Loading...
Joint Board of Adjustments and Appeals/City Council 1 CITY OF cHANHAssEN K ' ,N 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX(612) 937-5739 Action tw city Administer t MEMORANDUM Endorsed ✓ A0AT Modified ' TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager ReJep,� 890 Date Submit:ed to Com- siioa FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director - ' dt6 Submitted to Cou:�,;i( DATE: May 8, 1990 ' SUBJ: Joint City Council/Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting to Discuss Proposed Amendments to Chapter 20, Article II, Administration and Encorcement of the City Code Pertaining to Variances While 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- 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. According to the current ordinance, all 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 brought before the Board, a number 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 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 communities divide up the responsibilities for approval of variances. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals is generally ' responsible for those variances which are associated with building single family homes or additions to those 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 attached 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 t 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 11 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 1 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. 1 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 11 • • 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 1 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- 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 11 or City Council only if all of the following criteria are met: A. That the literal enforcement of this Chapter would cause 1 undue hardship. "Undue hardship" means the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical 1 • 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 on 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. I 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. 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. ATTACHMENTS 1. Ordinance Amendment. 2. City Council minutes dated April 9, 1990. 3. Memo from Paul Krauss dated March 14, 1990, with attachments. ' 11 1 11 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. \\'alst,n Elliott B. Knetsch ' Dennis J. Unger April 4, 1990 . .-�- APR 051933 VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION Crri OF CHANHASSEN ' Mr. Paul Krauss Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 ' Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: Variances ' Dear Paul: ' Enclosed please find the revised ordinance you requested concering variances. The only change from previous draft dated 3/2/90 is in Section 5(a) . ' Very truly yours, CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT 11 & F , .A. RNK:srn —.mom? Roger N. Knutson Enclosure Yankee Square Office III • Suite 202 • 3460 Washington Drive • Eagan, MN 55122 I CITY OF CHANHASSEN I CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. , AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF 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 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 r04/04/90 ' 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 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 I 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 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, 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 1 (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1990. ) -3- Dan Ashworth: As we are working with the State on this and engineering, no' 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. ' )easolutian t90-47: Councilmen Boyt saved, Councilman Johnson seconded a resolution establishing a no parking sane an southbound Highway 101 an the curve in the area generally utilised by vehicle parked for sale. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' sac= ORDINAN AMENDMENT TO MEMO TBE SIBDMSIOW Alm =IMO ORDINANCE To ABWOU! IBS POSTING tF PUBLIC IMPORMATIOW SIGNS -OR NAM DIEVEGOINWISIMBEIH THE cm, FIRST RENDING. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, do you want a 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? ' 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 Oriel: 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. Mayor Chmiel: 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? ' Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwomen Dialler seconded to approve the first reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend the Subdivision and Boning Ordinance to require the posting of public infonaation signs foram developments within the City. All voted in favor and the motion carried. aRIDG ANCE AM@El43rT To AMEND ARTICLE II, SBC3'IQ1S 20.56 moms 20-70 ICI PROCEDURES PCR THE ISSYMIICB CF VARIANCES, FIRST RENDING. ' Mayor Chmiel: Item 13 has been removed. Is that correct Paul? Paul Krauss: Yes. . 1 ' S4 13 I CITYOF -- "(17 CHANHASSE 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHAS SEN, MINNESOTA 55317 , , i► (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 cry r Attic^ hN :-x MEMORANDUM T0: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss; Planning Director X- ^-_ - _�. rill DATE: March 14, 1990 SUBJ: Proposed Amendments to Chapter 20, Article II, Administration , and Enforcement of the City Code Pertaining to Variances While 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 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. According to the current ordinance, all 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 brought before the Board, a number 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 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 communities divide up the responsibilities _ approval of variances. "The Board of Adjustments and Appeals is generally responsible for those variances which are associated with building single family homes or additions to *hose homes on single family lots. In many of these -communities, it is the Planning Commission and ultimatiely`the City Council that review all other variances which may be attached to subdivisions, con- ditional use permits, site plans and 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 I 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 • II Planning Commission March 14, 1990 Page 3 II 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 II 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' II 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 I while continuing to maintain the City standards with regards to reviewing variances. To facilitate a comparison between the existing and proposed t variance findings, these are reprinted below. Existing I The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the Council shall not grant, a variance unless they find the following facts: II A. That the literal enforcement of the Ordinance would cause II 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 II 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- I servation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. D. That the special conditions and circumstances are not a con- II sequence of a self-created hardship. E. That the variance will not be injurious to or adversely II 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 I Ordinance. Proposed A variance may be granted by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals II 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 I 11 1 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 1 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. Planning Commission I March 14, 1990 Page 5 I 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. i 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. 1 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 519J ) 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 CHS, P A. BY: •oger N. Knutson RNK:srn Enclosure 11 Yankee Square Office III • Suite 202 • 3460 Washington Drive • Eagan, MN 55122 'BELL. SCOTT & FUCHS T0 / 9375739 P.03 APR-04-1990 10:10 FROM ) I CITY OF CHANHASSEN II CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CRAFTER 20 OF THE CONCERNING CHANHASSEN II CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: I Section I. Section 20-28(b) (2) of the Chanhassen City Code I is amended to read: To hear requests for variances from the provisions of this Chapter which are not made in conjunction with platting, I site plan review, conditional use or interim use permit application. i I 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 I Procedures. Section 3. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding II Section 20-30 to read: Sec. 20-30. Variance Requests i g, tean Rie Conditional Use and Interim II Use Permits. (a) Form; Fee. Appeals and applications for variances I 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 I 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. 111 (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 I 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 I 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 I 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 II II I7 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, 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 -2- I APR-04-1990 10:12 FROM CAMPBELL. SCOTT & U r r..» . 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 1 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 iii 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 I day of , 1990. ATTEST: Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1990. ) i -3- i City Council Meeting - oun Feb--•acy 26, 1990 I q,-)-4 -2.7of II Councilman Johnson: Was it published? c, Cb ncilwonan Dialer: No. We don't have to publish it. IDon Ashworth: This, as it appears here in front of you was published to the best of my knowledge. ' ICouncilman Johnson: So we could take action? Don Ashworth: You could take action if you wanted. IIMayor Czriel: Jim mentioned March 12th so let's go with that. IIWARD OF EQtUALIZATION AND REVIEW, SET DATE FOR FINALIZING BOARD ACTION, CITY ?MGM. IDon 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 time 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. I 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 I 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 1 appears as though an early start is necessary. Councilman Johnson: Are we meeting the 28th? I thought that was, because 1 that's Memorial Day. I thought we had modified the month of May to first and third? II Cb ncilman Boyt: No, one of then is right at the end of the money. Mawr Chm iel: The 28th is Manorial Day. How about Tuesday the 29th? ICouncilwoman Tinier: We already moved it to another date. Don Ashworth: I'll report to the City Council Tuesday what night you picked out IIand verify with the Assessor if that night's okay with him. DISCUSSION REGARDING VARIANCE PROCEDURE AND REGULATIONS, PLANING DIRECTOR. 11-;4 Paul Krauss: On several occasions in the past... 1 Mawr Oriel: Is this brief Paul? Paul Krauss: I think the discussion with it night be rather lengthy. - ...] II 62 II