a SuperAmerica. We have a pylon sign. We have a bituminous lot sr.rrounding this property. We have property on the north side of 212 there being zoned BF. We trove the property on the east side being zoned BF. And the property on,-I'm sorry, the property o~ the west side is zoned BF. The property on the east side of the motel is zoned A2. But then it's also commercial property in nature. We go through the transcript, I'm somewhat surprised Its. Watson at a couple of things that you had been saying earlier this evening because in reading tl,tough the transcript it struck me that you had the same questions that Mr. Senn had. I'm lo0. king at the...you had asked how the property. X~.[tson: I've read my commission. I know what I said. A _~licant; Okay, but you brought out the fact that it had had commercial use for at least 25 years pnTpr to today's date. That how could this have been zoned anything but BF with all of the gas st~ions and the. W~tson: But it was a question, not a. I was saying okay, obviously we let a gas station be there. An;l we obviously, apparently were letting a gas station be there with an A2 zoning. That's, and if i~ continues to just operate as a gas station, it probably just would be a gas station in the A2 zo~i.'ng. Applicant: How could it have been a gas station under an A2 zoning? That's not a permitted use un~r the A2 zoning under a conditional use permit. It perhaps was a variance but there's no evigence of that. Wagon: And that certainly doesn't support your claim. Even if it was, it certainly doesn't support let's mm it into something else. I mean. } Board of Adjustments and Appeals - October 14, 1996 Applicant: Well I'm not saying turn it into something else. Let's use it as it's consistently been used for the last 25 years. Watson: Well has anyone told you you can't operate a gas station here? Rask: Sure, they can't. It's lost it's non-conforming right in that aspect. If the non-conforming use would have been continued in perpetuity. Watson: Oh I see, because it stopped business. Rask: Because it stopped for over a year's time, it lost it's non-conforming status. Applicant: And frankly there is no interest by Mr. Hopfenspirger to open up a gas station here. We don't want to see that kind of use. Obviously with Rice Lake and the wildlife refuge behind that, I don't think the city would be too keen on that idea and that's not what we want to do there anyway. Mr. Hopfenspirger was thinking of opening up something in the nature of a coffee shop. Something that would be consistent with the area. Make it look good. Be a service to the community. Clean that property up. Right now it looks junky. It looks dumpy. And that could be changed. All Mr. Hopfenspirger is asking for is to be reasonable in the fair interpretation of... and we think that should be BF. Thank you. Any other questions of me? Johnson: I understand what you're saying John because we have a number of pieces of property that do revert back to, if it was a filling station...but isn't used for the last year, it reverts back to A2. I know a number of pieces of property in the city that have...to single family dwelling or duplex or whatever. Senn: Well that's true but, if those uses would have changed in terms of physical improvements and it's location or anything else...non-conforming status and that's not what happened here. Improvements were allowed to be made. Intensifications were allowed to be done and there was never any question about it. Johnson: Well there was...why it was allowed. Senn: But again, did those require a conscience action.., and there isn't one. Watson: But nobody changed the zoning either. Unfortunately it doesn't mean that the zoning was different. Senn: No, but that's predicated on the basis that you think it was A2 and I can't find any evidence to tell me it was A2. Applicant: Could I just make one more comment? It strikes me in.looking at these maps, whether we're looking at an '86 map, revised '89, which clearly shows an error or we're looking at the '94 map, which has to be a boundary, it certainly looks to me like it's going over the property. Or some of other maps that showed A2 in earlier maps, in '72. It strikes me that what }Board of Adjustments and Appeals - October 14, 1996 . ~We have to do here is come to some sort of interpretation of what that zoning can be. And if you !.ook at the prior use.., and the zoning mapg, along with the representations made to Mr. ~-Iopfenspirger that it should reasonably and fairly be zoned BF. Thank you. ohnson: If you look at the '86 map, there's a line that goes right down the middle of it...heavy ~ne right down 212. It shows a box right offthe motel. BF shows north of 212. So you've got **Our railroad tracks up there... ~_enn: And my premise is, if that's true and if that's the case, then why isn't there a document Vying there's a non-conforming use. In 1986 there should have been... Watson: Well then the property should be, then they should try to rezone the property and make i~again. Senn: Again the appropriate zone...but it's use again. -_ . V~atson: We're not talking about use. We're talking about zoning. S~nn: Well everything's A2. Jonson: The next one too. I mean ifyou watch the line, the line is right down 212. Sure y~'ve got the box there showing the existing parcel but it also shows the motel to the east so, anSl there's not a heavy line below. : W~,tson: Well it's not Mark. It's just that, I don't disagree with you that maybe it isn't zoned co~_rectly. I feel it's zoned A2. If that's not the correct zoning, then rezone the property and mt,Ice it appropriate with the use or come up with something. I mean I don't know. Se~im: If you look at the documentation though for 1986 or 1989, or whatever it is...find any sp~ific documentation that... Jonson: And then it hasn't been used for the last few years so...I understand what you're saying. W~ son: It would be nice if all the properties, their use and their zoning matched. Then that wo~ ld be certainly something to strive for. Ser~ ~: You know that... WatSon: Absolutely. I think we have probably several in the city that aren't, that don't have nonconforming uses that are zoned differently than their use. I would hate to say that this is the only~one. I think that would be an over statement .... no, but we didn't run into this one until recently either. As you pointed out, it's been sitting out there doing the same for a very long time} Look at the...zoning. _ Board of Adjustments and Appeals - October 14, 1996 Johnson: ...we don't have to take a vote on this now do we? Tom Scott: Yes, you should. This is an entirely new application so you should. Senn: Treat it as a separate new application. Tom Scott: Separate new application so you should make a motion determining that the property is zoned whatever you determine it as. Whether A2 or business fringe. Watson: Okay, well I'll make a motion that our decision at this point is that the property is in fact zoned A2. It has however had a BF use without documentation, or a non-conforming use from a lot of years and either we should clear up the non-conforming use issue. Rezone the property or something. However we do this, everything should match and now is the time... And maybe property needs to be rezoned so that something in the nature of the 20 some years of history can be used on that property. But it it zoned A2 and at this point, maybe the appropriate thing to do is to rezone that property. In which case the applicant... Rask: It could be either way. Watson: You need to look into getting it straighten out so that use and zoning match or have a non-conforming permit or one or the other. And maybe we should spend a few minutes trying to figure out how many of these little lemons we have out there. Rask: This is it. Watson: This is it? You're sure? Rask: Well actually we have made great strides in this area. I don't think you've ever had one before so. Johnson: Is that your motion Carol? Watson: That's my motion. Johnson: I'1! second that. Any more discussion on that motion? Watson moved, Johnson seconded that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals finds that the property at Flying Cloud Drive is zoned A2, Agricultural Estate, although it has been oPerating, without clear documentation, under a BF, non-conforming use for many years. All voted in favor, except Senn who oPposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 2 to 1. Johnson: It's scheduled for the Council tonight anyway. Senn: Yeah, it's on our agenda tonight. 1 ~oard of Adjustments and Appeals - October 14, 1996 !'APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Watson moved, Johnson seconded to approve the Minutes of the _~oard of Adjustments and Appeals dated September 23, 1996 as presented. All voted in favor ~tnd the motion carded. Watson moved, Johnson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion ,~arried. ,- ~ ~qatson moved, Senn seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion garde& The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Submitted by John Rask 1 ~lanner I ~repared by Nann Opheim