D. Review City Variance ProcessMEMORANDUM
CITY OF TO: Planning Commission
CHMNSFN FROM: Angie Kairies, Planner I
7700 Market Boulevard DATE: June 13, 2011
PO Box 147 4 < 1�
Chanhassen, MN 55317 SUBJ: Review Variances
Administration
Phone: 952.227.1100 One of the priorities in the City Council's Key Financial Strategies was to review
Fax: 952.227.1110 variances. The strategy is stated below:
Building Inspections Competitiveness
Phone: 952.227.1180
Fax: 952.227.1190
Create an environment for innovation and change -- building on our strengths,
Engineering creativity and skills.
Phone: 952.227.1160
Fax: 952.227.1170 . Review Variances
Finance
Following is a discussion of the variances that have been approved in Chanhassen
Phone: 952.227.1140
Fax: 952.227.1110
from 1990 to 2010, the response of the June 2010 Supreme Court ruling that
redefined the role local government and variances.
Park & Recreation
Phone: 952.227.1120
BACKGROUND
Fax: 952.227.1110
On May 5, 2011, the Governor signed the new law amending Minnesota Statutes
Recreation Center
2310 Coulter Boulevard
2010, sections 394.27, subdivision 7; 462.357, subdivision 6. which regulates the
Phone: 952.227.1400
standards for granting a variance and applies to counties, cities, and towns with
Fax: 952.227.1404
zoning controls to allow local government more flexibility in granting variances.
Planning & In June 2010, a Supreme Court ruling of the Krummenacher vs. City of
atural Resources
Phone: l Res rce Minnetonka variance case changed the standards for granting variances by local
Fax: 952.227.1110 municipalities. The ruling redefined the term "hardship" stating "a municipality
does not have the authority to grant a variance unless the applicant can show that
Public Works the property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variance." (e.g.
7901 Park Place construction of a single- family home on single - family lot). This standard does
Phone: 952.227.1300 not allow the local government flexibility in granting variances. Therefore, staff
Fax: 952.227.1310 advised applicants that the city could not grant a variance under the new law.
Senior Center The preceding variance standard was determined in the 1989 Rowell vs. City of
Phone: 952.227.1125
Fax: 952.227.1110 Moorhead case. In this ruling, "hardship" was interpreted as "the applicant would
like to use the property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited by the
Web site ordinance." (e.g. expansion of a nonconforming structure). This standard
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us allowed cities flexibility in granting variances.
Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow
Todd Gerhardt
Review Variances
June 13, 2011
Page 2 of 4
During the "no variance" time frame, staff catalogued variances in the city from 1990 to 2010 to
determine if there was a re- occurring request or area of the city that could result in an ordinance
amendment to resolve the issue.
Variance requests include:
• Accessory structure area
• Beach lots/Docks
• Building Architecture/Height
• Fence height
• Hard surface coverage
• Lighting standards
• Lot area, width, frontage, depth
• Mother -in -law Apartment
• Multiple principal structures on a single lot
• Parking requirements
• Subdivision (Private streets, Right -of -Way width, Flag lots)
• Setbacks (front, side, or rear yard, bluff, shoreland, wetland, collector street, Bluff Creek
Overlay District)
• Signs
OPTIONS
Like several cities, staff looked at several options to accommodate the 2010 Supreme Court
Ruling and provide reasonable use to residents:
• Create an Expansion Permit (legal nonconforming situations)
• Revise City Code based on common requests
• Develop an overlay district in areas with multiple requests
• Wait for the new state variance law to be enacted
Cities that adopted interim measures, such as an expansion permit, will probably leave then in
effect because they provide relieve form the variance process.
In Chanhassen, from 1990 to 2010, the request for a setback variance far exceeded any other
request. Of the setback requests, the front yard setback variances are the most frequent request.
One of the reasons the front yard setback variance request is so numerous, was due to the
requests to add a front porch as an architectural feature to define the entrance into a residence on
homes that existed prior to 1987. Rather than continue to process so many similar requests, the
City Code was amended in 2000 to permit the front porch to encroach into the required setback
on homes built prior to February 1987.
Todd Gerhardt
Review Variances
June 13, 2011
Page 3 of 4
M
no
L"
U o0
d
E
= so
Z
Requests from 1990 -2010
so
70
60
so
s.
40
N
E 30
Z to
10
0
y
gy p �fi Q �� \mo d`
Type
Other than the request for a front porch, staff did not find evidence that there are a number of
similar requests in one specific area of the city; therefore, based on the findings of the survey,
staff opted to wait for the new variance law to be enacted.
"LEGISLATIVE FIX"
On May 5, 2011 the Minnesota State Statute governing variances went into effect. The statute
allows local government more flexibility in granting variances by eliminating the term
"hardship ", and allows a zoning authority to issue a variance based on "practical difficulties ".
"Practical difficulties" are described as follows:
• "the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by
an official control;
• the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the landowner; and
• the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality."
Finally, a variance may be issued only if it is "in harmony with the general purposes and intent"
of the ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan.
V
o �e er
Type
t"
��o
Todd Gerhardt
Review Variances
June 13, 2011
Page 4 of 4
The table below illustrates the differences between the old variance standards and the new
variance standards.
VARIANCE LEGISLATION
RECOMMENDATION
Amend City Code consistent with Minnesota State Statute governing Variances.
G:\PLAN\KA \financal stratigiesNariances.doc
OLD
NEW
1
Undue Hardship (cannot be put to a
Practical Difficulties (a reasonable use of the
reasonable use)
property)
2
In Keeping with Spirit & Integrity of
In Harmony with General Purpose and Intent
Zoning Ordinance
of Zoning Ordinance
3
--
Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
4
Economic Consideration Alone Not
Same
Sufficient
5
Use Variances Prohibited
Same
6
Not Alter Essential Character of the
Same
Locality
7
Not a Self Created Hardship
Same
Can Impose Conditions to Ensure
Conditions Must be Directly Related to Any
8
Compliance and to Protect Adjacent
and Must Bear A Rough Proportionality to
Properties
the Impact Created by the Variance
RECOMMENDATION
Amend City Code consistent with Minnesota State Statute governing Variances.
G:\PLAN\KA \financal stratigiesNariances.doc