Loading...
1a. Zoning pertaining to variances, 1 C 1 TY 0 F /4. ............. _c2ANHAssEN I A f -4 . ,_.._, _ _..- _ , . ,„IP- . Itk., -„<.,„F „ . , 690 COULTER DRIVE• P.O.BOX 147 e CHANHASSEN,MINNESOTA 55317 (612)937-1900• FAX(612)937-5739 }0 iiik .misystreor I foOmo ✓WA- IMEMORANDUM > °L,.- AO_if TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager "` FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director(X • fe g�bmittaC m council I G- 5-470 DATE: June 20, 1990 ISUBJ: Amendments to Chapter 20, Article II, Administration and Enforcement of the City Code Pertaining to Variances, 2nd I and Final Reading and Approval of Summary for Publication Purposes As the City Council will recall,. staff has been working with the I Council, Planning Commission and Board of Adjustments and Appeals for a number of months on revisions to the ordinance pertaining to the issuance of variances. In Summary, the modifications will do I two things. First of all, they will offer the City slightly revised findings to support a variance that are designed to enhance the flexibility in reviewing these requests without compromising the ordinance itself. The second revision will have the effect of I clarifying the review and approval of variances so that variances attached to subdivision and site plan requests will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council along with the underlying Iproposal. On June 4, 1990, the City Council approved the first reading of the I ordinance. Revisions were requested in 3,`areas. The first was in Section 3e where actions' transmitted from the Planning Commission to the City Council were originally given a 60 day time limit for action, this language has -been ;;changed to :eliminate a specific I reference to timing, replacing m it- with the °-word ;promptly. In Section 5a, a statement that reasonable use includes "a use made by a majority of other prgperty within 500 feet ''Of it" has been I changed to read reasonable use cludes'- use made by the majority of comparable property within 500 ;feet of it. The last revision requested was in Section 5b, findings to support a variance, where I the original language read that "the conditions upon which a petition for a variance are based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and not applicable generally to other property within the same zoning classification," the language I has been changed to read that "the conditions upon which a variance is based are not applicable generally to other property within the same zoning classification". The above referenced revisions have I -1 Don Ashworth June 20, 1990 Page 2 ' been incorporated into the ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the second reading of the ordinance and a summary for publication purposes ' shown in Attachment #1. ATTACHMENTS 1. Ordinance amendment and summary. 2. Memo from Paul Krauss dated May 21, 1990. 1 1 1 1 A CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & PUCHS, P.A. Attorneys at Law I Thomas J. Campbell Roger N. Knutson (612)456-9539 I Thomas M. Scott Facsimile(612)456-9542 Gary G. Fuchs James R.Walston Elliott B. Knetsch Dennis J. Unger June 12, 1990 tttCEk V..D JUN 131990 I WTY OF CHANHASSEN Mr. Paul Krauss I Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 I RE: Variances Dear Paul: I Enclosed please find revised ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the City Code, the Zoning Ordinance, concerning variances. I Changes from previous draft dated 05/15/90 are in Sections 3(e) , 5(a) , and 5(b) . Very truly yours, I C• - - _ , SON, SCOTT CHS, P.A. I • Roger N. - - • I RNK:srn Enclosure I I I _ I I Yankee Square Office III • Suite 202 • 3460 Washington Drive • Eagan, MN 55122 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ' ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OP THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONCERNING VARIANCES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 20-28(b) (2) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read: To hear requests for variances from the provisions of this Chapter which are not made in conjunction with platting, site plan review, conditional use or interim use permit application. Section 2. The caption of Section 20-29 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read: ' Sec. 20-29. Board of Adjustments Variance and Appeal Procedures. Section 3. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Section 20-30 to read: Sec. 20-30. Variance Requests in Conjunction with Platting, Site Plan Review, Conditional Use and Interim Use Permits. (a) Form; Fee. Appeals and applications for variances from the provisions of this Chapter made in conjunction with platting, site plan review, conditional use and interim use 1 permits and variance from the subdivision ordinance 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. (b) Hearing. Upon the filing of such variance applications the zoning administrator shall set a time and place for a hearing before the Planning Commission on the application, which hearing shall be held within thirty (30) days after the filing of the application. At the hearing the ' Planning Commission 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 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 ' r06/12/90 the zoning administrator from records provided by the applicant. (c) Recommendation. Following the public hearing the Planning Commission shall recommend to the City Council that the variance be granted or denied. If the Planning Commission recommends approval, it may also recommend appropriate conditions. (d) Council Action. By majority vote, the City Council may approve or deny the variance request. In granting any variance the City Council may attach conditions to ensure compliance with this Chapter and to protect adjacent property. (e) Action Without Decision. If a decision is not promptly transmitted by the Planning Commission to the City Council, the Council may take action on the request without further awaiting the Planning Commission's recommendation. Section 4. Section 20-56 of the Chanhassen City Code is I amended to read: Sec. 20-56. Generally. A variance from this Chapter may be requested only by the owner of the property or the owner's approved representative to which the variance would apply. A variance may not be granted which would allow the use of property in a manner not permitted within the applicable zoning district. A variance may, however, be granted for the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. In granting any variance, conditions may be prescribed to ensure substantial compliance with this Chapter and to protect adjacent property. Section 5. Section 20-58 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read: Sec. 20-58. General Conditions for Granting. A variance may be granted by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals or City Council only if all of the following criteria are met: (a) That the literal enforcement of this Chapter would cause undue hardship. "Undue hardship" means the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within five hundred (500) feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that in developed neighborhoods pre-existing standards exist. Variances that blend with these pre- -2- 1 J5� existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. (b) That the conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. (c) That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. ' (d) That the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. 11 (e) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of ' land is located. (f) That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increases the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Section 6. This ordinance shall be effective immediately ' upon its passage and publication. I PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this day of , 1990. ATTEST: Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor I (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1990. ) I -3- 1 ORDINANCE NO. I CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ' AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE The ordinance revisions replace the original findings of fact needed to support a variance approval. They are to be replaced with revised language that will afford the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and City Council, enhanced flexibility in considering these requests. The ordinance revisions define 'undue hardship' as meaning that the property cannot be put to a reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape, or topography. It further defines 'reasonable use' to include a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The ordinance revisions further clarify and revise the review process for variances associated with platting, site plan review, conditional and interim use permits will be reviewed by the Planning Commission with a public hearing held before that board with ultimate approval by the City Council. Variances associated with other aspects of ordinance enforcement will continue to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Enforcement of this ordinance shall be subject to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. This ordinance is in full force commencing on the date of publication of this summary. ' Don Ashworth City Manager i (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on ) 1 I I 1 I 1-,i,-6--- .. .OF �_ ii 41, ir tHANHAssEN ,___„4„ ., _ '''7 ''' .. A AP' , --- „„,, __ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I ,_ (612)937-1900• FAX(612)937-579 by City Administrator Endorser "MEMORANDUM Rioddied II Rejected TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Dete $" 29 f ‘, _ Date Submitted to Commission II FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director Dine Submitted to Council DATE: May 21, 1990 4.-4-90 IISUBJ: Amendments to Chapter 20, Article II, Administration and Encorcement of the City Code Pertaining to Variances ilWhile working on various development proposals, two aspects of the City' s variance procedure have come to staff's attention as I areas where modifications could prove to be useful. These two areas concern administrative procedures as to who is responsible for reviewing and approving variances while the second is related Ito the criteria that are used in reviewing variance proposals. According to the current ordinance, all variances are to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. In actual II practice over the past few years, while many variances have been brought before the Board, a number of 'them have been approved directly by the City Council after consideration by the Planning ICommission. r The Board of Adjustments and Appeals serves an extremely useful il function in the community. However, the procedures whereby all variances are reviewed by the Board could potentially be con- fusing and time consuming and represent an avoidable problem in the timely and effective review -of -development proposals. Many I communities divide up the responS.ibilities 4or approval of variances. ''''The Board of Adjustments and Appeals is generally responsible for those variances which are associated with II building single family homes .fir additions _..to-othose homes on single family lots. In many of these •communities, it is the Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council that review all other variances which may be .atttached to subdivisions, con- ' ditional use permits, site plans and in the near future interim use permits. In our opinion there are several valid reasons for considering modifications to the variance procedures. A variance 1 which, for example, is associated with a subdivision may be con- sidered by the Planning Commission and City Council to be valid based upon a number of considerations. These may include 1 I . Planning Commission May 21, 1990 Page 2 topographic features, surrounding development pattern, desire to avoid other more significant variances, public input, environmen- tal preservation efforts or similar matters. While the Planning Commission and City Council are equipped to review the sub- division in its entirety, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals would typically be looking at that variance proposal in a manner that almost takes it out of context. This may result in the variances receiving consideration subject to criteria that may be different between the Planning Commission/City Council and the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. This factor could jeopardize a project and put a developer or landowner in a difficult position. The second related matter pertains to the mechanics of the proce- dure itself. When a developer or property owner works with staff to develop a proposal, there is a lot of effort, time and money that is expended before it is reviewed by the Planning Commission. A developer could easily be in a position whereby having to produce a submittal that is acceptable to the Planning Commission and City Council, their request for a related variance could be rejected by the Board of Adjustments, thus jeopardizing all of the work done to date. Based upon these considerations, staff is proposing an ordinance amendment that would give the City Council the ultimate authority to approve variances that stem from subdivisions, site plans and conditional or interim use permits. The ordinance was drafted by the City Attorney at our request. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals would continue to review all other variances. Note that the proposed procedures will in no way minimize the community' s ability to review and comment on the variance request since in either case it would be subject to public hearing. We believe that this revised procedure would facilitate effective and timely review of these matters. In another related matter, we have reviewed the City's actions on variances in the past and find that there are occasionally instances where the Council would like to approve a variance, but that the existing five conditions for consideration of approval do not provide the necessary latitude to make this decision. Staff does not wish to indicate any desire to undermine the con- sistent interpretation of the ordinance, however, it is our belief that additional latitude could legally be provided in many of these instances. We believe that the revised interpretation of hardship could be adopted under existing State Enabling legislation and is not contingent upon changes to the law that are currently being comtemplated. Consequently, staff asked the City Attorney to review the criteria and suggest language that would provide this latitude. He has developed six revised cri- teria that we believe accomplish this purpose. We note that the draft would provide that the interpretation of hardship is modified so that undue hardship means that the property could not 11 T Planning Commission 11 May 21, 1990 Page 3 be put to a reasonable use because of its size, physical surroun- dings, shape or topography. Reasonable use is further defined as a use commonly made by other properties in the district. This provision would allow the City Council to legitimately review the surrounding neighborhood and grant such variances as may be necessary to allow development to occur in a manner that is con- sistent with the surroundings. The remaining conditions would ensure that variances are not a self-created hardship, that the variance is not based upon monetary concerns and that the variance would not be detrimental to other parcels in the area. Thus we believe that this additional latitude may be granted while continuing to maintain the City standards with regards to reviewing variances. To facilitate a comparison between the existing and proposed variance findings, these are reprinted below. Existing The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the Council shall not grant, a variance unless they find the following facts : A. That the literal enforcement of the Ordinance would cause undue hardship and practical difficulty. B. That the hardship is caused by special conditions and cir- cumstances which are peculiar to the land and structure involved and which are not characteristic of or applicable to other lands of structures in the same district. iC. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the pre- servation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. • D. That the special conditions and circumstances are not a con- sequence of a self-created hardship. E. That the variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the City of the neighborhood wherein the property is situated and will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. ' Proposed A variance may be granted by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals or City Council only if all of the following criteria are met: 1 A. That the literal enforcement of this Chapter would cause undue hardship. "Undue hardship" means the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical s Planning Commission May 21, 1990 I/ Page 4 surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use is a use I commonly made by other property in the district. B. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variation is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and are not applicable, generally, to other prop- erty within the same zoning classification. C. That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. I D. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this ordinance and is not a self-created hardship. I E. That the granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. F. That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increases the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety or substan- tially diminish or impair property values within the neigh- borhood. Staff brought this item before the City Council at their February 26, 1990, meeting for discussion purposes. Our primary reason for doing thisbwas to obtain their input since the main thrust of the ordinance was to respond to issues that had been discussed with them previously. We sought their direction as to whether the proposed as "on-track" and consistent with their intent. There appeared to be substantial support for the proposal by most of the Council members. Minutes of the meeting are attached. The Council did raise concerns over the wording in Section 20-58 (a) defining what constitutes an "undue hardship" . The original draft defined undue hardship as a condition where "property can- . not be put to a reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography" and further that "reasonable use is a use commonly made by other property in the district". The Council asked that staff provide further definition to avoid arbitrary decisions. Staff worked with the City Attorney to develop a revised draft. I Our current proposal further defines reasonable use as a "use made by a majority of other property within 500 feet" . We sup- port this concept believing that it will allow for the use of a "neighborhood standard" where that standard deviates from normal ordinance requirements. The Carver Beach area is a prime example. As we envision it, the applicant would be required to provide data to support this finding. Planning Commission May 21, 1990 Page 5 The Planning Commission discussed the draft ordinance at their March 21st meeting. They were generally supportive of the concept and several members commented that this would clarify procedures as well as improving a consistency of decision making regarding these matters. The Commissioners were also supportive of the conditions for granting variances. There was a fair amount of discussion regarding the undue hardship criteria. They asked that an intent statement be added to the effect that the intent of this finding is not to allow a proliferation of variances but rather to recognize that some neighborhoods do not meet current standards and that variances which meet or exceed conditions found within 500 feet of a lot would be considered. The City Attorney has been asked to amend the ordinance accordingly and revised copies attached. Staff brought the ordinance before the Board of Adjustments and ' Appeals for discussion on April 9, 1990. They raised a number of issues with the proposal resulting in its being tabled at the request of Councilman Johnson. He proposed that the ordinance be ' discussed at a joint City Council/Board of Adjustments and Appeals meeting. Staff discussed the draft ordinance at a joint meeting of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and City Council on May 14, 1990. The issues of procedures and intent of the Zoning Ordinance were discussed at length. In general, there was agreement that the ordinance was generally workable as proposed, but that some modifications would be required. Based upon the discussion, the findings required to support a variance were modified. Finding C was revised from stating that "the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land", to simply state "that the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land." The word "exclusively" was deleted to clarify the intent of this statement as requested by Councilman Johnson. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending that the City Council approve first reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code, the Zoning Ordinance, concerning variances. ATTACHMENTS 11 1. Ordinance Amendment. 2. City Council minutes dated April 9, 1990. 3. Memo from Paul Krauss dated March 14, 1990, with attachments. f��vLiYL-J CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. Heys at Law MAY 16 1993 I ant Thomas J.Campbell OF CHANHASSEN Roger N. Knutson (612)456-9539 1 Thomas M. Scott Facsimile(612)456-9542 Gary G. Fuchs James R.Walston Elliott B.Knetsch Dennis J.Unger May 15, 1990 1 Mr. Paul Krauss Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 1 RE: Zoning Ordinance Amendments Dear Paul: I Enclosed please Ordinance Summary pertaining to excavating, mining, filling, and grading, revised ordinance pertaining to same, and revised ordinance concerning variances. Very truly yours, CAMP SON, SCOTT CHS, BY: - Roger N. Knutson RNK:srn Enclosures I 1 i 1 1 Yankee nkee Square Office III • Suite 202 • 3460 Washington Drive • Eagan, MN 55122 1 ir CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OP TEE CSAMEABBEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONCERNING VARIANCES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 20-28(b) (2) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read: To hear requests for variances from the provisions of this Chapter which are not made in conjunction with platting, site plan review, conditional use or interim use permit application. Section 2. The caption of Section 20-29 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read: Sec. 20-29. Board of Adjustments Variance and Appeal Procedures. Section 3. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Section 20-30 to read: Sec. 20-30. Variance Requests in Conjunction with Platting, Sit. Plan Review, Conditional Use and Interim 11 Use Permits. (a) Form; Fee. Appeals and applications for variances 11 from the provisions of this Chapter made in conjunction with platting, site plan review, conditional use and interim use permits and variance from the subdivision ordinance 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. (b) Hearing. Upon the filing of such variance applications the zoning administrator shall set a time and place for a hearing before the Planning Commission on the application, which hearing shall be held within thirty (30) days after the filing of the application. At the hearing the Planning Commission 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 application for variance, to each owner of property situated 11 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 r05/15/90 I/ the zoning administrator from records provided by the applicant. (c) Recommendation. Following the public hearing the Planning Commission shall recommend to the City Council that the variance be granted or denied. If the Planning Commission recommends approval, it may also recommend appropriate conditions. (d) Council Action. By majority vote, the City` Council may approve or deny the variance request. In granting any variance the City Council may attach conditions to ensure compliance with this Chapter and to protect adjacent property. (e) Action Without Decision. If no decision is transmitted by the Planning Commission to the City Council within sixty (60) days from the date a variance request is filed with the zoning administrator, the Council may take action on the request, in accordance with the procedures 11 governing the Planning Commission, without further awaiting the Planning Commission's recommendation. Section 4. Section 20-56 of the Chanhassen City Code is I amended to read: Sec. 20-56. Generally. , A variance from this Chapter may be requested only by the owner of the property or the owner's approved representative to which the variance would apply. A variance may not be granted which would allow the use of property in a manner not permitted within the applicable zoning district. A variance may, however, be granted for the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. In granting any variance, conditions may be prescribed to ensure substantial compliance with this Chapter and to protect adjacent property. Section S. Section 20-58 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read: ' Sec. 20-58. General Conditions for Granting. A variance may be granted by the Board of Adjustments I and Appeals or City Council only if all of the following criteria are met: (a) That the literal enforcement of this Chapter would cause undue hardship. "Undue hardship" means the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, I physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of other property within five hundred (500) feet of it. The intent of this provision I -2- 1 is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that in developed neighborhoods pre-existing standards exist. Variances that blend with these pre- existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. 11 (b) That the conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. (c) That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. (d) That the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. (e) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. (f) That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increases the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 11 Section 6. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this day of , 1990. ATTEST: Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor 1 (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1990.) 11 I -3- 11 Don Ashworth: As we are working with the State on this and engineering, i guess is it's going to be 60-90 days before actual signs can get up. I mean if there's any question that the property owner is really against this, m6► guess is that just with previous State approvals saying we can put up the signs and where they'll be located and what not will be at least 60 days. Resolution $90-47: Councilman Sort awed, Councilman Johnson seconded a resolution establishing a no parking sone an sonthboad Highway 101 on the save II in the area generally utilised br vehicle parked for sale. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 11UNJ mom= AM BIDENT '1C neon In SO®IVISIOF AND soma ORDINANCE '10 1092JIRE THE POSTING OP POBLIC INFORMATION 5IONS Pat NIPi narzweerrs WITHIN THE CITY, FIRST WADING. I Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, do you want a report on that? fiat's basically an ordinance amendment that accomplishes what your direction was to us a couple months ago. Mayor Chmiel: Right. That's correct. Any discussion? ' Councilman Boyt: I think $100.00 is not enough. The signs are costing $250.00. They're going to be up for how long? Mayor Chmiel: Well the sign goes up and down, up and down. Councilman Boyt: I'm just saying I don't think the life cycle of the sign. Well what I'd like to have is I'd like to have staff review this so the City in the long run isn't putting any money into this. The Ieasing fee for the sign covers our actual cost. Mayor Ctmiel: I think what we have to do is run it for a period of time to see and if it's not paying for itself, then we have to do something. Any other discussion? I Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwomen Ddmler seconded to approve the first reading of Zoning Ordinance anent to amend the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance to require the posting of public information signs foram developments within the City. All voted in favor sod the action carried. ( 'Z r ORDSG INAP PG TO E it! t POTTt O'i SAM8 T M ARTICL E Q I VI, SECTIONS E TIt18 F 20-56 A 1Q1DR2O 70 Mayor Chmiel: Item 13 has been removed. Is that correct Paul? Paul Krauss: Tes. • I I 54 I -- 1 -,*., CITY3OF 1 ` ; ,- V f .: s v - at ' n 690 COULTER DRIVE• P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 e- (612) 937-1900• FAX (612)937-5739 • i !GitY P.•3mnisratx IAction by ilae Enders: c, MEMORANDUM --� II _, ��-- TO: Planning Commission �r/Y1-9''----7 p ,. c::::: II pate s.�.r;.._ FROM: Paul Krauss; Planning Director (� DATE: March 14, 1990 DYte SUBJ: Proposed Amendments to Chapter 20, Article II, Administration and Enforcement of the City Code Pertaining to Variances 1 While working on various development proposals, two aspects of the City's variance procedure have come to staff's attention as II areas where modifications could prove to be useful. These two areas concern administrative probedures as to who is responsible for reviewing and approving variances while the second is related to the criteria that are used in reviewing variance proposals. According to the current ordinance, all variances are to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustments nd Appeals. In actual II practice over the past few years, while many variances have been brought before the Board, a number of *hem have been approved directly by the City Council after consideration by the Planning Commission. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals se rtes an extremely useful function in the community. However, the trocedures whereby all II variances are reviewed by the Board could;potentially be con- fusing and time consuming and_represent .an.avoidable problem in the timely and effectivereviel -bf- eve opment proposals. Many II communities divide 4ip.the espo ibilities or rpr-oval of variances. °`The Board of Adjustments and Appeals is 4eaerally responsible for-those variances which are associated with building single family) omes r`additions. t.43,-*Iose homes on 11 single family lots. In many ofthe1e ommunities, it is the Planning Commission and ultimately4the City Council that review all other variances which may be attached to subdivisions, con- ' ditional use permits, site plans end in the near future interim use permits. In our opinion there are several valid reasons for considering modifications to the variance procedures. A variance which, for example, is associated with a subdivision may be con- sidered by the Planning Commission and City Council to be valid based upon a number of considerations. These may include I I ji . �1 4 Planning Commission March 14, 1990 Page 2 topographic features, surrounding development pattern, desire to avoid other more significant variances, public input, environmen- tal preservation efforts or similar matters. While the Planning Commission and City Council are equipped to review the sub- division in its entirety, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals would typically be looking at that variance proposal in a manner that almost takes it out of context. This may result in the variances receiving consideration subject to criteria that may be different between the Planning Commission/City Council and the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. This factor could jeopardize a project and put a developer or landowner in a difficult position. The second related matter pertains to the mechanics of the proce- dure itself. When a developer or property owner works with staff to develop a proposal, there is a lot of effort, time and money that is expended before it is reviewed by the Planning Commission. A developer could easily be in a position whereby having to produce a submittal that is acceptable to the Planning Commission and City Council, their request for a related variance could be rejected by the Board of Adjustments, thus jeopardizing all of the work done to date. ' Based upon these considerations, staff is proposing an ordinance amendment that would give the City Council the ultimate authority to approve variances that stem from subdivisions, site plans and conditional or interim use permits. The ordinance was drafted by the City Attorney at our request. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals would continue to review all other variances. Note that the proposed procedures will in no way minimize the community's ability to review and comment on the variance request since in either case it would be subject to public hearing. We believe that this revised procedure would facilitate effective and timely review of these matters. In another related matter, we have reviewed the City's actions on variances in the past and find that there are occasionally instances where the Council would like to approve a variance, but that the existing five conditions for consideration of approval do not provide the necessary latitude to make this decision. Staff does not wish to indicate any desire to undermine the con- sistent interpretation of the ordinance, however, it is our belief that additional latitude could legally be provided in many of these instances. We believe that the revised interpretation of hardship could be adopted under existing State Enabling legislation and is not contingent upon changes to the law that are currently being comtemplated. Consequently, staff asked the City Attorney to review the criteria and suggest language that would provide this latitude. He has developed six revised cri- teria that we believe accomplish this purpose. We note that the draft would provide that the interpretation of hardship is modified so that undue hardship means that the property could not I/ Planning Commission 11 March 14, 1990 Page 3 be put to a reasonable use because of its size, physical surroun- dings, shape or topography. Reasonable use is further defined as • a use commonly made by other properties in the district. This provision would allow the City Council to legitimately review the surrounding neighborhood and grant such variances as may be necessary to allow development to occur in a manner that is 'con- ' sistent with the surroundings. The remaining conditions would ensure that variances are not a self-created hardship, that the variance is not based upon monetary concerns and that the variance would not be detrimental to other parcels in the area. ' Thus we believe that this additional latitude may be granted while continuing to maintain the City standards with regards to reviewing variances. To facilitate a comparison between the existing and proposed variance findings, these are reprinted below. Existing The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the 11 Council shall not grant, a variance unless they find the following facts: 11 A. That the literal enforcement of the Ordinance would cause undue hardship and practical difficulty. B. That the hardship is caused by special conditions and cir- cumstances which are peculiar to the land and structure involved and which are not characteristic of or applicable to other lands of structures in the same district. C. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the pre- servation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. D. That the special conditions and circumstances are not a con- sequence of a self-created hardship. E. That the variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the City of the neighborhood wherein the property is situated and ' will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. ' Proposed A variance may be granted by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals 'or City Council only if all of the following criteria are met: ' A. That the literal enforcement of this Chapter would cause undue hardship. "Undue hardship" means the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical I Planning Commission March 14, 1990 Page 4 surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use is a use commonly made by other property in the district. B. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variation is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and are not applicable, generally, to other prop- erty within the same zoning classification. C. That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. , D. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this ordinance and is not a self-created hardship. E. That the granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. I F. That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increases the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety or substan- tially diminish or impair property values within the neigh- borhood. Staff brought this item before the City Council at their February 26, 1990, meeting for discussion purposes. Our primary reason for doing this was to obtain their input since the main thrust of the ordinance was to respond to issues that had been discussed with them previously. We sought their direction as to whether the proposed as "on-track" and consistent with their intent. There appeared to be s ubstantial support for the proposal by most of the Council members. Minutes of the meeting are attached. The Council did raise concerns over the wording in Section 20-58 (a) defining what constitutes an "undue hardship". The original draft defined undue hardship as a condition where "property can- not be put to a reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography" and further that "reasonable use is a use commonly made by other property in the district". The Council asked that staff provide further definition to avoid arbitrary decisions. Staff worked with the City Attorney to develop a revised draft. Our current proposal further defines reasonable use as a "use made by a majority of other property within 500 feet". We sup- port this concept believing that it will allow for the use of a "neighborhood standard" where that standard deviates from normal ordinance requirements. The Carver Beach area is a prime example. As we envision it, the applicant would be required to provide data to support this finding. I/ U 11 Planning Commission March 14, 1990 Page 5 1 ' The Planning Commission discussed the draft ordinance at their March 21st meeting. They were generally supportive of the concept and several members commented that this would clarify procedures as well as improving a consistency of decision making regarding these ' matters. The Commissioners were also supportive of the conditions for granting variances. There was a fair amount of discussion regarding the undue hardship criteria. They asked that an intent statement be added to the effect that the intent of this finding is not to allow a proliferation of variances but rather to recognize that some neighborhoods do not meet current standards and that variances which meet or exceed conditions found within 500 feet of a lot would be considered. The City Attorney has been asked to amend the ordinance accordingly and revised copies attached. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals will be meeting before the City Council meeting and has discussion and recommendation on this ordinance scheduled on their agenda. Staff will convey their ' comments to the City Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council approve the first reading of the ordinance. ATTACHMENTS 1. Ordinance Amendment. ' 2. City Council minutes dated February 26, 1990. 3. Planning Commission minutes dated March 21, 1990. I 1 I I 1 ` CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, PA. Attorneys at Law I Thomas J. Campbell III Roger N.Knutson (612)456-9539 Thomas M. Scott Facsimile(612)456-9542 Gary G. Fuchs James R.Walston Elliott B. Knetsch Dennis J. Unger --—— March 2, 1 990 NAR 0 51995 _ CITY OF CHANHASSEN Mr. Paul Krauss Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: Variances Dear Paul: Enclosed please find a redraft of the ordinance attached to your February 20, 1990, letter to Don Ashworth pertaining to variances. The only changes from your draft are in Section 3(c) , Section 4, and Section 5(a) . II Very truly yours, CAMP: , ' UTSON, SCOTT CHS, P A. BY: 1 -oger N. Knutson RNK:srn Enclosure I I I I I Yankee Square Office III • Suite 202 • 3460 Washington Drive • Eagan, MN 55122 r_ 1 _ 495r' '/39 p,03 I f1PR-04-1990 10�i0 FROM '�/ �• �� a �� � CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA 1 ORDINANCE NO. ___,__ IIAN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE BONING ORDINANCE,` ONCERNING VARIANCES I THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: I section i. Section 20-28(b) (2) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read: - hear requests for variances from the provisions of this ITO Chapter which are not made in conjunction with platting, site plan review, conditional use or interim use permit I application. t Section 2. The caption of Section 20-29 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read: ISec. 20-29. Board of Adjustments Variance and Appeal Procedures. ISection 3. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Section 20-30 to read: I sec. 20-30. Variance RvConditional Conjunction Platting, lanReview, Use and Interim Use Permits. I (a) Form; Fee. Appeals and applications for variances from the provisions of this Chapter made in conjunction with platting, site plan review, conditional use and interim use permits and variance from the subdivision ordinance shall be filed with the zoning administrator on prescribed forms. A II fee, as established by the City Council, shall be paid upon the filing of an application. (b) Hearing. Upon the filing of such variance I applications the zoning administrator shall set a time and place for a hearing before the Planning Commission on the application, which hearing shall be held within thirty (30) days after the filing of the application. At the hearing the II Planning Commission 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 I before the date of hearing to the person who filed the application for variance, to each owner of property situated wholly or partially within five hundred (500) feet of the II property to which the variance application relates. The names and addresses of such owners shall be determined by II • _., _ _ _ �t = - -` :o =: s :s 5.5• /39 the zoning administrator from records provided by the applicant. (c) Recommendation. Following the public hearing the II Planning Commission shall recommend to the City Council that the variance be granted or denied. If the Planning Commission recommends approval, it may also recommend appropriate conditions. (d) Council Action. By majority vote, the City Council may approve or deny the variance request. In ' granting any variance the City Council may attach conditions to ensure compliance with this Chapter and to protect adjacent property. i (e) Action Without Decision. If no decision is transmitted by the Planning Commission to the City Council within sixty (60) days from the date a variance request is filed with the zoning administrator, the Council may take action on the request, in accordance with the procedures governing the Planning Commission, w4thout further awaiting II the Planning Commission's recommendation. Section 4. Section 20-56 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read: Sec. 20-56. Generally. A variance from this Chapter may be requested only by the owner of the property or the owner's approved representative`to which the variance would apply. A variance II may not be granted which would allow the use of property in a manner not permitted within the applicable zoning district. A variance may, however, be granted for the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. In granting any variance, conditions may be prescribed to ensure substantial compliance with this Chapter and to protect adjacent property. 1 Section 5. Section 20-58 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read: i Sea. 20-58. General Conditions for Granting. A variance may be granted by the Board of Adjustments I and Appeals or City Council only if all of the following criteria are met: (a) That the literal enforcement of this Chapter would II cause undue hardship. "Undue hardship" means the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of other property within five hundred (500) feet of it. The intent of this provision -2- APR-04-1990 10:12 FROM—CRPEELL. -SCOTT-&11)cHS"'-'--7-4:0-4---' _:: _ -� -=-S.S 'r.S9 P.05 ill is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that in developed neighborhoods pre-existing II standards exist. Variances that blend with these pre- existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. I (b) That the conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and are not applicable, generally, c IIother property within the same zoning classification. (c) That the purpose of the variation is not based II exclusively upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. (d) That the alleged difficulty or hardship is caused IIby this ordinance and is not a self-created hardship. (e) That the granting of the variance will not be II detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of . land is located. 1 (f) That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, I or increases the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 1 Section 6. This ordinance shall be effective immediately ' upon its passage and publication. IIPASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this day of , 1990. II ATTEST: 1 • IIDon Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1990. ) 1 1 II .3- . _ city Oauncil !lasting -ireb~ xy 26, 1990 s ' qo zot Cb u cihnan Johnson: Was it published? Counciluv an Limier: Mb. irk don't have to publish it. I 1 Don Ashworth: This, as it appears here in front of you was published to the best of my knowledge. e tbunciliran Johnson: So we could take action? s' Don Ashworth: You could take action if you wanted. Mawr Clzrdel: Jim irentioned March 12th so let's go with that. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW, SET DATE FOR FINALIZING BCWRD ACTION, CITY Don Ashworth: We've already set the first meeting for the Board of Adjustments to occur for May 15th. I think we had a special time on that. I really do not think that you're going to have that many people in on either the 15th or the 28th. I think last year we had a number of people in on the initial session but by the time we got into the last meeting, the assessor had met with most of the people and I think you were down to just the 2, 3, 5 people who attended. Accordingly, I think that we could take care of the second meeting as a part of our regular Council agenda. I would look to May 28th but in doing that, I would like to be able to work with the Mayor to determine whether or not an early start was necessary or not. I won't know for another 30 days how big that agenda will be for May 28th and if possible, we should be able just to start it at 7:30 and be able to take care of all of our business including the Board. But if necessary, I'd like to work with Don and potentially set 6:30 or 7:00 if it appears as though an early start is necessary. Cksr cil:nan Johnson: Are we meeting the 28th? I thought that was, because that's !Manorial Day. I thought we had modified the month of May to first and third? Councilman Hoyt: No, one of them is right at the end of the Roney. I Nyor Ctndel: The 28th is Manorial Day. How about Tuesday the 29th? Councilwoman Dunker: We already moved it to another date. - 1 Don Ashworth: I'll report to the City Council Tuesday what night you picked out and verify with the Assessor if that night's okay with trim. DISCUSSION REGARDING VARIANCE PROCEDURE AND REGULATIONS, PLANNING DIRECTOR. I panl Krauss: On several occasions in the past... Mawr Qi del: Is this brief Paul? Paul Krauss: I think the discussion with it might be rather lengthy. 11 62 11 AE- _ f--__ _ ..... _ _ , _ • • 4 • : city Council Meeting Lruary 26, 1990 - 11 Mawr Oriel: I thought there was a lot of thought put into this and I 1 _ appreciate your going through it. Paul Krauss: WIe're putting this on basically I should add as an informational item to get same direction furs Council. It's not a :ratter that we've discussed I with the Board of Adjustments. I mentioned it to them tonight and they're interested in it obviously and they're here. Dior have we discussed at the Planning Commission sore,of th0 changes we're proposing would affect then as II well. Basically we're banging it to you and if you tell us you don't want us to proceed with it, we'll drop it but it appeared to us in the past that there was same desire to have same flexibility on it in the variance procedure that is II not now allowed. Working with the City Attorney we felt that that could be offered while still keeping with the intent of the variance procedure and not violating it. /here's been a lot of discussion about State enabling legislation changing how we conduct ourselves with variances and it nay in fact do that but I it's not clear to us at this point what it's going to do or when it's going to do it. That enabling act is kicked around now for almost 3 years and it still isn't adopted and in the short session this year, it's probably not likely to II either. Mat we propose that you look is revised language for the hardship criteria. The other thing that we propose that you look at is amending the procedures in terra of who reviews variances and when. We find that for normal variances, the one's we had on tonight. The home setback, the shed setback... 1 one or two variances. I think it ultimately came down to one variance for a road grade but that was a variance the Planning C mmission and City Council considered in the context of the subdivision. If you just take the variance out I of context and put it before the Board of Adjustments, I don't know that you're giving that project a fair shake. There :ray be other things that you considered in developing that recommendation. Also, there's the hatter of time and how we II bounce a developer back and forth or an individual back and forth for that hatter. In the case of Vineland Forest, it went through the Planning Commission. There were no variances there. It went to the City Council. It got bounced back because we were looking at roads. A variance materialized. At II that point we have to tell the developer, well the City Council likes it but we'll have to get the Board of Adjustment to approve it so it goes back on one of their agendas. Frankly the process is not unworkable but it's a little II clunky and other communities have found ways to work around it and we propose one of those ways of doing that. And again we're just throwing this out for discussion purposes and we'll take our cue from you on this. .. Mayor Oriel: Thank you. I guess I have just one quick question. Boger, what is the status of the variance thing that we discussed some titre ago with some of the State changes that were going to be? IIRoger Knutson: It's part of the rewriting of the entire lard use laws. The current draft, it sits in the legislature today would not allow flexibility. II That was in an earlier draft that has been now put aside. flow that's just going to hearing, will be going to hearing. It hasn't gone to hearing yet and how it finally works it's way out is anyone's guess. IMayor Cli'iel: Is there anyone lobbying for the previous, for the earlier one? Boger Knutson: Yes. Me. II II63 • City Council Meeting ,Mary 26, 1990 • Mayor Chmiel: Thhat's why I was asking the question. l Paul Krauss: There's also a nurber of ccxmamities lobbying against it for I various reasons. Boger Knutson: The only comment I have made, acting as a private individual;-is that I like to see cities have the discretion to set standards that they think is subject to their community. Not that I think the standards for variances should be tough or weak or an.�vthingselse. Just a courtesy to City Council to set those standards. There ate others who say and I've argued at length about it, that there's a real need for State uniformity on this issue. My response to that has been, anyone who has gone to more than one city council and seen how various city councils handle variances has realized that there is no state 1 consistency now anyway. Except some city councils like to play by the rules and amore liberal interpretation of it. Churchman Johnson: And after the next election, that changes too. , Councilman Boyt: I'd like to mention a couple things if I might. Same difficulties I see with this. First, in your description Paul of the process, that's exactly what we're doing today. that you're proposing. Everything doesn't go to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Paul Krauss: That's true but I'll leave it to Roger, the way the ordinance is structured right now, it probably should. Councilman Boyt: Okay, but it doesn't. So what you're proposing is to bring 1 ' this in line with what we're actually doing? Councilman Johnson: Yes. I Councilman Boyt: Which makes sense. Boy, the desire to have sane kind of reasonable flexibility, that's very tempting. that I find though in same of your eamnents here. Reasonable use is further defined as use carmonly made by other properties in the district. Mawr Oriel: that page are you on Bill? ' Councilman Boyt: That's page 3, the second line from the top. Ibe question that I had was, what if the surrounding properties all have non-conforming uses I i ich in fact our ordinances say that non-conforming uses can't be perpetuated if they burn down or whatever. Are we really gaining flexibility there? Councilman Johnson: It certainly would have helped us clean up Carver Beach. ' Paul Krauss: The variance would not apply to the use of the property. It would apply to standards applied to that property. Carver Beach is a good case in point. If everybody is on a 7,000 square foot lot, you make the new person to came in to have a 15,000 square foot lot or do you take those 7,000 square foot lots into consideration? I think the way these are structured it would encourage you to take that into consideration. Councilman Boyt: Well there's the advantage. I think of the Lake Riley situation that we just extended here. There certainly is an advantage to say 64 • il _ _ _ • City Council Meeting DFaebruary 26, 1990 D I ` well nobody on either side of the sky has side setbacks either so we're really putting this house into one that fits. And it would be nice to have someway to do that. I'm just real concerned that what we end up doing is creating, is we can't fix a problem. Councilman Johnson: It makes it worse. tCouncilman Bout: So that's one issue that I'd sure like you to look at before we pursue this a whole lot further. Then under your proposed point A at the bottom of page 3, literal enfbrcement of this Chapter would cause undue II hardship. Undue hardship means the property cannot be put_to reasonable use. Well, to me that means anything can fit in there because you then go on to say reasonable use because of size, physical surrounding, shape or topography. Tell I me something you left out? We're really saying, if I can't do what I want to do with my piece of property, then I can do it because this says I can. Undue hardship. Is it undue hardship if I can't have my deck? IMayor Chmiel: Might be. Councilman Bo.t: Well it isn't currently. MPaul Krauss: No, but I think this allows you to, you've got exercise this with great caution. %ben we had that variance and I forget who the applicant was on II / - Lake Riley, you and I had a long discussion about what was a reasonable use of the property. In the staff report I had recommended that it be approved because it was reasonable to think that they should have a 3 bedroom house with a deck sage as other people had on adjoining lots. I rermaaber Councilman Boyt that you I had same concerns with that theory and there was another method found to approve it but I think that this wording would allow us to take those things into consideration. If you think a reasonable use of a lot is not the bare m►inimi 's II 900 square foot residence that satisfies building code but is rather what the normal Chanhassen resident probably has a right to expect to live in. This would allow you the latitude to approve those sorts of variances. ICouncilman Hoyt: Well screwhere in here, there's two things that happened with a variance at least. One of them is that we allow somebody to make reasonable use of their property. The other one is, we protect surrounding property owners 1 by giving the the protection of our zoning laws. All I'm saying is that we've got enough problems with our current interpretation of our variance ordinance. TO now cane in and say, any undue hardship for any of these reasons, I maintain Ithat the way A is written right now, anything can pass. Councilman Johnson: I don't like the last sentence of A. Reasonable use is a I use commonly made by other properties in the district. Again, look at Carver Beach. That says we're just going to perpetuate those non-complying things. Unmanly the sheds are up against the property line so the one we're talking about today, under this would say that's fine. In Carver Beach there are no IIsetbacks. Mawr Chmiel: Yeah, but at that time Jay when they had those right at the III property line, it was permitted. Councilman Johnson: Is it but it's now non-conforming so a new guy could came II in and ask to put it right at the property line today where what we should be 65 • City Council Meeting - ft.,3ary 26, 1990 I/ working towards is, when somebody's shed's burned down, you don't rebuild it I-' within the setback. Rind of a crazy thing to think now but you don't perpetuate therm-conforming. Councilman Workman: But in that situation Jay, Ilj people could all have their sheds off the op ty wined take 200 years before pr party line. Councilman Johnson: Ch yeah. Oouncihran Workman: So why fight that? Why sorry about it? I Councilman Johnson: If you never start, it will never get there. If you start, you've got to take the first step of every journey and this is a journey towards • 11 bringing Carver Beach into compliance. You and I will not be alive when Carver /reech ones into compliance. bkobody will be. If we have a nuclear disaster and it clears out Carver Beach and gets replatted. Councilman Workman: Down on Lake Riley. Skinny little lots. Are they ever going to be in conformance? Oancilzman Johnson: Probably not. I Cb ncilman Workman: In 400 years? Not unless all the houses burn down and they carbine the lots. Councilman Johnson: But we need to keep bringing them up... 1 Councilman W3rkQman: I'm not defending this thing to the hilt but we need some discussion on it and maybe tonight's not the night. Mayor andel: I think what we have to do is have a reasonable way to try to 1 help and assist people put in some of their basic needs that they want to improve on their particular lot. Councilman Johnson: It has to be an improvement over. In a non-conforming district, which I think we can call several parts of this town as non-conforming districts. The majority of the houses in the district are non-conforming... any variance has to be an improvement over the general district. Mayor O del: I think Paul put a lot of thought into this and I really, as I mentioned before, I =emend him for it. Maybe some things that are not perfect in here but nonetheless there's been a lot of thought. Millard Johnson: We've been working in the Carver Beach a number of years. I'll I go along with Jay. We've been trying to make this hold to the city setbacks and I agree with Jay. We aren't going to get the 100$ down there in Carver Beach but we're working at the places that are gradually coming in and I guess I think we can do it pretty good with what we've got. Councilman Johnson: I've seen improvement in the little time that I've been here. Willard Johnson: You'll get one like we got down there in Lake Riley - occasionally but I feel we're doing pretty good with what we've got and you're r 66 I _ '�City Council Meeting ebruary 26, 3990 ='} ti S just going to have to work each one individually. That's from icy experience - being on the Board. I realize same of these people have got a hard situation but we get a 7,000 foot lot, sometimes we tell them hey meet city setbacks and by golly they do it. It cleans up an area. Because we had a guy, that guy that we've been fighting these last 2 meetings because everything goes in Carver Beach. That isn't the truth. I realize sarebody throws up a shed withogt the City catching it and you're going to have that anyplace in the city. I can show II you a lot and I wish the Council would all go and look at it. It's just down fray me in the $350,000.00 bracket. I called City Hall on it. We've got a loophole in our own ordinance.. M: neighbor has discussed it and his cousin II builds down behind the Catholic Church in Excelsior or Shorewood or whatever it is. tour ilran Johnson: St. John's. - IWillard Johnson: Yeah, behind St. John's. Ma says, look at that lot right on Apple Road or Yosemite. That house is built right on the creek. I told him I - about it and he said well go around and look where the driveway goes in. That driveway is one car width going in so I called City Hall and they says well it borders on two streets. I wish the Council would all go and look at that one. It's a pie shaped lot and where he drives in, which I would consider his front II on the cul-de-sac, can barely get in so no way in the world reach the part on Yosemite. ICouncilman Johnson: Yes, that is a loophole in our ordinance. Willard Johnson: Where the creek is, you can't fill the creek. So I guess what I'm saying is hey, he don't have the frontage on the cul-de-sac so I hope you can clean up your ordinances on your developments. Councilman Johnson: In this case, on the side there is street frontage. This 1 is before Paul's time and he's sitting there looking. On the side that this lot actually has street frontage, so it has street frontage. It's got 90 foot of street frontage. It's non-accessible because there's a 40 foot deep creek Ithere. Paul Krauss: There's a situation similiar to that in Timberwood. ...private Idriveway because the public platted road isn't built and you can't access it. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, I think I argued for both of those. I know I argued on the one over there by. IIMayor Chmdel: Same direction I think Paul is looking for from us. IPaul Krauss: I'd like to kraw if you want us to pursue it? Cbuncilwaran Dimler: Yes, I want you to pursue it. Mayor Oriel: Yeah. I'd like to see it pursued. At least that's my opinion. Councilman Boyt: Sure pointed out same areas that I think are real problem, areas with it. 67 I! city Council_ Meting —guar: 36, 1990 - - -- - = _' . - i 1 ,..� - Council Johnson: Yeah. I think it's going to be too loose with sane of this 4 stuff. O uncilwaran Dialer: We might want to tighten sane up but we do want to give acne trore breathing roaru. ' Counci3:ran Worlaran :roved, Qruncilwaran Dimler seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned. Sub fitted by Don Ashworth t` .' City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 1 I I , • • • 1 1 1 1 • 1 I 1 1 68 - 1 Planning Commission Meeting 3 March 21, 1990 - Page 35 w Ahrens: Notification of the public is a hard thing to be against. IIEmmings: Yeah. I think we should try it. II Erhart: I think it's good too. I think it is going to put a burden on the City that's going to be such a detail in that they tend to fall in cracks and I'm sure that's what happened in Eden Prairie but -with that, would Isomeone like to make a motion? Wildermuth: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the draft ordinance. IAhrens: I 'll second it. IWildermuth moved, Ahrens seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Amendments Pertainng to Requiring the Posting of Development Notification Signs. All voted in IIfavor and the motion carried. LYcPUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARTICLE II, SECTIONS 20-56 THROUGH 20-70 PERTAINING TO PROCEDURES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF VARIANCES. IIPaul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Vice Chairman Erhart called the public hearing to order. IIEmmings moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. IErhart: Alright, Joan do you have any questions? Ahrens: Not right now. IIEmmings: I've got one I 'd like to ask. Let's say you're in a place where, a neighborhood that's got 70 foot lots with lake frontage or whatever and I they are substandard lots. Not only for their width but for their area. Let's say somebody lived in there but had bought two lots and built a house. Could they tear their house down, subdivide those lots and build Itwo houses? You see what I'm saying? Krauss: Well what you want to avoid I think, and I think what you're II getting at Steve is that you don't want to lower the standard in the neighborhood. You don't want the lowest common denominator be what is enforced. The intent of this, and I hope the language does it, is to establish the neighborhood average and then say, if you meet or beat that I average, we'll probably recommend that it be approved. So there's a middle ground if you will . II Emmings: But would you be able to say no to someone who wanted to do what I just. . . II ir l ,I Planning Commission Meeting March 21, 1990 — Page 36 - I Ahrens: That would be meeting the standard. Wildermuth: Paul, I like your redraft of the ordinance criteria until you ll brought up the Carver Beach. It seems that somebody that wanted to create an other 7,000 square foot lot, we ought to be in favor of that. Emmings: Yeah, I don't have any trouble with someone coming in to an area, where everything is substandard but there is a neighborhood standard and doing something on their lot that everybody else has there. Somehow that doesn't seem that bad to me but the abuse in that, or the limit on that II I guess to me would be I don't want you creating more of it. I don' t want you to take the house off the two substandard lots and build two houses on two substandard lots. ' Wildermuth: That's what I 'd be concerned about. Emmings: And I wonder if this protects us or, I 'm not even sure if one of those lots was even empty that I'd want to see a house put on that lot which is kind of what we had on that one lot on Riley lake that they tried to make a beachlot out of and we wouldn't let them. We say you can' t buil a house on there because it's too small and maybe I'm confusing my facts but it would seem to me that maybe even you wouldn' t want to have another house built on that if it was real substandard. If you couldn't fit it in!' with, so I don' t know. I'm generally in favor of what you're doing. I think that we should not send variances required by a site plan for example to the Board. I think those should be dealt with here and at the City II Council. I 'm generally in favor of this. The only thing is I don't want this to go too far to create more substandard stuff. Do you think that that could be prevented under the language that you've got in this? Krauss : As we discuss it, I know the intent here is to do what I said earlier that we would establish a neighborhood average and say if you meet it or beat it you're entitled basically. i Emmings: Is that expressed? Krauss: No it isn't and I'm looking at that. I mean that was the intent II when Roger came in and said reasonable use includes a majority of property within 500 feet. Majority to me means average. Now we could further clarify that to state that. .. I Emmings: What about putting in an intent statement that says, it is not the intent of this ordinance to allow a proliferation of substandard lots or development but rather to recognize that some neighborhoods have 11 standards and as long as the applicant for the variance, I don't know. Finish it. Meets that standard or exceeds it. Krauss: We can clarify that way I'm sure. Emmings: But an intent statement maybe at the beginning would put a botto or put a floor on this thing so you're not seeing all kinds of things here that we don't want to see. I lit - - - _ _ _,... , Planning Commission Meeting __ March 21, 1990 - Page 37 `' Erhart: Sure. I think the term, the word district and the last word in A, that's the one that's questionable to me. District can mean a big area. I think what I hear you saying, you keep using the word neighborhood. To me IIthose are terms that mean two different things. Krauss: Yeah, and that's why we established a 500 foot criteria. IIErhart: Okay, I'm missing that. Emmings: The ordinance. Don't look at the staff notes. Look at the Iordinance itself. It may be in there but I don't know where. Ahrens: Not in the proposed ordinance. IEmmings: But look in the ordinance itself. The language is different than what' s in the staff report than what's in the ordinance. 1 Erhart: Oh, is that right? Emmings: Because I looked for some stuff too. . . , Ahrens: Yes, 500 feet is in here. 20-58 (a) . I Krauss: I think it's real important that you establish some sort of a criteria like that. 500 may be arbitrary but you don't, you know everybody cones to us when they want a variance and they say well I know Joe Schmoe 3 blocks away from here has got the identical situation so I'm entitled to IIit. Well no you're not. I mean that's a one off situation. If everybody in the neighborhood had it, maybe you are but otherwise not. II Emmings: If you apply for a variance, do you have to present a property list? IKrauss : Yes. Emmings: Is that a 500 foot? IIKrauss: Yes. That's why it matches. Emmings: So that kind of fits. IErhart: Okay, and so the only change, procedurally the only change you're Raking is that, in the first place ultimate authority here on all variances I today is the Variance Board. That's not a recommendation to the City Council. That's final. Krauss : Well there's been a lot of discussion on that but by State law, IIyes. The Board is a quasi-judicial body. Erhart: Alright. So the only change here, you're talking about IIsubdivisions? II Planning Commission Meeting I/ March 21, 1990 - Page 38 Krauss: Subdivisions. Rezonings. Site plans and I think CUP's when a variance becomes apparent during those that you would make a recommendation on it and the Council would approve it. Emmings: Ultimately, now does the Board recommend to the City Council too' Krauss: No. Emmings: They make the final decision? ' Olsen: When there's a split vote. ' Krauss: Right. And the City Council has taken to reviewing most of the actions of the Board which. . . Olsen: Right , that's been discussed. They bring it up for discussion thall same night. Emmings: So you review your own decisions Jay? That's kind of neat. Krauss: I think it's fair to say, I discussed a draft of this with the Board at their last meeting and Willard and Carol have copies of the ordinance. I think they're both concerned with the ordinance as currently drafted. I will also in this process what we would plan on doing is getting your recommendation. Taking it to them for their recommendation I and then giving the whole package to the City Council. Emmings: Willard called me. He probably called everybody but, and I told him I wished he could be here to tell us what he thought but he apparently had a conflict. He said Carol was going to be here and she's not but they'll have their input in the City Council . Krauss: Yes . Erhart: Well to me, conceptually it makes more sense on issues that we II deal with that there's a gradual process of approval working towards the City Council as opposed to a gradual process working towards the City Council with this all of a sudden this exception that can come in at the end . That doesn't seem to make good sense. Emmings: Like it's pointed out in the City Council Minutes too. This is in fact is what we're doing at the present time. It's really, we've got all defacto ordinance anyway. At least in terms of site plan variances and things like that. We've been doing it all along ever since I 've been here. Erhart: Any other comments or questions? Jim anything? I Wildermuth: I think basically it's good. Erhart: Okay. If not, is there a motion? Emmings: I'd like to move that the Planning Commission recommend the City ll Council adopt the ordinance but I'd like to see an intent section added I 111 Planning Commission Mu.1ting � - March 21, 1990 - Page -39 11 along the lines that we discussed. ' Ellson: I 'll second it. ' Emmings moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Article II, Sections 20-56 through 20-70 pertaining to procedures for the issuance of variances with ' the addition of an intent section. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' Krauss: Mr. Chairman, I know Commissioner Ahrens has a commitment to leave at 10:00. I wondered if I could ask a question of the commission prior to ' that. We have tentatively scheduled another special work session meeting for next Wednesday. I think there's a massive case of burn out happening both at staff and Planning Commission level . We've got a lot of work ahead of us to do and very limited time to do it and we're wondering how best to ' resolve that. Now it occurred to me tonight, I mean we really have to get the work through. I 've got a very large packet to send out to you tomorrow that has a lot of the sections being drafted up. The goals and policies ' are in there and everything else. Rather than meet next Wednesday, would you consider possibly meeting like for dinner before the next Planning Commission meeting possibly so we can roll over from one to the other and combine an evening? Is that an option? Emmings: Meet earlier in 2 weeks rather than meeting. . . ' Krauss: Well meet on a regular Planning Commission night. Skip next week. Ahrens: I like that idea. Ellson: I'd rather do that. Erhart: Much better. Wilderr1uth: I ' ll be gone next Wednesday. Erhart: I will too. Krauss: Would 5:30 be too early for everybody? Emmings: Are you talking about meeting here for pizza? Krauss: We'll meet here for pizza, subs, whatever. Emmings: What's the menu? Krauss: You want Chinese? Erhart: Let's get to the core of the issue here. I C) I I I Affidavit of Publication I Southwest Suburban Publishing I State of Minnesota ) .-NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING )SS. I ROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE County of Carver ) . MY OF txiANHASSEN ' NONCE IS HEREBY GIVEN that p per •Chanhassen pig Commission Stan Roland,being duly swots,on oath says that he is the of the known as the Chaska Herald• hold a Public Nearing on 1Vednes. and the Chanhassen Villager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: "y,March 21,1990,at 7:30 p.m.in the by Minnesota Statute 331A�331A.07, applicable laws. amended.a newspaper, provided • : Chambers in Chanhassen City 690 Coulter Drive.The purpose of p public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No.3z, ,was published on • ~the ar g to consider the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said Notice is hereby incorporated as part to amend the of this Affidavit.Said notice was cut from the columns of the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the 56gthrou 20-7pertaining dons lower one alphabet from A to 7,both inclusive,and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used - . - for the issuance of variances in the composition and publication of the Notice: AU interested persons are-invited to • this public bearing and express abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz . 'opinions with respect to this pro- A.- .2 Director . P •1900 By: /r� J . . .tti'�J ' eec *'gen t,_• hi the N "', . &ON%No.329) Subscribed and sworn before me on this S day of tt.,1990 I 0 =EA.HAW lir �7A / 11YO01saNONDPIREae42413 I Public RATE INFORMATION I Lowest classified rate paid by commercial used for comparable space $6.68 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter 66.68 per column inch Rale actually charged for the above matter $5.56 per column inch I I I I