4.5 Zoning Ordinance for Issuance of Variances 1-/s-
1 , , CITYOF
I �rF CHANHAENe. ,ve CHANHASSEN
I690 COULTER DRIVE• P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
e Y (612)937-1900• FAX(612) 937-57399
I n by City Administrator
Endorse► ✓ DiJR
MEMORANDUM Wodificr
I Rejected
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Date 5- 29.9+J
Date Submitted to Commission
FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director Q�
Date Submitted to Council
DATE: May 21, 1990 6,-'x_90
I SUBJ: Amendments to Chapter 20, Article II, Administration and
Encorcement of the City Code Pertaining to Variances
IWhile working on various development proposals, two aspects of
the City's variance procedure have come to staff' s attention as
areas where modifications could prove to be useful. These two
I areas concern administrative procedures 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.
IAccording to the current ordinance, all variances are to be
reviewed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. In actual
I practice over the past few years, while many variances haveebeen
brought before the Board, a number of them have been approved
directly by the City Council after consideration by the Planning
Commission.
IThe Board of Adjustments and Appeals serves an extremely useful
function in the community. However, the procedures whereby all
I 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
communities divide up the responsibilities for approval of
I variances. 'The Board of Adjustments and Appeals is generally
responsible for those variances which are associated with
building single family -homes .ter additions ..to those homes on
I 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 attached to subdivisions, con-
I 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
which, for example, is associated with a subdivision may be con-
I sidered by the Planning Commission and City Council to be valid
based upon a number of considerations. These may include
I
I
Planning Commission
May 21, 1990
11 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
I/
Planning Commission
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.
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- I
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
May 21, 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.
' 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 substantial support for the proposal by most
of the Council members. Minutes of the meeting are attached.
I . 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.
1 . .
' I/
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 I
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 I
1. Ordinance Amendment.
2. City Council minutes dated April 9, 1990. I
3. Memo from Paul Krauss dated March 14, 1990, with attachments.
1
I CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. ix:—....i....-,v Lv
Attorneys at Law M
IThomas J. Campbell ��OF AY CHA16At 1993 Hq$$EN
Roger N. Knutson
I Thomas M. Scott (612)456-9539
Gary G. Fuchs Facsimile(612)456-9542
James R. Walston
Elliott B.Knetsch
I Dennis J.linger
May 15, 1990
II
Mr. Paul Krauss
I Chanhassen City Hall
690 Coulter Drive, Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
IIRE: Zoning Ordinance Amendments
IDear Paul:
Enclosed please Ordinance Summary pertaining to excavating,
mining, filling, and grading, revised ordinance pertaining to
IIsame, and revised ordinance concerning variances.
Very truly yours,
tCAMP L SON, SCOTT
HS,
II BY:
ll=16-
Roger N. Knutson
I RNK:srn
Enclosures
I
I
I
I
IYankee Square Office III • Suite 202 . 3460 Washington Drive • Eagan, MN 55122
I
• •
I/
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
1
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF TEE CHRJHABSEN
CITY CODE, TEE 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. I
Section 2. The caption of Section 20-29 of the Chanhassen
City Code is amended to read: 1
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
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
I
r05/15/90
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 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, without further awaiting
' 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
' 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 other property within
five hundred (500) feet of it. The intent of this provision
-2-
•
I
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.
(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.
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
(Published in the Chanhassen on er Villa
9 , 1990.) •
1
-3- 1
Don Ashworth: As we are working with the State on this and engineering, itn►
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, my 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.
jbesolutim 190-47: Councilmen Boot aged, Councilmen Johnson seconded a
raeolutim establishing a no parking sane an southbomd Eigheaay 101 on the curve
' in the area generally utilised by vehicle parked formal*. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
' EWINIG ORDINANCE E AMEMElrP 'ib 1ilQm 'B r SOSDIVISION AD ZOOM ORDINANCE TO
Rauuw P06TI11G OF POBLIC INFORMATION SIGNS VCR NNW ISMCIEWINTSWITSIN THE
CITY, FIRST READING.
' Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, do you want • report on that? That'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?
1 Couui linen Boyt: I think $100.00 is not enough. 'i'he signs are costing $250.00.
They're going to be up for haw long?
Mayor Chmuel: 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 leasing fee for the sign
covers our actual cost.
1 Mayor Oriel: I think what We have to do is run it for • period of time to see
and if it's not paying for itself, than we have to do something. Any other
discussion?
' Councilmen Johnson moved, Cotacilmmen Dinkier seconded to approve the first
reading of Zoning Ordinance Armament to amend the Subdivision and Zoning
Ordinance to require the posting of public information signs former
' developments within the City. All voted in favor and the notion carried.
1 Z ORDIPUN
1a E AKEICENT
PQTt O A!D IS�ARIN?CICB L IYII,I SECTIONS
CTIONS 2II0-5 6 R20-70
' Mayor Chadel: item 13 has been removed. Is that correct Paul?
Paul Krauss: Yes.
1
54
1
1
. • , _
CITY' OF
I,
_ , ,,,,,
, 4, -._ � 41
, ,Ar- CHANHASSE 11 ap,. , -
690 COULTER DRIVE• P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612)937-1900• FAX(612)937-5739 ,
Action by City 0.,minis`.ratar I
MEMORANDUM
vc-
TO: Planning Commission �E f � —
Q` t0 c.... sSIOC
FROM: Paul Krauss; Planning Director \�
t�„r----- '. �rci1 I
DATE: March 14, 1990
SUBJ: Proposed Amendments to Chapter 20, Article II, Administration I
and Enforcement of the City Code Pertaining to Variances
While working on various development proposals, two aspects of II
the City' s variance procedure have come to staff's attention as
areas where modifications could trove to be useful. These two
II
areas concern administrative procedures 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.
IIAccording to the current ordinance, 411 variances are to be
reviewed by the Board of Adjustments 'and Appeals. In actual
practice over the past few years, while many variances have been
II
brought before the Board, anumber of them have been approved
directly by the City Council after consideration by the Planning
Commission. `
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals serves an extremely useful i
Adjustments PP serves Y
function in the community. However, the irocedures whereby all
variances are reviewed by the Board could*otentially be con-
II
fusing and time consuming_and_Fepresent an avoidable problem in
the timely and -effective 'review-bf develbpinent proposals. Many
communities divide up Abe zesponsibi i ies or.'approval of
I
variances. 'The Board of Adjustments and Appeals is erally
responsible for those variances which are associated
building single familp'homes or..additions._-t -^tb�i se homes on
a..;_,.,...-
single family lots. In many ofd-=these =�flmmunities, it is the II
Planning Commission and ultimatelythe City Council that review
all other variances which may by Attached to subdivisions, con-
ditional use permits, site plans.-sand in the near future interim
I
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
II
II
J
Planning Commission
March 14, 1990
1 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
1 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
1
1
•
l ) ' I/
Planning Commission
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
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.
C. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the pre-
11
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 I
undue hardship. "Undue hardship" means the property cannot
be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical
•
(,�U )
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.
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 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.
' 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.
•
1
Planning Commission I
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 I
1. Ordinance Amendment.
2. City Council minutes dated February 26, 1990.
3. Planning Commission minutes dated March 21, 1990. ,
•
1
1
i
1
I
I
t` e
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A.
Attorneys at Law
Thomas J. Campbell
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, 1990 *MAR 0 5 19x3
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) .
Very truly yours,
CAMP: - , • UTSON, SCOTT
' F CHS, P A.
BY:
' -oger N. Knutson
RNK:srn
Enclosure
r
Yankee Square'Office III • Suite 202 • 3460 Washington Drive • Eagan, MN 55122
_ Y
APR-04-1990 10:10 FROM i WBELL, SCOTT & FUCHS TO/ 9375739 P.03
I/
CITY OF CHANHASSEN I
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. r
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN
II
CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONCERNING VARIANCES
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: I
To hear requests for variances from the provisions of this
Chapter which are not made in conjunction with platting, II site plan review, conditional use or interim use permit
application. 4
Section 2. The caption of Section 20-29 of the Chanhassen
II
City Code is amended to read:
Sec. 20-29. Board of Adjustments Variance and Appeal
II
Procedures.
Section 3. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding I Section 20-30 to read:
Sec. 20-30. Variance Requests in Conjunction with Platting,
Site Plan Review, Conditional Use and Interim
II
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 II 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. ' II(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) II
days after the filing of the application. At the hearing the
Planning Commission shall hear such persons as wish to be II 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 II
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
II
II
IL
the zoning administrator from records provided by the
11 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
governing the Planning Commission, w4thout further awaiting
' 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
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 other property within
five hundred (500) feet of it. The intent of this provision
1 -2-
1/
. APR-04-1991 10:12 FROM CAMPBELL SCOTT & FUCHS - TO rsW
( I I
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.
(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 I
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 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, II
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. '
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this
day of , 1990.
ATTEST: ,
Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor 11
'
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , , 1990. )
1
f
-3-
I
City Council Meeting - Feb•- ry 26, 1990
Councilman Johnson: Was it published? 70t - i
Courcilwaran Dialer: No. lit don't have to publish it. J
IIDon Ashworth: This, as it appears here in front of you was published to the
. best of may knowledge.
' CbunciLran Johnson: So tae could take action?
il
:-
Don Ashworth: You could take action if you wanted.
IMayor Chmiel: Jim mentioned March 12th so let's go with that.
II BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW, SET DATE FOR FINALIZING BOARD ACTION, CITY
MANAGER.
II 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
II 28th. I think last year we had a number of people in on the initial session but
by the tine we got into the last meeting, the assessor had net 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
1 our regular Council agenda. I would look to May 28th but in doing that, I would
like to be able to work with the Mawr to determine whether or not an early
start was necessary or not. I won't know for another 30 days how big that
I 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
II appears as though an early start is necessary. •
Councilman Johnson: Are we meeting the 28th? I thought that was, because
that's Memorial Day. I thought we had modified the month of May to first and
IIthird?
Councilman Boyt: No, one of them is right at the end of the money.
IIMayor Chmiel: The 28th is Memorial Day. Now about Tuesday the 29th?
IIC uncilwaran Dialer: We already moved it to another date.
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 him.
II
il' DISCUSSION REGARDING VARIANCE PROCEDURE AND REGUTATIONS, PLANNING DIRECTOR.
Paul Krauss: On several occasions in the past...
Mayor C7irdel: Is this brief Paul?
....]
II Paul Krauss: I think the discussion with it might be rather lengthy.
1 62
II
City Council Meeting ',_ february 26, 1990 _
Mawr Chmiel: I thought there was a lot of thought put into this and I
appreciate your going through it. -
Paul Krauss: We're putting this on basically I should add as an informational '
item to get some direction from Council. It's not a matter that we've discussed
with the Board of Adjustments. I mentioned it to them tonight and they're
interested in it obviously and they're here. Nor have we discussed at the
Planning Cor+mission some-of tb0 changes we're proposing would affect then as
well. Basically we're bringing 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 II was some desire to have same flexibility on it in the variance procedure that is
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. There's been a lot of discussion about State enabling legislation
changing how we conduct ourselves with variances and it may in fact do that but
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
either. What 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 terms 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...
one or two variances. I think it ultimately came down to one variance for a
road grade but that was a variance the Planning Commission and City Council
considered in the context of the subdivision. If you just take the variance out II
of context and put it before the Board of Adjustments, I don't know that you're
giving that project a fair shake. There may be other things that you considered II
in developing that recommendation. Also, there's the :ratter of time and how we
bounce a developer back and forth or an individual back and forth for that
matter. In the case of Vineland Forest, it went through the Planning
Ccrmission. 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
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
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 fram you on this.
Mawr Chriel: Thank you. I guess I have just one quick question. Boger, what
is the status of the variance thing that we discussed same time ago with some of II
' the State changes that were going to be?
Roger Knutson: It's part of the rewriting of the entire lard use laws. The 11 current draft, it sits in the legislature today would not allow flexibility.
That was in an earlier draft that has been now put aside. lbw 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.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone lobbying for the previous, for the earlier one?
Roger Knutson: Yes. Me.
63
I/
••
City Council Meeting - FF....iary 26, 1990
Mawr Cimiel: That's why I was asking the question.
Paul Krauss: There's also a number of caaramities lobbying against it for
various reasons.
Roger Knutson: The only carirent I homemade, 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 arm,unity. Not that I think the standards for variances
should be tough or weak or anything;else. Just a courtesy to City Council to
set those standards. There ate others who say, and I've argued at length about
II it, that there's a real need for State uniformity on this issue. My response to
that has been, anyone who has gone to sore than One city council and seen how
various city councils handle variances has realized that there is no state •
consistency now anyway. Except same city councils like to play by the rules and
11 a store liberal interpretation of it.
•
Councilan 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. What you're, proposing. Everything
IIdoesn'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
11 structured right now, it probably should.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, but it doesn't. So what you're proposing is to bring
this in line with what we're actually doing?
Councilman Johnson: Yes.
I Councilman Boyt: Which crakes sense. Boy, the desire to have same kind of
reasonable flexibility, that's very tempting. What I find though in same of
your convents here. Reasonable use is further defined as use commonly, :made by
other properties in the district.
Mawr Chmiel: What page are you on Bill?
O3uncilman Boyt: That's page 3, the second line from the top. The question
that I had was, what if the surrounding properties all have non-conforming uses
II which 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.
IIPaul 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
I care 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
City Council Meeting _)February 26; 1990 •
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 sateway to
do that. I'm just real concerned that utat we end up doing is creating, is we
can't fix a problem.
Councilman Johnson: It makes it worse.
Councilman ilman Boyt: 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 enforcement of this Chapter would cause undue
hardship. Undue hardship means the property cannot be put to reasonable use.
Well, to re that -means anything can fit in there because you then go on to say 11
reasonable use because of size, physical surrounding, shape or topography. Tell
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?
Mayor Chhiel: Might be. ,
• Oourcilman Boyt: Well it isn't currently.
Paul Krauss: No, but I think this allows you to, you've got exercise this with
great caution. When we had that variance and I forget who the applicant was on
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 II
it was reasonable to think that they should have a 3 bedroom house with a deck
same as other people had on adjoining lots. I remeerher Councilman Boyt that you
had sate 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 minimum's
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.
Councilman Hoyt: Well somewhere 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
by giving there 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 come in and say, _any undue hardship for any of these reasons, I maintain
that the way A is written right now, anything can pass.
Cbunci] an Johnson: I don't like the last sentence of A. Reasonable use is a
use camoonly made by other properties in the district. Again, look at Carver
Beach. That says we're just going to perpetuate those non-complying things.
Commonly 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
setbacks.
Mayor Chmiiel: Yeah, but at that time Jay when they had those right at the
property line, it was permitted.
Councilman Johnson: Is it but it's now non-conforming so a new guy could cone '
in and ask to put it right at the property line today where what we should be
65 ,
\
• • City Council Meeting - Fe: *try 26, 1990 • )
II
working towards is, when somebody's shed's burned down, you don't rebuild it -
within the setback. Rind of a crazy thing to think now but you don't perpetuate
the non-conforing. j
II Councilman Workman: But in that situation Jay, it would take 200 years before
people could all have their sheds off the property line.
Councilman Johnson: Ch yeah.
Councilman Worlaran: So why might that? thy worry about it?
ICouncilman 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
bringing Carver Beach into compliance. You and I will not be alive when Carver
11 Beach comes into compliance. Nobody will be. If we have a nuclear disaster and
it clears out Carver Beach and gets replatted.
II Councilman wbrlaman: Down on Lake Riley. Skinny little lots. Are they ever
going to be in conformance?
Councilman Johnson: Probably not.
Councilman Workman: In 400 years? Not unless all the houses burn down and they
combine the lots.
IICouncilman Johnson: But we need to keep bringing them. up...
Councilman Workman: I'm not defending this thing to the hilt but we need same
discussion on it and maybe tonight's not the night.
Mawr Ctriel: I think what we have to do is have a reasonable way to try to
II help and assist people put in some of their basic needs that they want to
improve on their particular lot.
II 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.
IMawr thmiel: I think Paul put a lot of thought into this and I really, as
mentioned before, I cam-end him for it. Maybe some things that are not perfect
' in here but nonetheless there's been a lot of thought.
Willard Johnson: We've been working in the Carver Beach a nu;rber of years. I'll
IIgo along with Jay. We've been trying to Rake 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 Doming in and I guess I think
we can do it pretty good with what we've got.
IICouncilman Johnson: I've seen improvement in the little time that I've been
here.
•
II Willard Johnson: You'll get one like we got down there in Take Riley
occasionally but I feel we're doing pretty good with what we've got and you're
66
1
r
City' Council Meetingruary 26, 1990 }
•
just going to have to Work each one individually. That's franmy experience
being on the Board. I realize some 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 saaebody throws up a shed without the
City catching it and you're going to have that anyplace in the city. I can show
you a lot and I wish the Council would all go and look at it. It's just down
from in the $350,000.00 bragket. I called City Hall on it. We've got a
loophole in our own ordinance,. My neighbor has discussed it and his cousin
builds down behind the Catholic Church in Excelsior or Shorewood or whatever it
is.
Councilman Johnson: St. John's.
Willard Johnson: Yeah, behind St. John's. He says, look at that lot right on
Apple Road or Yosemite. That house is built right on the creek. I told him
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
on the cul-de-sac, can barely get in so no way in the world reach the part on '
Yosemite.
Councilman Johnson: Yes, that is a loophole in our ordinance. I
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
is before Paul's time and he's sitting there looking. On the side that this lot 11
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
there. ,
Paul Krauss: There's a situation similiar to that in Timberwood. ...private
driveway because the public platted road isn't built and you can't access it.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, I think I argued ,
' quad for both of those. I know I argued
on the one over there by.
Mayor Chriel: Same direction I think Paul is looking for from us.
Paul Krauss: I'd like to know if you want us to pursue it? ,
Councilwoman Circler: Yes, I want you to pursue it.
Mayor amiel: Yeah. I'd like to see it pursued. At least that's my opinion. '
Councilman Hoyt: Sure pointed out sane areas that I think are real problem
areas with it.
67
.'
w -wwrss aacc6 raj —tGJLUQLV £O,-t7`J10
II
Councilman Johnson: Yeah. I think it's going to be too loose with Bare of this
stuff. --
11 Dimler: We might want to tighten same up but we do want to give
some more breathing roam.
Councilman Workman moved, Council
woman Dimler seconded to adjourn the meeting.
II All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned.
8hb[ritted by Don Ashworth ;;: .'
City Manager
IIPrepared by Dann Opheim
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
l
' 68
( i )
Planning Commission Meeting I
March 21, 1990 - Page 35
II
Ahrens: Notification of the public is a hard thing to be against.
Emmings: Yeah. I think we should try it.
I
Erhart: I think it's good too. I think it is going to put a burden on th
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
someone like to make a motion?
Wildermuth: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of I
the draft ordinance.
Ahrens: I'll second it.
I
Wildermnth moved, Ahrens seconded that the Planning Commission recommend II
approval of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Amendments Pertainng to
Requiring the Posting of Development Notification Signs. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
I
4 PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARTICLE II, SECTIONS 20-56 THROUGH
II
20-70 PERTAINING TO PROCEDURES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF VARIANCES.
Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Vice Chairman Erhart!'
called the public hearing to order.
Emmings moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in '
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Erhart: Alright, Joan do you have any questions? I
Ahrens: Not right now.
Emmings: 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
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
I
house. Could they tear their house down, subdivide those lots and build
two houses? You see what I'm saying?
Krauss: Well what you want to avoid I think, and I think what you're I
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
II
establish the neighborhood average and then say, if you meet or beat that
average, we' ll probably recommend that it be approved. So there's a middl
ground if you will . I
Emmings: But would you be able to say no to someone who wanted to do what
I just. . .
I
II
II I . Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 36
t
Ahrens: That would be meeting the standard.
' Wildermuth: Paul, I like your redraft of the ordinance criteria until you
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.
Emings: 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
t 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
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 build
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
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.
' Emmings: Is that expressed?
Krauss: No it isn't and I'm looking at that. I mean that was the intent
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 EmEmmings: 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
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.
' Ensmings: But an intent statement maybe at the beginning would put a bottom
or put a floor on this thing so you're not seeing all kinds of things here
that we don't want to see.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 37
Erhart: Sure. I think the term, the word district and the last word in Al
that's the one that's questionable to me. District can mean a big area.
think what I hear you saying, you keep using the word neighborhood . To me
those are terms that mean two different things.
Krauss: Yeah, and that's why we established a 500 foot criteria.
Erhart: Okay, I'm missing that. ,
Emmings: The ordinance. Don't look at the staff notes. Look at the
ordinance itself. It may be in there but I don't know where. ,
Ahrens: Not in the proposed ordinance.
Emmings: But look in the ordinance itself. The language is different that
what' s in the staff report than what's in the ordinance.
Erhart: Oh, is that right? ,
Emmings: Because I looked for some stuff too. . .
Ahrens: Yes , 500 feet is in here. 20-58 (a) . '
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 everybod
comes to us when they want a variance and they say well I know Joe Schmoe
blocks away from here has got the identical situation so I'm entitled to
it. 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.
Emmings: If you apply for a variance, do you have to present a property
list?
Krauss : Yes .
Emmings: Is that a 500 foot?
Krauss: Yes. That's why it matches. '
Emmings: So that kind of fits.
Erhart: Okay, and so the only change, procedurally the only change you're
making is that, in the first place ultimate authority here on all variance
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,
yes. The Board is a quasi-judicial body.
Erhart: Alright. So the only change here, you're talking about
subdivisions?
1
1
( ) }
II , Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 38
Krauss : Subdivisions . Rezonings. '
o Zngs. 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 that
sane 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
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
' 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 a
' 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?
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
Council adopt the ordinance but I'd like to see an intent section added
Planning Commission t' sting
March 21, 1990 - Page 39
•
along the lines that we discussed.
i
Elison: I' ll second it. '
Emmings moved, Elison 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 leavi
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 ahea,
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 tomorro�
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 I
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.
Elison: I 'd rather do that. ,
•
Erhart: Much better .
Wildermuth: 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 p izza subs, whatever.
Emmings: What's the menu? 1
Krauss: You want Chinese?
Erhart: Let's get to the core of the issue here. 1
1
II
I
I .
I.
Affidavit of Publication
Southwest Suburban Publishing
1
State of Minnesota )
I , NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ).SS.
"PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE County of Carver )
{QTY OF CHANHASSEN
I ` NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Stan Roifsrud,being duly sworn,on oath as that he is the
Chanhassen Planning Commission g Y says publisher of the newspaper known as the Chasm herald
hold a Public Heating on Wednes- and the Chanhassen Villager and has full knowledge of the fads herein stated as follows:
y,March 21,1990,at 730 p m.;o the (A) newspaper has complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal newspaper,as provided
I • '. Chambers in Chanhassen City by Minnesota Statute 331A.02.,331A.07,and other applicable laws,as amended.
l 690 Critter Drive.The purpose of (B)The printed public notion that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No.3zei ,was published on
heating is to consider the application the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said Notion is incorporated as rt
•, the City of Chanhassen to amend the of this Affidavit Said n was cut otice the columns of the newspaper specified. Printed me hereby of the
Ordinance, Article 'q Sections
I •t 56 for through 20-70 prom-
;duns case alphabet from A to Z,both inclusive,and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size o type used
;dukes for th issuance Of g in the composition and publication of the Notice:
variances.
-All interested persons are invited to
g and express
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
' this public bearin opinions with respect do this pro-
Paul K arms,Planning Director
?bone:9"37-1900 By: .r/
in the Manhaasen Villager
�:. �.4rea-� ere . "gee
T. y,Merck&4990;14o.329) Subscribed and sworn before me on
tte ... / i-=..v. ,
I this 8 day of 114..,1990
LA
URIE&HARTMANN
6 1,larwoTa
IfICOIMISMON DGIAf86t24o
INoPublic
RATE INFORMATION
Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space $668 per column inch
Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter $6.68 per column inch
Rate actually charged for the above matter $5.56 per column inch
I
I
I
I