Loading...
1f. Zoning Ordinance to amend section 20-29 (d) Bd of Adjustments from 10 days to 4 days for decision CITYOF 1 1 4 CHANHASSEN i \ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 �r (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 r I : ‘ _ _V P- II MEMORANDUM -`. TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager - 01 al-q Y g er c.�, :. I FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director - - . , . _ De?, : DATE: February 21, 1991 a_-__Q$.1-411_ ISUBJ: Amendments to Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance Pertaining to Appeals to Decisions of the Board Iof Adjustment - Update Memorandum PROPOSAL/SUMMAARY I On December 12th, the Planning Commission first reviewed this zoning ordinance amendment. The purpose of the amendment was to reduce the amount of days available to appeal Board of Adjustment I decisions from 10 days to 4 days. This was being done in the interests of reducing the amount of time it took for an appeal of Board decisions to go to the City Council for hearing and also to I decrease the amount of time that an applicant has to wait on construction after the Board approves a variance. As noted above, at the present time there is a 10 working day appeal period. The proposal is to lower this to 4 working days which will allow any I appeal received to be placed on the next available City Council agenda which generally results in a 2 week time span. The 10 working day requirement could result in up to a month's delay for Ithe applicant. In our previous report, staff noted that we have rarely received appeals from the general public regarding variance requests and I when these appeals have been received, they have either been voiced at the Board of Adjustment meeting itself or in a very short period time thereafter. It is our belief that the reduction of the amount I of days available to appeal the action is unlikely to prevent valid appeals from being made in time. The Board of Adjustment reviewed this proposal at one of their meetings and supported the concept. IWhen this item was brought before the Planning Commission, concerns were raised regarding a change in language pertaining to who is able to file an appeal. The original language drafted by the City I Attorney indicated that appeals to the decision could be made by a City Council member, applicant or any person owning property within 500 feet. Language that formally stated that any person aggrieved I II . I Don Ashworth February 21, 1991 Page 2 II by the action also had authority to appeal had been deleted. The City Attorney has revised the current draft to include the original language which would allow any person aggrieved by the action to I make an appeal. He indicates that he deleted this originally since he felt it would prevent community gadflies from appealing a decision in which they have no personal interest. Hopefully, the II revised language responds to the concerns raised by the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE IThe Planning Commission considered this item on the February 6th meeting. The Commission was generally supportive of the proposed I change although Chairman Emmings continued to be opposed to a reduction in the duration of the appeal period. Staff indicated that all the appeals we are familiar with were either voiced at the II Board of Adjustments meeting or the following morning and that adequate notice is given ahead of time to all affected property owners. In our opinion, it is highly unlikely that someone would lose'their ability to comment on a variance by the four day period I and that this is offset by the improvements to the timeliness of the variance procedure for all involved that will result by going with this change. The Commission voted 5 to 1 to recommend Iapproval of the ordinance amendment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION II Staff recommends that the City Council approve first reading of the amendment to Zoning Ordinance, Section 20-29 dealing with appeals from decisions of the Board of Adjustments be approved. r I I II I I 1 I CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. Attorneys at Law Thomas J. Campbell Roger N. Knutson (612)456-9539 Thomas M. Scott Gary G. Fuchs Fax(612)456-9542 I James R Walston Elliott B. Knetsch Gregory D. Lewis Dennis J. Unger January 18, 1991 ' • Mr. Paul Krauss Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: Variances - Board of Adjustments Ordinance Amendment Dear Paul: Enclosed is a redraft of the above ordinance. The 500 foot limitation which I have deleted is in the existing ordinance. I assume that it was intended to prevent community gadflys from appealing decisions in which they have no personal interest. The existing provision that "the procedures governing appeal to the - Board shall all govern appeal to the City Council" was deleted because the City Council, unlike the Board, does not hold a hearing. Very truly yours, CAM'BELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FU - - , P.A. aippr Roger N. Knutson RNK:srn Enclosure 1 JAN 2 21991 ' Gi Y vl €.riPsvrtrkSSEN 1 Yankee Square Office III • Suite 202 • 3460 Washington Drive • Eagan, MN 55122 ' 1 11 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA PI ORDINANCE NO. COrnWI( -.0r\ tRec.°flAMt,AciCad AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING bi(at ' ORDINANCE, CONCERNING VARIANCES The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains: Section 1. Section 20-29(d) of the Chanhassen City Code is ' amended to read: (d) Appeal From Decisions of Board. A City Council member, the applicant, or any aggrieved person may appeal such decision to the City Council by filing an appeal with the Zoning Administrator within four (4) days after the date of the Board's decision. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this day of , 19 . ATTEST: 1 Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 19 . ) 1 1 • I r01 /18/91 II CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA I ORDINANCE NO. F■ rs-k- bra - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF 1 THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONCERNING VARIANCES i II I The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains: I Section 1. Section 20-29 (d) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read: I (d) Appeal From Decisions of Board. A City Council member, the applicant, or any person owning property or II residing within five hundred (500) feet of the property to which a variance application relates, may appeal such decision to the City Council by filing an appeal with the II Zoning Administrator within four (4) days after the date of the Board's decision. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately II upon its passage and publication. II PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this II of , 19 1 ATTEST: 1 Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor II (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 19 . ) II II I 11 /02/90 I -r Planning Commission Meeting February 6 , 1991 - Page 40 Olsen: 100 year . Krauss: 100 year event . Folch: 100 year event . • Krauss: And we project what the flood situation is going to be on that particular property . Emmings: One thing it said that on the first page it says the major '. changes of the amendment and then number 4 at the top says changes were made requiring replacement manufactured homes to be properly elevated and anchored and then all the way through here it seems like manufactured homes are prohibited . Olsen: Right . That 's one of the general items of the proposed amendments that they were giving to us. . . Emmings: Oh , okay . I see . Anybody got anything else? If there 's no more discussion , is there a motion? Erhart: .I 'll move that the Planning Commission recommend adopting the following amendments to the Flood Plain Overlay District as shown in 1 Attachment #1 . _ Emmings: Alright , is there a second? ' Ahrens: Second. Emmings: Any discussion? Erhart moved, Ahrens seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to adopt the following amendments to the Flood Plain Overlay District as shown ' in Attachment #1 . All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Emmings : Total unanimity. It 's really kind of sickening. Okay, I 'm ' voting against the next thing no matter what it is. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-29(D) CHANGING THE FILING OF AN APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT'S DECISION FROM 10 DAYS TO 4 DAYS. Emmings: This has recently been before us. I don 't think we need a staff report on this . This isn't a public hearing is it? Krauss: No, you 've already held that . ' Emmings: Alright . I knew that. So let '$ see , does anybody have anything to say about this? Conrad: Is there a way we can make , how do you get the word out during the process that there 's a 4 day, that you only have 4 days versus 10 to appeal? Or just simply a 4 day. No, I 'm not trying to communicate to the City that we 've changed things but during the night of an appeal , or night of where something came in and somebody wants to appeal , is it part of, I Planning Commission Meeting February 6 , 1991 - Page 41 • well I know the answer to this but it 's almost like it should be said . If there are any appeals , you have to make it then within 4 days . Krauss: Really you 're right . It should be in the opening remakrs of the Chairman and we should put it on the meeting notices that are sent out . We can make those. Conrad: I think that would be smart to do . • Emmings: I 'd go a step further than that . I think that when there are matters that are subject, wait a minute . Oh , this is just appeals to the decision of Board of Adjustments . Krauss: Yes . Emmings: Oh okay , I 'm Em Y . m sorr . That's fine .g sorry . How do you notify them now of the 10 days appeal period? ' Krauss: Well actually what we 've started doing is one of the conditions of approval so that the applicant knows , is the last line is now this approval shall become valid unless appealed within 10 working days. Also , we 've got' better control over this now because this is one of those items that the City Attorney is , variances are filed against a property, or at least they ; • should be . And this is one of the issues that we don 't release it until the owner 's given us whatever title information we need and the information is forwarded to the City Attorney and he files it . So we just won't= release it until that period is over . Emmings: I thought it was kind of interesting this change to any aggrieved person. It 's just interesting language because here the City Attorney thinks the reason to get that out of there and make it more restrictive is II that it would prevent community gadflies from appealing a decision in which they have no personal interest . I 'm sure the establishment thinks of Ralph Nader as a gadfly and I think of him as a guy who's protecting my butt from getting blown up in a Pinto you know. I don't think of him as a gadfly so I don 't know. But anyway , I think that 4 days is not enough time to allow a person to do anything . It really bothers me to go down from 10 II days to 4 days . Another thought I. had is , if somebody wants to appeal it there could be a fee . If it 's really a problem that people in the , that there are people in the community who just appeal things just to cause , just to gum up the works , there chould be a fee. That 's going to separate I the gadflies from the folks who are really interested it seems to me . Krauss: Well , but do you really want to make the process more , I don't know what the right word is? Emmings: No I don't . I don't but that would be one way to address it if ' it , I doubt if it 's a problem. Krauss: Well no. It really has not been. I mean people who are going to I appeal a decision , every time that I 've had, that they either give it to you there 'and tell you that they're going to appeal it. Which is fine. • That 's all the notice we need because it's of record. Or the next morning you get a letter saying I 'm appealing this. Planning Commission Meeting February 6 , 1991 - Page 42 Emmings: Four days just bothers me . I 'm very uncomfortable with it but anyway , I know I 'm alone on that . Is there any other discussion on that? Is there a motion? • Erhart: I move the Planning Commission recommend approval of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Section 20-29 dealing with appeals from decisions ' of the Board of Adjustments be approved. Emmings: Is there a second? ' Ellson: I 'll second it. Emmings: Okay , is there any other discussion? Erhart moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Section 20-29 dealing ' with appeals from decisions of the Board of Adjustments. All voted in favor except Steve Emmings who opposed. The motion with a vote of 5 to 1 . Emmings: And why are you opposed? Well , I 'll tell you . I just think it 's ' too short . It just doesn 't afford people due process as far as I 'm concerned . They ought to have 10 days as a minimum to react to something that changes property and it may be right next door to somebody and they . Iought to have more time to react . DISCUSSION OF RURAL AREA ISSUES: A. UPDATE ON POTENTIAL GOLF COURSE IN SOUTHERN CHANHASSEN - JOAN AHRENS. Public Present: Name Address ' Erik Roth Perry Dean 225 West 15th Street #412, Minneapolis 55403 1074 - 13th Avenue S.E . , Minneapolis 55414 Ahrens: A long time ago I volunteered to go before the Park and Rec Commission to talk to them about this. In fact it was a month ago maybe . I don 't know , and I gave them a little outline which I made copies for you all so you can see what I did there. Basically, after I got into the whole golf course issue I got very interested in it . I talked to people in other cities who had municipal golf courses and they were all making a lot of money off of them and they thought they were the greatest thing ever to be developed in their city. I presented this. My request to the Park and Rec Commission was that they amend their section of the Comprehensive Plan to just include a study area for a golf course. To tell you the truth, I don 't know what happened at that meeting. They decided they didn't want to or they didn 't need to amend their section of the comprehensive plan and I really don 't know why. They decided that it sounded like it was an ' interesting idea and that somebody should look into it . I don't know who or what kind of timeframe but they really wanted to know if it was going to be financially feasible before they 'd even look at study areas. So I called Paul after the meeting and asked him what he thought of what had happened at the meeting and he said he would talk to Todd Hoffman and get I { CITY OF 1-10:0b1- cHANHAssEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612)937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 k' - ' MEMORANDUM ... TO: Planning Commission FROM: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I - DATE: December 3, 1990 J2' iL" -° I SUBJ: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Section 20-29 (d) , Appeal from Decisions of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals Currently, the Zoning Ordinance allows anybody who is aggrieved by the approval of a variance to appeal the decision of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals to the City Council by filing an appeal with' the Zoning Administrator within 10 days after the date of the Board decision. The applicant would then have to appear in front of the City Council. This procedure would cause a delay of one month. If the time period to appeal decision of the Board was changed from 10 days to 4 days, the delay for the applicant would only be two weeks as staff would be able to schedule the hearing on the following City Council agenda. The existing 10 day period requirement is not established under state statutes but is a requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. We believe the 4 day wait still provides ample opportunity for appealing Board decisions. Planning staff has discussed this issue with the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and the Board was very receptive of this amendment. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending that Section 20-29 (d) be amended to change the appeal time period from 10 days to 4 days as shown on Attachment #3. I ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Don Ashworth dated November 1, 1990. I 2. Current ordinance. 3 . Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment. I I • CITY OF o690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 }4 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 ' MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Krauss, Planning Director FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager DATE: November 1, 1990 SUBJ: Ten Day Appeal Period, Board of Adjustments and Appeals Pursuant to my discussion with you and Jo Ann, I have contacted Roger Knutson regarding the Board of Review appeal time frame/process. Our discussion revealed that an applicant applying in late September would not have, through the public hearing/ advertisement requirement process, had that application considered until the November 19th Board meeting date. With the appeal process currently equalling ten working days,the applicant would be delayed to December 3rd. If the protest were received on December 3rd, such would be given to Karen for publication. In this instance, submitting such on December 9th for publication on December 14th would be of no avail as December 10th would have already occurred. Accordingly, Karen would instead submit for publication on January 4th, publish January 9th, for consideration on January 14th-all of which producing a significant delay for an applicant who had originally ' started the process in late September (a 3 month wait not considering improbable winter construction for his new addition). My guess is that the applicant would rather have waited the 3-4 hours on November 19th to know that he could or could not build his addition. The ten day requirement is not established under state statute, but is solely encompassed in our local ordinance. Roger suggested changing such to four days as every appeal that we have ever had has always come on the night that the item is considered by the Board. The four day allowance would mean that Karen ' would know by Friday whether to publish in the following week's edition of the Villager. This would mean that the applicant could be heard by the City Council within two weeks of being heard by the Board. Roger is also suggesting that the Board of Adjustment items not be shown on the City Council agenda on the 1 evening heard by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, but only be shown on Council agendas after the appeal has been received. A draft ordinance amendment addressing those issues is being prepared and will be forwarded to your office as soon as possible. I will assume that you will be presenting this to both the Board and Council as a planning item. J to- _ _ _ - _ 4_ --BONING 4 20-29 1 (2) To hear requests for variances from the provisions of the chapter. (Ord.No.80,Art.III, 1,12-15-86) State law reference Board of adjustment and appeals,M.S. 4 462.354,subd.2. Sec. 20-29. Variances generally and appeals. ' (a) Form; fee. Appeals and applications for variances shall be filed with the zoning administrator on prescribed forms.A fee,as established by the city council,shall be paid upon the filing of an application.The board of adjustments and appeals may waive the application fee in unusual circumstances. (b) Hearing. Upon the filing of an appeal or application for variance,the zoning adminis- trator shall set a time and place for a hearing before the board of adjustments and appeals on such appeal or application,which hearing shall be held within thirty(30)days after the filing I of said appeal or application. At the hearing the board shall hear such persons as wish to be heard,either in person or by attorney or agent.Notice of such hearing shall be mailed not less than ten(10)days before the date of hearing to the person who filed the appeal or application ' for variance,and,in the case of an application for variance,to each owner of property situated wholly or partially within five hundred (500) feet of the property to which the variance application relates. The names and addresses of such owners shall be determined by the zoning administrator from records provided by the applicant. .(c) Decisions of the board The board shall be empowered to decide appeals and grant variances only when the decision of the board is by a unanimous vote.A simple majority vote or split vote by the board shall serve only as a recommendation to the city council,who shall then make the final determination on the appeal or variance request within thirty(30)days after receipt of the board's action.The board shall act upon all appeals and variance requests within fifteen(15)days after the date of the close of the required hearing. (d) Appeal from decisions of board Any person aggrieved by any decision of the board, ' • including the applicant or any person owning property or residing within five hundred(500) feet of the property to which a variance application relates,may appeal such decision to the city council by filing an appeal with the zoning administrator within ten(10)days after the date of the board's decision.The procedure governing appeals to the board shall also govern appeals to the city council. • (e) Council action. By majority vote, the city council may reverse, affirm or modify, ' y wholly or partly,the decision appealed from the board, and to that end the city council shall have all the powers of the board.The council shall decide all appeals within thirty(30)days after the date of the required hearing thereon. (i) Action without decision. If no decision is transmitted by the board to the city council within sixty (60) days from the date an appeal or variance request is filed with the zoning - administrator,the council may take action on the request,in accordance with the procedures governing the board,without further awaiting the board's decision. I (Ord.No.80,Art.III, $ 1(3-1-4(1)-.5),(7)), 12-15-86) State law reference—Appeals and adjustments,M.S. ;462.357,subd.6. 1159 vtrnr CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. Attorneys at Law NOV 0 5 1990 Thomas). Campbell • !i i t `r ;.nAlit-iASSEN ' Roger N. Knutson Thomas NI. Scott (612)456-9539 Gary G. Fuchs Fax(612)456-9542 James R. Walston Elliott B. Knetsch Gregory D. Lewis November 2, 1990 Dennis J. Unger �« _ 41 IS Mr. Don Ashworth �M u..- Chanhassen City Hall 1 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 dis Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 ' RE: Variances - Appeal from Decisions of Board 1 Dear Don: . Enclosed please find ordinance amending the City Code ' concerning appeal from decisions of the Board on variances. Very truly yours, CAMP ELL KNUTSON, SCOTT S, P. 1 • Roger N. Knutson RNK:srn 1 Enclosure cc: Paul Krauss i 1 1 1 r 1 Yankee Square Office III • Suite 202 . 3460 Washington Drive • Eagan, MN 55122 1 I CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 1 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONCERNING VARIANCES The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains: 1 Section 1. Section 20-29(d) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read: (d) Appeal From Decisions of Board. A City Council member, the applicant, or any person owning property or residing within five hundred (500) feet of the property to which a variance application relates, may appeal such decision to the City Council by filing an appeal with the Zoning Administrator within four (4) days after the date of the Board's decision. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately _ upon its passage and publication. 1 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 1 day of , 19 . ATTEST: 1 Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor 1 (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 19 . ) 1 1 1 11 /02/90 1 1 I CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING ' DECEMBER 12, 1990 The Planning Commission held interviews for Planning Commission candidates prior to the regular Planning Commission meeting . ' Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 8:45 p.m . . COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Tim Erhart , Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Brian Batzli and Joan Ahrens COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Wildermuth STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director and Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner r PUBLIC HEARING: ' ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-29(d), CONCERNING APPEALS FROM DECISIONS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS ON VARIANCES. Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. • 11 Conrad: Tell us about the down side of the 10 down to 4? What 's the negative for somebody who would want to make? Ellson: For the applicant probably? Conrad: Yeah , for the applicant . In 10 days what could they do that they can 't do in 4 days? Krauss: There is no down side for the applicant . It's an upside for the applicant . The applicant does not , currently when we have a variance , it 's approved by the Board of Adjustment. We write them a letter saying that your variance was approved on Monday night , it 's not good until 2 weeks have passed and if anybody at any time gives us a letter of concern requesting that it be heard , then we have to schedule it for the next Council meeting . Conrad: That anybody would be, people that disagreed so we're going to give them 4 days to make an appeal? Krauss: Right . And most of the time you get it the next morning because they were there the evening the variance was approved. Batzli : Is it published or something within the 10 day period? Krauss: No . No, no. But variances are published before they 're heard by the Board and we do send out mail notice . Batzli : Okay , but after the Board of Adjustments and Appeals makes their decision, nothing happens like publication or something to give people an additional time period to see that and come in and be able . Ellson: What percent do get appealed? 11 I Planning Commission Meeting December 12 , 1990 - Page 2 Krauss: Not very many actually . There was a problem where Councilman Boy appealed virtually every one of them to the City Council so it got very clunky . I mean it sort of circumvented frankly the Board of 'Adjustment . The Board of Adjustments is the final court if you will on these things . If they approve it or deny it and the only way it goes to the City Council ill if there 's an appeal . Ellson: Doesn't that have to be done by the applicant? Krauss: No . It 's anybody aggrieved by the decision. Ahrens: Why did he do that? ' Ellson: He didn 't agree with it . Krauss: He often disagreed. r Olsen: When they approved he would disagree . Krauss: Now keep in mind that the Board of Adjustments can only approve things unanimously so it made it tough . We had people who had to sit in the audience from 6:00 p .m. to 11 :30 just to hear Bill 's issue and usually / there was nobody aggrieved by the decision . Now if there are people that are legitimately concerned and sure , Bill was legitimately concerned it just circumvented the procedure . Conrad: What does it take to register an appeal? Krauss: All you have to do is tell us . We prefer to get a note in writini saying I wish to appeal a decision . Conrad: So the process is relatively simple? So we 're going from 10 days " down to 4 . The person still has a simple process to go by? Krauss: Yes . Conrad: Okay. Emmings: Can I ask , number one. If I 'm the applicant and I 'm turned down by the Board of Adjustments and I want to appeal to the City Council . Krauss: Right . In that case the applicant states I wish to appeal the decision . Emmings: Alright . Now if I don't appeal . If I 'm turned down and I don 't appeal , I could always come back and ask for it again. Alright , whatever t but I get another shot . Now if I 'm a neighbor and I don't like the granting of a variance and I want to appeal that to the City Council and I blow the 4 day time limit , that 's it forever . I can never come back right? Krauss: That's true. ' Emmings: 4 days is real fast . If I 'm a neighbor and I wonder what my rights are , I might want to go talk to my attorney. Maybe I 'm not around. I Planning Commission Meeting December 12 , 1990 - Page 3 Four days is real fast to lose what could be a very , something , a very ' valuable right . I guess my thought when I read this , and maybe this is just too cumbersome , would be to have , well it probably wouldn't work because you 've got 2 classes of people . I was wondering if there could be ' an expedited procedure where if you get your appeal in within 4 days, you get rewarded by getting heard early by the City Council and if you don 't , then it just takes longer because 4 days scared me . It sounds real fast . Maybe that 's , I don 't know . The other thing I wanted to ask about the ordinance as I read it is , it says appeals to the board and I didn't understand what gets appealed to the board. ' Krauss: It all gets appealed to the City Council . Emmings: Yeah . So if you look at ( d ) , the last sentence in (d ) . It says the procedure governing appeals to the board shall also govern appeals to the City Council . What the hell does that mean? Batzli : It 's not in the new one is it? Emmings: Oh , am I reading the old one? Batzli : Yeah. • Emmings: Oh , I 'm sorry. Where is the new one? I missed it then. Batzli : Last page . Emmings: Oh, okay . Well that takes care of that concern but the same problem . Batzli : They have changed it to go from any person who is aggrieved by the ' decision of the Board and they eliminated that. They 've limited it now to you have to be a City Council member , the applicant , or own property within 500 feet . So they've limited who can appeal . Emmings: I don 't have any problem with the 4 days for the applicant , or even for the City Council member . I guess I worry a little about the 4 days for the people who are neighbors and I guess I 'd also, there's more ' language in here talking about appeals to the Board. Let 's see . It says upon the filing of an appeal or an application for the variance. This is in ( b ) . The zoning administrator sets a time and place for a hearing before the Board of Adjustments on the appeal . It just should be on the application . That idea kind of runs through here. I saw it a few places and that probably ought to be cleaned up. Olsen: . . .I think what was done with that is that there's an application for a variance to the zoning ordinance and an appeal to the interpretation of the ordinance . ' Emmings: To the City Council? Olsen: No . An appeal to the interpretation of the ordinance . Batzli : To the Board of . . . 1 I Planning Commission Meeting December 12 , 1990 - Page 4 Olsen: Yeah, they're appealing staff 's interpretation of the ordinance . Emmings: Oh , so there are things then that are appealed to the Board? Alright , that 's what I was asking. I didn't know what it would be. Batzli : Are we losing anything by eliminating that sentence Paul? The procedure governing appeals to the Board shall also govern appeals to the City Council? Krauss: I honestly don't know. Batzli : And why did we change it from any person aggrieved by the decisio ll of the Board to limit it to only those people owning property within 500 feet? Olsen: Was that changed? It still says any person aggrieved including. I Krauss: No , the new one doesn 't . Erhart: That changes it substantially. Conrad: Yeah , substantially . Unless there 's a reason to do that . I Erhart: The original writing was very confusing because it made you believe that the . . .as you have it now certainly would not be . . . Krauss: Yeah , I guess you know frankly I don't know why Roger deleted the person aggrieved by the decision . I don 't see any reason why we should preclude anybody who's got an interest in an action from mentioning that II and appealing it regardless of whether they 're living within 500 feet or not . You might want to consider putting back in that aggrieved language . Erhart: If you 're going to do that , then you might as well eliminate the II City Council or anybody within 500 feet to say any aggrieved person period. Batzli : Well I think you wanted to clarify that a City Council member can " do it . I don't mind that part in there . I liked the old language better then I liked the new . Krauss: You know I think too you need something to clarify. I mean I i don 't know how this would happen but it 's not inconceiveable that if we just say anybody could do it at any time , then we'll just have somebody who's trying to be disruptive or delay a decision. There should be some II kind of a standard. I mean I like the aggrieved language because it says that you have to have some credibility . You have to have an issue . Emmings: Some kind of interest that's being stepped on. Erhart: Yeah , but I don 't see how 500 feet has to do with anything . ' Emmings: Is that who you give notice to on a variance? Krauss: That 's who gets the notices , yes . ' Emmings: So it kind of makes sense in that regard I guess. I I Planning Commission Meeting December 12 , 1990 - Page 5 Ellson: Yeah , but maybe if you guys denied and now you're seeing someone with a similar situation . . . Batzli : So somebody within 502 feet can't do it then. 11 Conrad: I 'm not comfortable with the 500 feet . 11 Ellson: Me either . It could be someone who has a similar situation who wants to go through this exact same thing after this person so they want to make sure . ' Erhart: A typical case would be we give a variance to something downtown on a sign or something like that . . .as a Planning Commission member we developed the sign ordinance and I 'd be real upset about it and I live 5 miles away . Emmings: We talked about posting property . Do we post property? We talked about doing it and I can 't remember . Krauss: We approved it and I 'm just on the verge of ordering the signs. I 've got an order . . .now . Conrad: Okay , what are we going to do? Do we know the words we want or do we want to send it back to Roger for better wording? Batzli : I 'd like to table it so that staff can look at why the language was changed and to come back with a recommendation. I think so far the consensus has been that we need broader language in there on the aggrieved ' persons and I guess we don't know why the last sentence was or wasn 't taken out . Conrad: Makes sense to me . Erhart: I 'll move we table . Ellson: I 'll second . Erhart moved, Ellson seconded to table on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Section 20-29(d) for further staff-clarification. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Emmings: I think 4 days is too fast . I 'm probably going to vote against it. Ahrens: I would think that if somebody was that concerned about a particular issue , since the result of the decision isn't going to be published anyway , that they would be right on top of it and ready to appeal if the decision didn 't go their way. ' Emmings: Unless they went skiing. That 's real fast . ' Ahrens: Yeah , but they 'd realize that if that issue was of such a concern to them they would find out what the decision was. Planning Commission Meeting December 12 , 1990 - Page 6 Krauss: People have about a week and a half 's notice before it's ever heard by the board . Batzli : That assumes they get notice . Sometimes you hear about things after the fact . If you 're not within 500 feet , you may not know about it in advance . i Ahrens: There wouldn't be a natural inquiry anyway. Krauss: But a lot of times you 're asked to act on things where somebody I • said I live 3/4 a mile away and nobody ever told me and does that say you can 't act? Emmings: No. Olsen: It 's never happened. I guess that 's why we went with the 4 days . It 's never happened . I mean anyone who is aggrieved or whatever , is alway� at the meeting . Emmings: I think posting the property will help assure that that doesn't happen . . I think that 's a better way of getting the people then anything else . , Krauss: Well I think the ordinance that was approved though didn't requiril posting for variances . It was for site plans , subdivisions , rezonings , CUP 's . Olsen: We could . . . Krauss: We could but it adds to the, you know variances are kind of a momi and pop thing . I mean we 're talking about residents that ask for these things that go before the Board. You deal with much more involved variances than the Board of Adjustments . There 's going to be a fee for us of our signs and a damage deposit and they're going to have to install thew themselves . Developers are quick to do that. I 'm not so certain that an individual homeowner necessarily is. Emmings: I had to do that on my lot when I lived in Minneapolis. I had to apply for a variance and had to post my lot and they had all kinds of fussy requirements and stuff and the signs blew down on a couple of days , and I II don't know. It doesn't always work real well I don't think. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: ' Krauss: Do we have to do this anymore? Emmings: No. Krauss: Should I delete this from the agenda? Batzli : I think it should be raised in case somebody wants to make changes. We just don't have to vote on it . ' Conrad: Any changes? I forgot to see when the meeting closed. 8:55? 1 CITY OF 1.4. 1 4 1 1 CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 . .,I (612) 937-1900• FAX (612) 937-5739 IMEMORANDUM r ` ., IITO: Don Ashworth, City Manager 2 . 2'1 - 9 FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician j/�,, Jo Ann Olson, Sr. Planner .r-°_ IDATE: February 20, 1991 ...._____4P-;1-5-9,1 1 SUBJ: Final Plat Review for Lake Susan Hills West 6th Addition Project File No. 91-7(pvt) The applicant has submitted the final plat for Lake Susan Hills West 6th 1 Addition. The addition proposes subdividing outlots A and B, Lake Susan Hills 4th Addition into twelve single family lots located on the west side of County Road 17 (Powers Boulevard) south of Flamingo Drive (see attachment No. 1). 1 The site was previously graded and municipal utilities installed as a part of Lake Susan Hills West 4th Addition. The developer was intending to plat this 1 area as single family lots with the 4th Addition however, due to elevation constraints the sanitary sewer was not able to service this lower area. Therefore, the remaining parcels of land were platted as outlots until a future date when sanitary sewer service could be extended to this area. The developer 1 is now proposing to extend sanitary sewer service and as such is proceeding with requesting final plat approval. IGRADING The site grading over this addition was previously completed under the 4th 1 addition development. Therefore, no grading activities are proposed or anticipated. uTILITIFS IMunicipal sanitary sewer and water service was previously designed and constructed for this development as a part of the 4th Addition. However, due to 1 elevation constraints the sanitary sewer systen temporarily ended at County Road 17 making the system non-operational. In order to make the system operational the developers' engineer has proposed extending municipal sanitary sewer service II from the northerly extension Lake Susan Hills Drive, approximately 1400 feet north of this development, through the Curry property. The plans propose extending an 8 inch sanitary sewer south fran Lake Susan Hills Drive along the west side of County Road 17 (see attachment No. 2). This line will also service I future development proposals from the strip of land lying north of this parcel and immediately west of County Road 17 (Curry property) which is zoned medium density-residential. 1 11 Don Ashworth February 20, 1991 Page 3 4. The final plat should be amended to incorporate a 30 foot wide drainage ' and utility easement across the easterly 30 feet of lot 4, block 1. 5. The applicant shall convey to the City at his expense a utility and ' drainage easement 30 feet in width for the proposed sanitary sewer extension through the Curry Property along the west side of County Road 17. ' 6. The applicant shall provide one tree per lot and additional landscaping along the entrances and boulevards as part of the PUD approval and the developer shall provide $150 per lot for landscaping. 7. The applicant shall prepare a plan illustrating large areas of mature vegetation located on the site or in conflict with the sanitary sewer extension though the Curry property. Areas of mature vegetation not impacted by streets or building pads shall be preserved with tree removal plans required as part of the building permit. ' 8. Trails/Sidewalks: The developer shall be required to provide trails/sidewalks as follows: • a. 5' wide concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along the south side ' of Lake Susan Hills Drive. Sidewalks shall be completed at the time the street improvements are constructed. In areas where temporary street improvements are being accepted by the City, a temporary ' asphalt sidewalk may be installed with the understanding that it will be replaced by permanent concrete sidewalks upon installation of permanent improvements. ' b. A 20' wide trail easement along the west side of Powers Boulevard should be dedicated for future trail purposes. c. The above trails/sidewalks satisfy the City's trail dedication requirements and therefore no trail fee shall be charged. ' 9. The applicant will be required to pay 50% of park dedication fees. There will be no trail fee required. 10. All building permits with patio doors as part of the building plan shall provide a survey showing that a deck can be installed without a variance to the setback requirements. 11. All disturbed areas shall be immediately seeded and mulched to prevent erosion. All slopes greater that 3:1 need to be stabilized with wood fiber blankets equivalent and Type III erosion control. 12. Grading along the plat boundaries shall be compatible with adjacent properties and existing off-site drainage patterns. ' c: Charles Folch, Asst. City Engineer Brian Olsen, Argus Development Attachments: 1. Location Map. 2. Proposed Sanitary Sewer Extension. 3. Final Plat. I Don Ashworth February 20, 1991 Page 2 The developers' engineer has supplied the City with construction plans and specifications for the proposed sewer line extension. Staff will be reviewing the plans and specifications and presenting a report at the next City Council meeting. ' Municipal watermain service has already been provided through this parcel in conjunction with the 4th Addition. No additional watermain construction is proposed or anticipated. STORM DRAINAGE Storm sewer lines have also been previously constructed in Conjunction with the 4th Addition. No additional storm sewers are proposed or anticipated. STREETS The street right-of-way in this development is consistent with the previous PUD agreement. The right-of-way for the proposed street (Lake Susan Hills Drive ) has been provided with the 4th Addition. No additional right-of-way is necessary with this development. 11 The street improvements through this development is proposed to be constructed as a part of the 4th Addition. The street section will be built to the City's urban standards and includes a sidewalk along the south side of Lake Susan Hills Drive. In addition, a deceleration and acceleration lane is proposed along the west side of County Road 17. EASEMENTS The final plat proposes a utility and drainage easement along the easterly 20 feet of lot 4, block 1 to accommodate the proposed sanitary sewer line (see final plat). Staff recommends that this easement be increased to 30 foot wide to accommodate future repairs or maintenance on the proposed sanitary sewer line through this parcel. ' RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion if the City Council recommends approval of Lake Susan Hills West 6th Addition as shown on the plat dated February 5, 1991 with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and , provide the necessary financial securities to guarantee completion of the improvements. 2. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all permits required by the Watershed District, Office of Carver County Engineer and MPCA. 3. All street and utility construction shall conform to the latest edition of the City standards for street and utility construction. Construction plans and specification shall be submitted to the City's engineering department for review and approval. Approval shall be by City Council resolution. 1 -:;. 14 :-Vie-•,. z:-- .- ' - - ' " 16.1 01 ha NO.V.4.4," , tit?LITT.tAtViaL \- 'I _ ��� C. ._►�. Val,-., ,• • .•!,u ♦ N. L O T U S �= LAKE LUCY B!���� '� � `'rrrRS!ran. �\� a .c _ ; ti ke !l IPA"il' `►I.MU .�1: ww=�,' �i��P■ I A/ IAA�� ----itia NIL In V�:E:�nr if 111110 1.4 tilit um. Al tV c � *Lb" �,11� ► ;a O,1 1 �_ I IARtif S �IMI!I IIIIIt11�1 �� /11111t��� 1 f. 1�1 1 K MEADOW 1011.8 ' 4 A,; a gel��I���IC� it�%� LAKE Id-LAKE ANN GREEN PARK as*.,P +4 II". �1.• t��� ��� ., ! 67,144:705 S5 soh 1 ��/�1111 LIN .` , -J A... 2 W 1t' 4iW L AKa n `��.,,�,_N,,;�!!� ����'i/ ' caw.,-i��j��� • ' 1 ANN t .�:1• 1. caw�1 8t,. . . minLm �.� � Li Imo�- �n a !r ,� O n�r MBf 7 Nn mar= n �.• a Wu 'Wt-Nero NM mar=c �I WV NOG IOW Nei �, _� J -u - i VIII 11111 11111 ,� =Al1 °.110/liPill i�d 2j 3/Can;t•ia2 `•' '' �.. �i�� � i i i11111I11i1 =�u EVAR� al °/1111111!• ‘11111114rik 111W is ii" 111,-4713 , ......1.1 ��� _ 110161.fr,„-- ilk° IN 1 `� Alp!, -a. S '� •* ,r 0 stV. ,Poo ��/ ,x:*�h,�� *--, r . 1.o I) I 11 1" I "tec7 p 4 at 6∎ ... ., LAKE SUSAN )i ) r 416 a. p Iti:r hoc 40 4..v: I0 im.t,onaltil re._‘-0-.014,, 1,105ttr,:4 3 t rt PROJECT LOCATION I `_4AW___•11 ilk *40 Yt' 1 I. ‘.....7 k:4111.1.11112 -� 1---____ ........... mg ' ! oc �7ta: _____ ~ 1 Pll•r •?...p ♦ AV ,nit` lTel n 'm ,' r i 1 • y y W�y�o. ...u.A. tr., -4. . =i;�j�..�j, � .. / s r , l� :lit, Itr0.-- �� `rIY7�I u_EVAROC-�-- —'� CL 181 .'i l A •ii°( eil I SC Q " .w. O ii-ii BANDA/ERE QQ j 1106/475 ti f" PARK `#''• s•un"ueior 1 iN ; I ATTACHMENT# 1 e I I i \ 20 y 0 � ` I 1 LAKF SUSAN HILLS - 19114181111 C y_ A- iI ��•i _ Hills \ '; .V.4, Drive Of 3 rbc �8� � \ L 11 .. I P d��` ^+ f- 30 117 Alb --110 14- •• ..; -.. =Ter ilftif 2 ry/ 6 If a 411111 air 1 I 0 4e% I i I '4.••••WOry 5 �a4 2 c 5 A I III 4 0 • APO , I• 4I1 U 1 DRIVE 2.0 ��t Gc n_ P 3 4 ``On �T`OZ 12©11 I J Qe\allt0 to I �� A SU LAKE SUS• W 2 ® 5 I 3 I S2 US 4 ILL• HIL I t , n MALLARD il 3A 1a0 O 3 4© ..I RI. : �e,�v<g °o,.' P PROPOSED SAN. SEWER EXTENSION TERN ^41 I 6 T VIII USAN s• I I s m >a J 1-4‘ 12 HILLS 1O I C ° Allio....10 y 11 `K+: 41111 c _ 1 o,�r * - 12 , T I a 13 ''• WEST - j I c °4,r� 1 c a. CO,. 4 •- - .■ LAKE SUSAN HILLS 1 eK 126,P so °`T • • OK 142,P4311 40j �� ' OK 167,KM I B ! 4TH ADDITION I CO �- 1 0. / PRO• _ - D LAKE S .! if LS WEST 6TH ADD. ` ° 44r To -re-44i I 23 5 k HARLAN pAKKEN$KK LEGEND I J0 EXISTING SANITARY SEWER M.H. —I ) EXISTING WATERMAIN W/HYD a G.V. ' lc . 3 PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER W/MH. I eK 171, P.206 DONAU0 COBAN I I Yg4„PU. - •- g 1 ATTACHMENT#2 1 Po.„..c....1— /4...... d'a. 4 T / Office of County Assessor ` F3' a** 't' CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE I ORLINH.SCHAFER ! y S 600 EAST 4TH STREET 448-3435 Ext. 230 �N E S CHASKA,M_ INNESOTA 55318-2189 COUNTY OF CAQVEQ 1 February 8, 1991 c�t 4, J, �3 to — ,/ 4.z#;.; IIMr. Don Ashworth, Admn. Y/a 7 0 .5-/zo °" Iv. 7/ �.4.,: 690 Coultier Drive �! 640,7,/ I Chanhassen, MN 55317 /..1- .--c n en ovi e .. �� "-`4_ i.e a. oir< et,/0,1,....)•Gie le/1.•.�o...f ?0 IRe: Scheduled dates for Local Boards of Review 1991 011._ f "rr°L` 9 "14....4./. rd q I Enclosed is the listing of dates for the local Boards of Review for the various jurisdictions. These dates are set, and only in a very l4 special conflicting situation, will I consider a change. IThis office will be mailing out the packet for posting notices and other documents in the near future. Each jurisdiction is responsible for taking the necessay action to conform to the 1 requirements of the notice of meetings as provided by law. This office shall be mailing out the Assessment Notices for each parcel in the jurisdiction at least ten days prior to the individual Imeeting dates. There is an economic situtation which we are all in, and I would anticipate an adequate turnout at each of the meetings this year. I We have worked very hard to eliminate our mistakes, and to be very objective in our appraisals. Equality in the appraisals is about all we can hope for during this present money crunch, and we must I all keep in mind that all levels of government are attempting to reduce expenses, and to get the most from each dollar spent. II Looking forward to being with all of you at your meetings again this year. Sincerely, IOvet:%af\ t"Pets1/4) Orlin H. Schafer, SAMA pnc:1 • II RECEIVED 11 FEB 121991 Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer CITY OF CHANHASS.i 1 11 EQUALIZATION MEETINGS SCHEDULED FOR 1991 1 APRIL 1 Mon----8 P.M. Dahigren Township 2 Tues--10 a.m. Hollywood Township I 2 Tues---8 p.m. Laketown Township 3 Wed----8 p.m. Watertown Township 4 Thurs--7 p.m. New Germany City I 9 Tues---8 p.m. Camden Township 10 Wed----7 p.m. Cologne City ' 11 Thurs--8 p.m. Young America Township 15 Mon----7 p.m. Young America City 17 Wed----8 p.m. San Fransico Township I 18 Thurs--7 p.m. Mayer City 19 Fri--9:30 a.m. Chaska Township I 22 Mon----8 p.m. Hancock Township - 23 Tues---8 p.m. Benton Township 1 24 Wed----7 p.m. Norwood City 1 25 Thurs--7 p.m. Hamburg City 29 Mon----7 p.m. Chanhassen City 1 30 Tues---7 p.m. Victoria City MAY 1 Wed----7 p.m. Waconia City I 2 Thurs--8 p.m. Waconia Township 6 Mon----7 p.m. Chaska City 7 Tues---7 p.m. Carver City 20 Mon---- p.m. Chanhassen--Chaska City final (part of reg. meetings) 21 Tues-7:30 p.m. Watertown City I I I