Loading...
9. Zoning Ordinance Amendment concerning Accessory Structure1 1 MEMORANDUM CITY OF 9 C8AN8ASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 I TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager j Action by City AdrA""ft' Endors j — 4 Modifie Rejecte Da +e 7 — 5 - Date Submitted to Comniftd tl FROM: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II �� _ Dlte Submitted to Cow DATE: June 28, 1994 7-11 -9 SUBJ: Zoning Ordinance Amendment, Amending Section 20 -904 (c) concerning Accessory Structures, First Reading The current ordinance regulating accessory accessory structure without a main building. existence of an accessory structure if the me example, if a parcel had a residence and a d then the current ordinance would permit the; grandfathered situation. „ prohibits the construction of an r, it does not address the continued ig has been demolished or removed. For arage and the residence was destroyed, continue, creating a nonconforming, The proposed amendment, drafted by the city attorney, would remedy this situation by allowing the property owner to either 'build a main structure or remove the accessory structure within 12 months after the discontinuance of the main buiing or use, and preventing the establishment of legal nonconforming situations. PT.AWXMC: rOMMT.CfiTON TTPnATP ' The Planning C ssart,revlw srem,t tiieTn± rneer�ing o e Planning Commission recorded approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment as recommended by staff. Commissioner arberts.felt that if an individual wanted to continue using an accessory structure after the main siructire .have been remQ�+�i they 'should be able to do so. Mr. Don Sitter, a resident on Lake Riley Boulevard, stated that the property owner of the lot next to his does not have a main structure, It j , he uses the lot for camping, picnicking, barbecuing, and boating. The activity takes ply` almost every single weekend. Commissioner Harberts stated that she understands the dilemma, however, one person should not spoil it for the others. Mr. Don Ashworth June 28, 1994 Page 2 STA FF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves the amendment to Section 20 -904 (c) as shown in Attachment #1." ATTACHMENTS 1. Proposed Ordinance Amendment submitted by City Attorney on May 20, 1994. 2. Planning Commission minutes dated June 15, 1994. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. ' AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ' CONCERNING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1 . Section 20- 904(c) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read: c For parcels with less than three 3 acres in an ' O P O y residential or agricultural district, no accessory structure or use shall be erected, constructed, or ' commenced prior to the erection, construction, or commencement of the principal permitted structure or use, but may be erected or commenced simultaneously. If the principal structure or use is subsequently removed, destroyed, or discontinued, ' the accessory structure or use must be removed or discontinued within twelve (12). months. S ection 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. ' PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1994, by the City ' Council of the City of Chanhassen. ATTEST: , Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor I (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1994). ' 15083 05/20/94 ' I r] 1 rI CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 15 1994 Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Scott, Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Jeff Farmakes, and Nancy Mancino. Diane Harberts was present for part of the meeting. MEMBERS ABSENT: Ron Nutting STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner 11; Bob Generous, Planner 11; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; and Elliott Knetsch, City Attorney PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE SECTION 20- 904(C) REGARDING A TIME LIMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED AFTER THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE HAS BEEN REMOVED OR DESTROYED. Name Address Public Present: Verne Severson 675 Lakota Lane M. Happy 495 Lakota Lane Don Sitter 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. Laverne Wheeler 445 Lakota Lane Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Any questions or comments for staff. Harberts: I have one. Is there a current issue pending? Aanenson: Yes. Harberts: Is the owner aware of this? Al -Jaff: ...if we go through the city there would be numerous. Harberts: But there is one currently that's at our door knocking? Or we're knocking on their door. 1 Al -Jaff: It's more of, there are numerous docks on the lakes or boat houses and ... and those are accessory structures where the house was remodeled. Harberts: And they're still standing. , Al -Jaff: ...and the lots are just being used for picnic areas. ' Harberts: Are these accessory structures, are they being maintained? Or is the majority of them not being maintained well? ' Al -Jaff: Well if it's a dock, then it's a seasonal structure that is ... and removed at the end of the summer. If it's a boat house, then it's there year round. Boat lifts. ' Harberts: But this doesn't apply to like a boat house or a. ' Al -Jaff: That would be considered an accessory structure. Harberts: It would be? ' Mancino: So you couldn't just own some property and have your boat there and have a boat ' house and not even live there? Let's say I just bought 2 acres to come and maybe put a tent on on the weekends. Aanenson: No, that's what the ordinance is for. ' Harberts: And why is that so bad? Well I'm just trying to understand. I Aanenson: In some of the neighborhoods, they bought a lot and was going to build on it in 5 years. In the meantime they wanted to let their church group use it every weekend. That ' may be a problem. Then we have a different set of...conditional use. We've had that in the past where people have bought large lots and used them as recreational... and if you look at the integrity of the neighborhood, that was not the intent—That's why you have conditional ' use permits... Mancino: I was going to say, they may build an accessory structure before they build the ' main one and live on it for many years and never get around to building the main structure. Aanenson: Yeah, that happens too so... ' Harberts: And this only applies to like shoreline or lake lots or something? This is city wide? ' Mancino: Less than 3 acres. ' z � J Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 1 Al -Jaff: Oh yes. Less than 3 acres. ' Mancino: Less than 3 acres so if it's. ' Harberts: So if it's farmland. Mancino: There's a barn there. Scott: Any other? Harberts: It could be a historical site too. Scott: Good. Any other questions or comments for staff? This is a public hearing so if I ' could have a motion to open the public hearing please. Conrad moved, Mancino seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the public hearing was opened. Scott: If anyone would like to speak, please step up to the podium. Identify yourselves with your name and your address and let us hear what you have to say. Is there anyone here for this item? For this public hearing. Yes sir. 1 Don Sitter: My name is Don Sitter, 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. I live next to one of these cases and I'm going to keep this real brief. I think the intent of your ordinance is that you don't have a lot and then use it for a lot of other things. And those ordinances are already in place. You can't just buy a lot or develop it or dock or boat houses. Camp on it every weekend, etc. In this situation is where a house has been removed. There's no deadline to bring it under the same ordinances that are across the rest of the city. I think the amendment to the ordinance is just to bring these lots in line with the rest of the ordinances and have a deadline. So when they remove a house, there is some sort of deadline that will end the stuff. We happen to live next to one that the house was removed 6 years ago. And it starts out with a dock and then it's a boat and then pretty soon they've got a picnic grounds and they've got all their friends coming for every weekend and it finally ended up where they were camping on the property. No toilet facilities or whatever and it's caused a lot of problems. So I'm in favor of the amendment to the ordinance. Thank you. Scott: Good, thank you. Would anyone else like to speak? Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Scott: Ms. Harberts. Harberts: Come on. Give me a break. Go ahead Matt. ' Ledvina: I don't have any comments. I Scott: Ladd? Nancy? Jeff? Farmakes: No. ' Harberts: Well I have a little problem with it but. ' Scott: And that is? ' Harberts: Well I understand what the gentleman has said and I certainly support what the intent here is. I guess it just adds to some of my concern with regard to controls. The amount of controls that the city chooses to place on it's residents and I'll just leave it at that. ' Mancino: Do you think it's too restrictive? I Harberts: I think it is too restrictive. But I understand what they're trying to do and it's probably perhaps a few bad apples that ruins it for everyone yeah because I don't, I ' personally don't see anything wrong with if a person owns a piece of property, a building is there and they want to come out there on the weekends to do their boating and they use their house, or that storage building to store boats or whatever. But when it come abusive, I can ' understand that because then it starts, infringes on the neighbors. When Kate talked about the integrity of the area and things like that. And it's just too bad that a few make it abusive for everyone. You know that's why some of my questions earlier about, is there an issue right ' now that prompted this amendment? And I can understand with a community that's growing like this, we certainly want to be responsive to the residents that are here, to protect those. So it's really too bad that it becomes abusive and the city has to control it. ' Mancino: Now can someone come in and ask for a variance? Al -Jaff: Yes. , Mancino: And say I'm going to buy this property. I bought it and yet we're living out of ' town. We want to keep our boat docked or I don't know what but we never know ever single person who would come with a different request. But they can ask for a variance. Or they would have to prove a hardship. ' 4 1 Planning Commission Meetin g - June 15, 1994 Scott: Can I have a motion please? ' Ledvina: I would move that the Planning ommission recommend approval of zoning g PP 8 ' ordinance amendment to Section 20- 904(c) as shown in Amendment #1. Scott: Is there a second? t Mancino: Second. ' Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20- 904(c) as shown in Attachment #1. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' PUBLIC HEARING: A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW MULTIPLE BUELDINGS ON THE ' SAME LOT (SECTION 20 -902) IN A PUD DISTRICT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 280 SQUARE FOOT TELEPHONE SWITCHING BUILDING LOCATED ON LOT _1. BLOCK 2, CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER, SPRINT/UNITED TELEPHONE OF MINNESOTA. Public Present: Name Address Philip Briggs 1000 W. Franklin #305, Mpls. Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Any questions or comments for staff? Harberts: How many employees? Al -Jaff: None. Harberts: Come on. They're not just going to build a building and have it empty. Al -Jaff: For maintenance possibly they will come in. E