Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 06.iJuly 13, 2011 Item No. JULY 18, 2011 CITY COUNCIL MEETING ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING VARIANCES Proposed Action Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move to approve an ordinance amending Title 11, Chapter 6 of the City Code concerning variances. Passage of this motion will incorporate recently passed State legislation regarding variance review criteria into our Zoning Ordinance. Overview On May 5, 2011 the State passed legislation amending the review criteria for the granting of variances. The legislation became effective the next day, on May 6 The legislation was adopted in response to the Minnesota Supreme Court decision in the Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka court case that, in effect, overturned the variance hardship criteria that had been utilized by cities in Minnesota for the past 20 years. In addition to the amended variance review criteria, the new legislation eliminated the term "hardship" and replaced it with the term "practical difficulties ". The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Zoning Ordinance amendment at their July 7, 2011 meeting and unanimously recommended approval. There was no public comment. Planning Department staff recommends approval of the Zoning Ordinance amendment as presented. Primary Issues to Consider • What effect does the new legislation have on granting variances in Lakeville? The Krummenacher case made it virtually impossible for cities to grant variances because the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the State Statues concerning variances in effect at that time did not allow cities to grant a variance if the property owner could put the property to a reasonable use without the variance. The Supreme Court noted that new legislation would be required to provide a more flexible variance standard than was provided for in existing municipal law. The new legislation now allows a zoning authority to issue a variance if there are practical difficulties and provided the review criteria are met. Supporting Information • Ordinance amending Title 11, Chapter 6 of the City Code • July 7, 2011 draft Planning Commission meeting minutes Jun 28 planning report aryl M ey, Plan ril(r\g Director Financial Impact: $ None Budgeted: Y/N Source: Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): Zoning Ordinance Notes: 11 -6 -1: PURPOSE: ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF LAKEVILLE COUNTY OF DAKOTA, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 11 OF THE LAKEVILLE CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONCERNING VARIANCES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEVILLE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 11 -6 -1 of the Lakeville City Code is amended to provide as follows: The purpose of this chapter is to provide for deviations from the literal provisions of this title in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this title. SECTION 2. Section 11 -6 -5 of the Lakeville City Code is amended to provide as follows: 11 -6 -5: REVIEW CRITERIA: The board of adjustment shall not approve any variance request (major or minor) unless they find failure to grant the variance will result in practical difficulties. "Practical difficulties" means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this section. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. The following criteria must also be met: A. That the variance would be consistent with the comprehensive plan. B. That the variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title. C. That the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. 157944v02 RNK:r06 /27/2011 1 D. That the purpose of the variance is not exclusively economic considerations. E. That the granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. F. That the requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty. G. . Variances may not be approved for any use that is not allowed under this section for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. SECTION 3. Section 11- 6- 7A.1.b (1) of the Lakeville City Code is amended to provide as follows: (1) Cases where practical difficulties to existing buildings or platted property are created as a result of public action or change in ordinance standards. SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. 2011. ATTEST: 157944v02 RNK:r06 /27/2011 ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Lakeville, Minnesota this 18 day of July, CITY OF LAKEVILLE BY: Charlene Friedges, City Clerk 2 Mark Bellows, Mayor ITEM 8. CITY OF LAKEVILLE Chair Davis opened the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Title 11 (the Zoning Ordinance), Chapter 6 of the Lakeville City Code, concerning variances. The Recording Secretary attested that the legal notice had been duly published in accordance with State Statutes and City Code. Planning Director Daryl Morey presented the planning report. Mr. Morey stated that this Zoning Ordinance amendment formalizes the 'State Statute changes concerning variances that were signed into law on May 5, 2011. He indicated that City Attorney Roger Knutson was part of the group that wrote the new state legislation and he also drafted the redlined amendment to our Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Morey stated that Planning Department;:Staff recommendS 'approval of the amendment to Chapter 6 of the Zoning Ordinance as presented. Chair Davis opened the hearing to the public far coulthent. There were no comments from the audience. Planning Commission Meeting July 7, 2011 Page 7 11.41 Motion was made and seconded to close the public hearing at 6:42 p.m. Ayes: Grenz, Drotning,B6erschel, Maguire, Lillehei,Davis, Adler. Nays: 0 Chair Davis asked for comments from the Planning Commission. Discussion points were: • . Coinmissioner GreriZ ' stated that he still has a problem with Item C of the amended review criteria and cannot support this Mr. Morey stated that he 'talked to the City, Attorney regarding the concerns with this particular review criteria ekpressed by Commissioner Grenz at the June 16, 2011 , Plannki g Commission meeting in conjunction with the Schiller deck variance request: assured staff that Item C pertains to the current property owner at the time of the variance request, not a previous owner. The City Atto'iney did not recommend any changes to Item C. • Chair Davis and Commissioner Drotning indicated that there are a number of other requirements, besides Item C, that an applicant must also meet in order to qualify for a variance. • Commissioner Maguire was in agreement with Mr. Knutson and the amendment as presented. • Commissioner Lillehei has read Item C. He indicated that he does not have a complete understanding of what the plight of the landowner is intended to mean, but he has faith in the City Attorney and his recommendation. He suggested that the plight of the landowner could be explained in more detail by the City Attorney, possibly at a future work session. • Commissioner Drotning stated that the City's ordinance must not be in conflict with state law. • Commissioner Grenz felt that the City could be more restrictive than state law. 11.42 Motion was made and seconded to recommend to City Council approval of an amendment to Chapter 6 of the Zoning Ordinance , regarding variances, as presented. Ayes: Drotning, Boerschel, Maguire, Lillehei, Davis, Adler: Nays: Grenz. Commissioner Grenz interprets Item C of the Ordinance Amendment to allow property owners to profit from a situation that they created. Respectfully submitted, There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Penny Brevig, Recording Secretary 7/21/11 ATTEST: Bart Davis,, Chair 7/21/11 Planning Commission Meeting July 7, 2011 Page 8 Memorandum City of Lakeville Planning Department To: Planning Commission From: Daryl Morey, Planning Director Date: June 28, 2011 Subject: Packet Material for the July 7, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Concerning Variances �m No . In June 2010, the Minnesota Supreme Court handed down a decision on a court case involving a variance in the City of Minnetonka (Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka). That court case in effect overturned the hardship criteria that had been utilized by Minnesota cities for the past 20 years, which was based upon a variance case decided by the Minnesota Court of Appeals. On May 5, 2011 Governor Dayton signed into law new legislation that amends the standards for granting a variance. The new legislation became effective on May 6, 2011. The new legislation eliminates the term "hardship" and instead allows a zoning authority to issue a variance to a zoning control if there are "practical difficulties ". The new legislation impacts the review criteria for variance requests listed in Chapter 11 -6 -5 of our Zoning Ordinance. City Attorney Roger Knutson was part of the group that wrote the new state legislation. He prepared the attached table that compares the previous state variance criteria with the criteria established by the new legislation. He has also drafted the attached redlined amendment to our Zoning Ordinance to reflect the new legislation. Planning Department staff recommends approval of the amendment to Chapter 6 of the Zoning Ordinance as presented. Attachments: • Zoning Ordinance amendment (redlined) • Variance legislation table ( plancomm - zoningordinanceamendment) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEVILLE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 11 -6 -1 of the Lakeville City Code is amended to provide as follows: 11 -6 -1: PURPOSE: The purpose of this chapter is to provide for deviations from the literal provisions of this title in 1 instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficultiesundue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this title. SECTION 2. Section 11 - - of the Lakeville City Code is amended to provide as follows: 11 -6 -5: REVIEW CRITERIA: ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF LAKEVILLE COUNTY OF DAKOTA, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 11 OF THE LAKEVILLE CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONCERNING VARIANCES The board of adjustment shall not approve any variance request (major or minor) unless they find failure to grant the variance will result in undue hardshippractical difficulties. "Practical difficulties" means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this section. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. on the applicant, and,The following criteria must also be as may be applicable, all of the following criteria have been met: A. That the variance would be consistent with the comprehensive plan. because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific parcel of 157944v02 RNK:r06 /27/2011 inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. 1 B. That the variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title. ,conditions upon which an application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and are not applicable, generally, to othcr property within the same zoning classification. C. That the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon a financial hardship, or a desire to incrcase the value or incomc potential of the parcel of land. D. That the purpose of the variance is not exclusively economic considerations. alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this title and has not been cr ated by any persons having an interest in the parcel of land and is not a self cr atcd hardship. E. That the granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of be detrimental to the • • the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger F. That the requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficultyhardship. G. Does not involve a use which is not allowed within the respective zoning district. Variances may not be approved for any use that is not allowed under this section for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. SECTION 3. Section 11- 6- 7A.l.b (1) of the Lakeville City Code is amended to provide as follows: (1) Cases where practical difficulties hardship to existing buildings or platted property are created as a result of public action or change in ordinance standards. SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. 157944v02 RNK:r06/27/201 1 2 ATTEST: ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Lakeville, Minnesota this day of , 2011. Charlene Friedges, City Clerk 157944v02 RNK:r06 /27/2011 3 CITY OF LAKEVILLE BY: Mark Bellows, Mayor VARIANCE LEGISLATION 157654v01 RNK:05 /16/2011 OLD NEW 1 Undue Hardship Practical Difficulties (cannot be put to a reasonable use) (a reasonable use of the property) 2 In Keeping with Spirit & Integrity In Harmony with General Purpose of Zoning Ordinance and Intent of Zoning Ordinance 3 -- Consistent with the Compre- hensive Plan 4 Economic Consideration Alone Same. Not Sufficient 5 Use Variances Prohibited Same. 6 Not Alter Essential Character of the Locality Same. 7 Not a Self Created Hardship Same. 8 Can Impose Conditions to Ensure Conditions Must be Directly Compliance and to Protect Related to Any and Must Bear Adjacent Properties A Rough Proportionality to the Impact Created by the Variance VARIANCE LEGISLATION 157654v01 RNK:05 /16/2011