HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-179 - ADMIN Resolution - City Council - 2012/11/19RESOLUTION NO. 12-179
RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL OF PETER HAGEN
OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS' DECISION
BACKGROUND
• On or about April 30, 2012 Kenneth and Nicole Fink constructed a tree house in the back
yard of their property. Staff reviewed the tree house and required that the tree house be
altered to meet the required accessory building setbacks. Staff re -inspected the tree house
on May 30, 2012 and determined that the tree house had been altered to meet the required
rear setback.
• The Finks live at 4215 Cedarwood Road.
• Peter Hagen lives at 4221 Cedarwood Road, which is located adjacent to the Fink
property.
• On June 21, 2012, Assistant City Zoning Administrator Gary Morrison notified Mr.
Hagen by e-mail of his interpretation of Section 36-162(d)(3)d pertaining to the height of
the tree house.
• On June 22, 2012, Gary Morrison notified Mr. Hagen by e-mail of his interpretation of
Section 36-162(d)(4)d pertaining to windows on the second story.
• On August 14, 2012, Mr. Hagen appealed staff determination pursuant to City Code §36-
31 that the tree house is in compliance with Section 36-162(d)(3)d and Section 36-
162(d)(4)d.
• On August 21, 2012 and August 30, 2012, Mr. Hagen's attorney wrote letters requesting
a determination that the tree house is not in compliance with the setback regulations
pertaining to decks.
• On September 17, 2012, Mr. Hagen filed a letter with the City Clerk requesting the Board
of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) also consider that the tree house is constructed in a utility
easement in violation of the National Electncal Safety Code (NESC):
• The appeal came before the BOZA for a public hearing on September 27, 2012 and was
continued to October 25, 2012.
• On October 25, 2012, the BOZA denied the appeal based upon staff findings.
• On October 31, 2012, Mr. Hagen appealed the BOZA decision to the'City Council.
• This matter came on for hearing before the City Council on November 19, 2012.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota:
1. City Code Section 36-31(a) states:
At any time within 20 days after a written order, requirement, permit,
decision, refusal, or determination by the zoning administrator has been
made interpreting or applying this chapter, except for actions taken in
connection with prosecutions for violation hereof, the applicant or any
other person, officer, or department representative of the city affected by it
Resolution No. 12-179 -2-
may appeal the decision to the board of zoning appeals by filing a notice
of appeal with the community development department addressed to the
board of zoning appeals stating the action appealed from and stating the
specific grounds upon which the appeal is made.
2. The appeal of the zoning administrator's June 21, 2012 interpretation of Section
36-162(d)(3)d does not meet the 20 day appeal deadline and therefore cannot be
considered.
3. The appeal of the zoning administrator's June 22, 2012 interpretation of Section
36-162(d)(4)d does not meet the 20 day appeal deadline and therefore cannot be
considered.
4. As to the deck setback issue, City Code Section 36-73(b)(4) states the following:
Uncovered porches, stoops, patios or decks which do not extend above the
height of the ground floor level of the principal building and are a
minimum of two feet from any intenor side or rear lot line and 15 feet
from any front lot line and do not encroach on any side yard abutting a
street.
5. Section 36-73(b)(4) is the exception for decks and stoops relating to yard
requirements for the principal building.
6. The Zoning Administrator determined that the tree house "deck" is a component
of the accessory building and meets the two foot setback requirements for
accessory buildings. BOZA agrees with this interpretation.
7. The National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) is not part of the Zoning Ordinance,
and therefore is not subject to a zoning appeal.
8. There is no public utility easement along the property lines in the vicinity of
where the tree house is located. If any easement exists, it is a private utility
easement not under the jurisdiction of the City. City Code Section 36-162(d)(1)e
does not apply to private utilities.
NO THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the appeal of Peter Hagen of the Board
of Zoning Apeals' decision is denied.
Review-• inistration:
City M
Attest:
j4-C{r/XI City Clerk
Adopted by t 'e C
Mayor
ouncil November 19, 2012