Loading...
1g. Amed Ord Cpt 20 BCO CITYOF 7700 Market Boulevard PO Bgx 147 C!~anhassen MN 55317 Administration Fa× 952 227 11!0 Building Inspections Pllrjr/~s: 955227 Fax: 952 227 1190 £ngineering ?Dc~: 952227 1160 Fax: 9522271170 Finance P'none: 9522271140 Fax: 9522271110 Park a Recreation Fax: 9522271110 Recreatio~l Oer~ter 2310 Goulter Boulevard Phgr~e: 9522271400 Fax: 952227 1404 Planning & Natural Resources Pi~o~e: 95222711,30 Fax 952227 1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phorr~: 952.22? 1300 Fax: 9522271310 Senior Center Phone: 952 227 1125 Fax: 9522271110 Web Site ~,,,w sr cmamhassen minus MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Angela Auseth, Planning Technician DATE: January 12, 2004 SUB J: Amendment of Ordinance, Chapter 20, Article XXI, Chanhassen City Code, Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCO) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff is working to CO~Tect an unintended result of language in the BCO ordinance, eliminating the requirement for a conditional use permit an setback variances for structures on property within the district that were built on lots prior to the adoption of the ordinance. ACTION REQUIRED City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 6, 2004, to review the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 to approve the proposed amendments to the BCO district. Planning Commission wanted to clarify that the existing buildings mentioned pertain to principal structures not accessory buildings. The summary and verbatim minutes are item la of the City Council packet for January 12, 2004. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the motion approving the ordinance amendment as specified in the staff report dated January 6, 2004. ATTACHMENTS Planning Commission Staff Report Dated January 6, 2004. The City of Chanhassen · ~'x gcO~,lmg r:on/m Ulqlt}, ~'i~h clea~n lakes quality sei',ools ~t ci~,armtng dov¥[stovvn ?~ii,q['0 l~[]si ~l;se',; ~,,iF~dil]0 trails amd beautiful parks A great place i~ g,~ ~',,o~b, ~r~d }Ii',' MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Angela Auseth, Planning Technician DATE: January 6, 2004 SUB J: Amendment of Ordinance, Chapter 20, Article XXI, Chanhassen City Code, Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCO) SUMMARY PROPOSAL Staff is working to correct an unintended result of language in the BCO ordinance, eliminating the requirement for a conditional use permit and setback variances for structures on property within the district that were built on lots prior to the adoption of the ordinance. BACKGROUND The city initiated a study of the Bluff Creek Watershed in 1996; this created the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan. This plan provided the framework for the BCO district. The Bluff Creek Overlay District was adopted on December 14, 1998. The intent of the Bluff Creek Overlay District is that all development within the district, including commercial, industrial and residential uses, should blend into the natural environment while protecting Bluff Creek and sensitive land areas abutting and in the vicinity of the watercourse and its tributaries. The intent of the primary zone is to preserve the natural areas sun'ounding Bluff Creek as undisturbed land, thus limiting the direct impacts of human activity to maintain the natural condition of the creek and its tributaries. The intent of the secondary zone is to minimize development impacts, focusing on minimizing grading and the removal of natural vegetation, resulting in better habitat and reducing the strain on Bluff Creek. SUMMARY OF ISSUE As the District was overlaid upon existing subdivisions, the guidelines for development had an unintended impact on existing developed properties. Section 20-1554, Conditional Use Permits of the current ordinance requires a conditional use permit prior to any development or alterations to properties located within the district. The effect of this language is that any existing property subdivided and/or developed within the district prior to the adoption of the BCO District must apply for a conditional use permit for construction of a deck, remodel, shed, etc. A second issue is in Section 20-1564, Structure Setbacks which requires a forty (40) foot setback from the primary zone with no disturbance within the first twenty (20) feet of such setback. Many properties existing prior to the adoption of the BOC District do not meet this requirement and therefore require a variance to the setback requirement as well as a conditional use permit prior to the construction of a deck, remodel, shed, etc. Staff is proposing a solution similar to the requirements of the Bluff Protection ordinance. Staffbelieves these changes relieve an onerous burden on property owners and is recommending approval of the amendment. EXAMPLE OF IMPLICATIONS Attached is an example of a subdivision with hardship created to properties by the adoption of the BCO district. This specific subdivision was approved in 1996, prior to the adoption of the BCO in 1998. Each property within or touching either the primary or secondary zone is required to apply for a conditional use permit for any new construction on their property, this includes, decks, sheds, remodeling, etc. By adding Section 20-1554 (b), these properties and other properties with buildings constructed prior to December 14, 1998 will be exempt from the CUP requirement. By adding Sec. 20-1564 (b), these properties as well as other properties with buildings constructed prior to December 14, 1998 would not have to apply for a setback variance as they do not meet the forty (40) foot primary setback requirement. PROPOSED CHANGES Staff is proposing the following amendment and additions to the Bluff Creek Overlay District Ordinance (shown in bold): BCO Section 20-1554. Conditional Use Permits. (a) A conditional use permit shall be issued by the city for all subdivisions, site plans, and prior to the erection or alteration of any building or land within the BCO. (b) All lots of record in existence and parcels of land located within the Bluff Creek Overlay District on which a ~.ui!fiing principal structure has been constructed prior to December 14, 1998 are exempt from requiring a Conditional Use Permit. Further subdivision of the property will require a conditional use permit and shall comply with the Bluff Creek Overlay District. BCO Section 20-1564. Structure Setbacks. (a) All structures shall be setback a minimum of forty (40) feet from the Primary Zone. No disturbance of the site shall occur within the first twenty (20) feet of such setback. (b) On parcels of land located within the Bluff Creek Overlay kll[la~--~ principal structure has been District on which a ........ ~ constructed prior to December 14, 1998: (1) The minimum setback from the primary zone shall be the existing setback, if less than forty (40) feet. (2) If the existing principal building or structure setback is less than forty (40) feet and greater than or equal to twenty (20) feet, then the first 50% of the established primary zone setback shall remain undisturbed. (3) If the existing principal building or structure setback is less than twenty (20) feet there shall be no grading or alterations beyond the existing setback. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a motion recommending approval of amending the Bluff Creek Overlay District, adding Section 20-1554 (b) and Sec. 20-1564 (b) as stated above. ATTACHMENT l. Ordinance Amending Chapter 20, Chanhassen City Code 2. Map of the Bluff Creek Overlay District 3. Example of Subdivision Affected by the Adoption of the BCO District. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20, Article XXXI CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. The City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended by adding a section to be numbered 20-1554 (b), which shall read as follows: All lots of record in existence and parcels of land located within the Bluff Creek Overlay District on which a principal structure has been constructed prior to December 14, 1998 are exempt from requiring a Conditional Use Permit. Further subdivision of the property will require a conditional use permit and shall comply with the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Section 2. The City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended by adding a section to be numbered 20-1564 (b), which shall read as follows: On parcels of land located within the Bluff Creek Overlay District on which a principal structure has been constructed prior to December 14, 1998: (1) The minimum setback from the primary zone shall be the existing setback, if less than forty (40) feet. (2) If the existing principal building or structure setback is less than forty (40) feet and greater than or equal to twenty (20) feet, then the first 50% of the established primary zone setback shall remain undisturbed. (3) If the existing principal building or structure setback is less than twenty (20) feet there shall be no grading or alterations beyond the existing setback. Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota ,2004, bythe Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor (Summary Ordinance Published in the Chanhassen Villager on .) CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20, ARTICLE XXXI OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT. The purpose of this code amendment is to exempt existing developed properties and lots of record located in the Bluff Creek Overlay District from CLIP requirement prior to any alterations and incorporate relief from setback requirements. A printed copy of Ordinance No. __ is available for inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office of the City Manager/Clerk. PASSED, ADOPTED, AND APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION this __ 2004, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen. day of CITY OF CHANHASSEN Todd Gerhardt, City Manager/Clerk (Summary Ordinance Published in the Chanhassen Villager on ). Verbatim Planning Commission Minutes dated January 6, 2004 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20~ ARTICLE XXXI ENTITLED BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Questions of staff. Papke: Yeah, I've got a clarification question. Is there any issue? The language here is all lots of record in existence and parcels of land located within the Bluff Creek Overlay District on which a building has been constructed. Is there any issue with the term building here? I mean if I have an outhouse on this property, do I get grandfathered in the way this is worded? Generous: For that outhouse, yeah unless we wanted, yes. Unless you say principal building. Principal structure. Papke: That's my only question. Is this sufficiently unambiguous that we're not going to run into problems with interpretation later on? If it's a tree house or whatever, you know. I mean does that constitute a developed property if I've got a tree house on my, you know. Generous: That would seem as it says building. Now a principal building or principal structure may be a more accurate term because you have to have a principal structure before you can have accessory structures, etc. Papke: There you go. Generous: So that's a way to do it. Sacchet: So it would say principal structure that would. Generous: That would mean more than just an outhouse. Feik: So it's not a hunting shack on a vacant lot. Generous: Right. Feik: Or deer stand. How many of these a year or in the 2-3 years. Generous: We have 3 permit applications that are waiting for the ordinance amendment before they'll come in an apply. I'm sure there's dozens that have come in and we've missed that are like in Stone Creek where they've added a deck and they've met setbacks and everything and we didn't look at well yep, the primary zone's on the back of your property. You need a conditional use permit. Tjomhom: Okay, this is where I'm confused being new. We just spent what an hour and a half with an applicant who was wanting to put 7 townhouses on this same area, right? And we were kind of toying with it maybe it might be okay if he saved trees, but then people, we're still picking on them for having decks on it so I guess I'm confused about what's right and what's wrong and you know. Sacchet: Well I think what this addresses is structures actually in the primary and secondary, right? Generous: Well, whenever a property is in either the primary or secondary zone, technically it's in, it has to come in. Whether they meet the setback. It could be 300 feet deep and it's the back comer of their lot and it's in the secondary zone. The primary zone you need a conditional use permit. You're 100 feet away from it but you still have to go through the. Sacchet: Because part of the property is. Generous: Because part of their property is in, and that's the ordinance says. If the parcel's in the zone. So that's the first part. And the second part is, the existing developed properties have, they have established a setback. They come in, they have a back yard and they cleared out the yard and put landscaping up to a treed edge and so maybe that's the primary zone and they may be 10 feet, 20 feet away and technically they don't meet the setbacks so any alterations they do, they need a variance unless it's 40 feet away, and so that again they established it. We base that part of the ordinance on the bluff protection ordinance where there is existing setbacks established. You can maintain that but you can't encroach any further so that's the second part. So we're recommending approval of the ordinance adoption and I believe that recommendation that we point out that it has to be a principal structure, Feik: Let me ask one more quick question. A couple years ago we had the pool that encroached. If they had pulled that permit properly and this were in place. Generous: They would have been, they wouldn't need the conditional use permit but they would have had a variance application because the house complied with the setback. Feik: Right. Would we have found them in violation? We still would have because it was found during inspections, right? Generous: Right. As a part of the, yes. We would have found that it was violating the setback portion, and then once that, any alteration requires a CUP. Feik: Right, okay. Lillehaug: So this isn't going to open up the door... Generous: No. Lillehaug: Those safeguards are still there? Generous: Those safeguards are still in place and if they meet the setback, they can't not meet the 40 feet, but if they're already 20 foot from the primary zone, we're not going to say you need to get a variance to put your sun porch on this 25 feet away or there. Lillehaug: So this is a pretty big fix Bob? Generous: I think it resolves a lot of problems that we've had discussions with property owners. Sacchet: Okay. This is a public hearing so if anybody wants to comment about this. This is your chance. Feik: And don't be nervous. Debbie Lloyd: No I'm not. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I was really nervous before. That hasn't happened in a couple years. I don't know. And I do apologize that I didn't hear all your conversation but I think the bottom line for me in changing this policy is, I'm pro public. I don't like staff making those decisions. If it's something that's going to affect possibly the person next to me and there's no other way for me to find out about it, I'd want notification. I'm sorry but I just like the way it is now. It might be burdensome. Well. Sacchet: Let me clarify Debbie. Debbie Lloyd: Okay. Sacchet: Why would we want public notification if somebody is adding a deck that is within all the requirements but the far comer of their property happens to touch on the primary zone? What's the point? Debbie Lloyd: But haven't things that have come forward have not they been issues that have presented deviations from what the code provides. Feik: They would still have to meet code though. Debbie Lloyd: They will? Sacchet: It's the deviations would still come in front of us, right Bob? Generous: Yes. If they don't, if they want to encroach any closer, or if the existing setback, they meet it and they want to expand so they would encroach into the 40 feet, that would still need a variance. Debbie Lloyd: Isn't that increasing the non-conformity of a change that has been made? I mean is there any assurance that if they're increasing. Sacchet: Correct me if I'm wrong Bob, but if I understood correctly what's written in the report and what Bob just explained, what we're addressing here is not any increase in non-conformity. What we're addressing is if two cases. One case, if any as small ever it is part of the property is within this Bluff Creek protection, if they want to do anything to their property within the area that has nothing to do with Bluff Creek, they have to come in and get a conditional use permit. There's no point in that. The second case is if they are already encroaching in some way a little bit on the Bluff Creek. If they want to do let's say something on the site towards the road, they still have to come in and get a conditional use permit even though they're not increasing the encroachment. If they would increase the encroachment, then they would have to come in. They'd not be excluded on that, so I think and please correct me if I'm wrong Bob. What this does, it just takes the cases out where it doesn't make sense to go through the extent of requiring a conditional use permit, because it has nothing to do with protecting the setting that we're actually trying to protect. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? Debbie Lloyd: Well there must have been some intent. Sacchet: Well it was more like something that kind of slipped through. Debbie Lloyd: You know I've researched so many old files and you'd be surprised the intent there is behind some of these old. Sacchet: Well the only intent I could possibly envision is that they're trying to back track a little bit on what was allowed to happen in Bluff Creek, but this doesn't do it. Debbie Lloyd: Okay, thank you. Sacchet: Any other comments? Close the public hearing and bring it back to this motley crew. Comments? Discussion points? Motions? Feik: I'll make a motion. Sacchet: Motion please. Feik: I'll make a motion that staff recommends that the Planning Commission. Sacchet: Well actually the Planning Commission. You cross out staff is recommending. Feik: Planning Commission recommends the adoption. Sacchet: This goes to council, right? Generous: Right. Sacchet: Okay. Planning Commission recommends the council adopt. Feik: Yeah what he said. Sacchet: The motion recommending approval, blah, blah, blah. The whole thing. Alright we have a motion. And a second? Lillehaug: Second. Feik moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of amending the Bluff Creek Overlay District by adding the following: Section 20-1554. Conditional Use Permits. (b) All lots of record in existence and parcels of land located within the Bluff Creek Overlay District on which a building has been constructed prior to December 14, 1998 are exempt from requiring a Conditional Use Permit. Further subdivision of the property will require a conditional use permit and shall comply with the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Section 20-1564. Structure Setbacks. (b) On parcels of land located within the Bluff Creek Overlay District on which a building has been constructed prior to December 14, 1998: (1) (2) (3) The minimum setback from the primary zone shall be the existing setback, if less than forty (40) feet. If the existing building or structure setback is less than forty (40) feet and greater than or equal to twenty (20) feet, then the first 50% of the established primary zone setback shall remain undisturbed. If the existing building or structure setback is less than twenty (20) feet there shall be no grading or alterations beyond the existing setback. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. (Craig Claybaugh had left the meeting at this point.)