1h. Zoning ordinance amendment to section 20-57, voilation of conditions imposed upon variance; termination for nonuse I
I /1,,
CITYOF --
i
! 01‘, • 4 .
1 CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
II (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
Action by Qty Administrator
1 Endorsed t/ DWI
Modifier
MEMORANDUM Reiected
I TO: Date i I— 3 - 9-3 Don Ashworth, City Manager Dete Submitted to Commission
I FROM: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I Date, submitted to Council
/i — e - 93
DATE: October 13, 1993
I SUBJ: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20 -57 Violations of conditions imposed
upon variance; termination for nonuse.
The current ordinance pertaining to violations of conditions imposed upon variance and
I termination for nonuse states that "A variance shall become void within one (1) year following
issuance unless substantial action has been taken by the petitioner in reliance thereon."
This condition is valid for variances reviewed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, such
I as setback requirements which are linked to pulling a building permit. Variances approved by
the Planning Commission and City Council are typically associated with subdivisions and site
1 plans. When the City Council approves a subdivision, and the subdivision is recorded with the
county, it becomes a permanent lot of record. If the subdivision has a variance attached to it,
the variance becomes part of the permanent record and would not expire. The City Ordinance
does not distinguish between the two types of variances that are approved by the City Council
I and Planning Commission vs. those approved by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals.
1 Staff is proposing an amendment to that section to read as follows :.,
Sec. 20 -57. Violations of conditions imposed upon variance; termination for nonuse.
The violation of any written condition shall constitute a violation of this chapter. A variance,
except a variance approved in conjunction with a platting, shall become void within one (1)
I year following issuance unless substantial action has been taken by the petitioner in reliance
thereon.
1
1
1
1
I Don Ashworth
October 13, 1993
1 Page 2
The Planning Commission reviewed this ordinance amendment at their October 20, 1993 meeting,
1 and unanimously recommended approval.
II RECOMMENDATION:
•
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
1 "The City Council recommends the City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sec.
20 -57. Violations of conditions imposed upon variance; termination for nonuse, to read as
I follows:
•
Sec. 20 -57. Violations of conditions imposed upon variance; termination for nonuse.
1 The violation of any written condition shall constitute a violation of this chapter. A variance,
except a variance approved in conjunction with a platting, shall become void within one (1)
I year following issuance unless substantial action has been taken by the petitioner in reliance
thereon."
1
•
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
' Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
III
1 g g
Farmakes: I'd just repeat. My opposition is not to the proposal itself on the Song property,
which was my only objection of the motion. But how we're arriving at the conclusion. I 1
think we're arguing two different things here. One is the actual request and what I'm arguing
is how we're, the rationale we're using for it and I would like it to be consistent and that the
rationale be consistent as to how we apply that.
1
Scott: Okay. And Diane your thoughts?
Harberts: Ditto.
Scott: Your thoughts are similar? 1
Harberts: Very similar.
I
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE, SECTION 20 -57,
REGARDING EXPIRATION OF PLATTING VARIANCES.
Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item.
I
Scott: Do we need to discuss? This isn't a public hearing item so, do we need to discuss the
recommendation?
I
Ledvina: I don't have any comments.
Krauss: Well actually it is a public hearing...Zoning Ordinance amendment. I
Scott: Okay. The public hearing is open. Let the record show that there are no members of I
the public here. I think I can boldly close the public hearing.
Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
I
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Scott: Okay, do I have a motion?
1
Harberts moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the 1
City Council approve Zoning Ordinance amendment to Section 20 -57 to read as follows:
Section 20 -57. Violations of conditions imposed upon variance; termination for non -use.
I
The violation of any written condition shall constitute a violation of this chapter. A variance
except a variance approved in conjunction with platting, shall become void within one (1) I
year following the issuance unless substantial action has been taken by the petitioner in
75 1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting • October 20, 1993
1
reliance thereon.
1 MI voted in favor and the motion carried.
' APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to approve the Minutes of
the Planning Commission meeting dated October 6, 1993 as presented. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
1 Scott: Paul, Administrative Section. Is it something that we should be reading? Do we need
to take any action on this? I noticed that we got the latest and greatest on the Frank Beddor
1 situation.
Mancino: What is it?
1 Scott: Well, he filed suit on behalf of himself and I think a couple of other parties, filed suit
on the City Council and the Mayor because of not doing an Environment, or because of the
street.
Krauss: I'm not exactly sure what the suit is about. We haven't done anything yet.
' Scott: In reading it...it appears that it's frivolous because Mr. Beddor is not technically a
resident of the state of Minnesota.
' Krauss: He's a resident of Florida so.
1 Scott: So he can't file suit. I looked through this and I went, well that's interesting. I didn't
even know that. But anyway, what are the key items in here that we need to, except for that.
1 Krauss: Oh, one interesting thing. Moon Valley. Another continuing saga...We seem to
have gotten a lot of what we wanted...The different avenue is the Pollution Control Agency,
' which frankly hasn't been very tough on them before. I serve on a lot of boards and task
forces one of which is on the Minnesota River project and I kept on raising this at meetings.
Hey, here's a good example of the problems...we've been in court for years. We're at our
' wits end as to what we can do about it as a city. Well they were just going to give it a
blanket, it's called...blanket kind of a thing. It's a simple one page form. You write checks
on it... Well apparently the owner Tom Zwiers stiffed MnDot staff a few times and never
1 showed up for meetings. There was a major blow out down there this sununer.
Scott: Is that when the stuff went across the highway and into the wetland?
Krauss: Yeah. Well, we called up the Fish and Wildlife Service and the PCA the next
morning and kind of got them out there to see it. They were horrified at the damage that was
1 caused and in view of the fact that he never took them up on the blanket-they said, well we
76