Loading...
2009-05-19 specialMISSION STATEMENT: "The City of Mound, through teamwork and cooperation, provides, at a reasonable services that respond to the needs of all citizens, fostering a safe, attractive and flourishing community." JOINT MOUND CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING WORKSHOP AGENDA TUESDAY, MAY 19,2009,7:00 PM, MOUND CITY HALL 1. Review of 2008 Planning Commission Projects / Update A. 2008 comprehensive plan B. Mound SWMP update C. Recodification project D. City Code review - Sandwich board signs - Caretaker cottage /in -law apartment/upper floor garage residential use research - gutters as allowable encroachments quality 2. Preparation of 2009 Planning Commission Projects List A. City Code review • Rental licensing / regulations - project status/next steps Note: Scott Qualle of MnSpect to attend • Nuisance regulations: exterior storage • Setbacks review for detached accessory structures — refer to HKGl staff report (attached) preliminarily discussed at 515 PC meeting • Home occupation regulations • Sign regulations - sandwich boards - district regulations • Parking regulations • International Property Maintenance Code — possible update • Swimming pool regulations • Hardcover requirements /exemptions • Suggested projects from Planning Commission and City Council members 3. Discussion Variance /hardship /practical difficulty Other(s) 4. Information • 2008 Planning Commission case list • 2008 building permit summary report • 5119 special meeting /workshop notice for Mound Planning Commission and City Council (7PM) • Hardship information (APA "A Planner's Dictionary" Definition of Hardship) • Excerpts from Minnesota State Statutes 462.357 Official Controls: Zoning Ordinance • Excerpts from City Code Chapter 350.525 (variances) • Minnesota Cities articles: - Land Use Ordinance Mistakes (February 2009) - Duties of City Planning Commissions (April 2009) QUESTIONS: Call Jill at 952 -472 -0607 or Sarah at 952 -472 -0604 a© Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. ®8 TO: Mound City Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Rita Trapp, Consulting City Planner DATE: April 23, 2009 SUBJECT: Setback requirements for side -load garages In the last few months it has come to the City's attention that reconsideration may be needed of the minimum setback requirements for side -load garages on lakeshore or through lots. Currently there is a different front yard setback for side -load, attached garages versus side -load, detached garages. The difference arises because attached garages are considered part of the principal structure whereas detached garages are considered an accessory residential building and subject to their own set of standards. The following summarizes staff's research, a recommendation and request for action. Existing City Code 350.620 — 350.630 Zoning District Requirementsfbr Principal Structures. Zoning District Front Yard Setback R -1 Single Family Residential - New Lot 30 feet - Existing Lot of Record -Lot depth less/equal 60 feet 20 feet —Lot depth 60 to 80 feet 24 feet —Lot depth greater/equal 30 feet 30 feet R -1 A Single Family Residential 20 feet R -2 Two Family Residential — Single Family Detached Dwellin 20 feet R -2 Two Family Dwellings and Twin Homes 20 feet 350.435 Accessory Buildings. Subd. 5. Accessory Residential Building Setback ReQuirements A. Side Yard Setbacks. A detached accessory building may be located within four (4) feet of the side lot line in the rear yard with a minimum of a six (6) foot setback in side yard location. On through and lakeshore lots, a detached accessory building may be located within four (4) feet of the side lot line in the front yard. Reconsideration of Mound City Code Provisions for Side -Load Garages Page 2 April 23, 2009 Whenever a garage is so designed that the doors face a side street or side property line, the distance between the doors and the property line shall be twenty (20) feet or more. B. Front Yard Setbacks. All accessory buildings shall meet the same front yard setback requirements as the principal building, except for lakeshore and through lots. For detached garages on a lakeshore or through lots, a minimum twenty (20) foot front yard setback is required if the garage door(s) open to the street; an eight (8) foot front yard setback is required if the garage door(s) open to the side lot line. C. Rear Setback. A detached accessory building may be located within four (4) feet of the rear lot line. D. Lakeshore Setback. Detached accessory buildings must maintain a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water. Issue Communities establish minimum setback requirements for a number of reasons, including ensuring there is sufficient space on the lot for parking and outdoor activities; provided sufficient light and ventilation for residents; ensuring views are not obstructed by structures on other properties; creating an attractive street image; preventing the placement of structures on utility infrastructure; and protecting public safety through adequate ability to fight fires and visibility being maintained for traffic movement. In general, Mound's front yard setback requirements for principal structures range from 20 to 30 feet. While the exact reason for this dimension is unknown, it was likely chosen, in part, to ensure there is sufficient parking for vehicles without having them extend into the right -of -way. The dimension is likely larger on the R -1 zoned properties recognizing the larger lot size. It is important to note that all garages which are part of the principal structure are treated the same, whether they open towards the street or the side lot line. Mound's City Code provides relief from front yard setback standards for detached accessory structures on Lakeshore or through lots. This is likely due to the fact that structures on lakeshore lots must also be located at least 50 feet from the ordinary high water line, thus reducing the buildable area for the lot. Garages that open toward the street are required to be set back at least 20 feet, whereas garages that open towards the side lot line may be setback only 8 feet. Sufficient space for vehicle parking for side load garages is provided by the requirement of there being at least 20 feet between the garage door and the side property line. It is unclear why Mound City Code treats attached and detached side -load garages differently. Staff supports having a similar setback requirement for side -load garages whether or not they are attached to the principal structure. The appearance of the property from the street is fairly similar whether or not the garage is attached to the principal structure. In addition, with Minnesota's cold winters an attached garage is likely more favorable for property resale than a detached one. Side -load garages have become more popular in recent years as it offers a way to have sufficient vehicle and storage space without overwhelming the fagade of the house. In addition, on narrower lots, the side -load garage enables the property owner to construct a larger garage while meeting the side yard setbacks. Other provisions, such as impervious surface coverage, help to ensure the garage and driveway do not become too large for the property. Reconsideration of Mound City Code Provisions for Side-Load Garages April 23, 2009 Proposed Modification Page 3 Staff would generally suggest that a clause be added to each of the R -1, R- t a, and R -2 residential zoning districts in the Lot, Area, Lot Width and Yard Requirement sections which would identify the specific front yard setback for side load garages. The revision may be worded similar to "For lakeshore and through lots, the front yard setback is eight feet for the attached garage portion of a principal structure as long as the garage doors face the side property line and there is at least 20 feet from the garage doors to said property line. Any portion of the principal structure which is not intended for and used for the storage of private passenger vehicles must be located at least 20 feet from the front property line." Action Requested Staff respectfully requests Planning Commission recommendation on the proposed zoning ordinance revision. 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION CASES CASE CASE PROPERTY DATE # ON ADDRESS APPLICANT SUBMITTED STATUS RES # CC VOTE 08 -01 Variance 1729 Gull Lane Cynthia Sweatt 1!2112008 CC 3111 08-25 Unanimous 08 -02 Variance 5001 Wiilshire Blvd T. Rob Winkler 202008 CC Appr 08-57 Unanimous CC Appr 5114108 Sub Exmp/ CC Appr 08-03 Waiver 5300 Shoreline Dr Balboa 2/412008 3/25/08 08-33 Unanimous CC Appr 08-04 Variance 3145 Island View Dr Michael /Nadine Mader 2/2912008 4/22108 08-45 Unanimous CC Appr 08-05 Variance 5075 Windsor Rd Randy Lee & Andy Baer 3/14/2008 4122108 0841 Unanimous Minor incomp Itr 08 -06 Subdivision 4944 Island View Dr Bill Garrity 3/17/2008 414 -- --- 08-07 Vacation 4728 Bedford Rd Steve Ekeberg 3/28/2008 CC Appr 08- Unanimous 08 -08 Plat Halstead Pointe Zweber 4/7/2008 Incomplete -- -- 08-09 CUP Halstead Pointe Zweber 417/2008 Incomplete — --- 08-10 Variance Halstead Pointe Zweber 4/7/2008 Incomplete --- --- 08-11 Variance 3165 Priest La Stephen Wozniak 5/30/2008 CC Appr 08-74 Unanimous 08 -12 Variance 5234 Lynwood Blvd Caberallo, LLC 6/6/2008 Pending 08-13 CUP 5234 Lynwood Blvd Caberallo, LLC 6/6/2008 Pending 08 -14 Variance 1558 Dove La T H Parker Inc 08 -15 Variance 2933 Cambridge La Koster Batchelor 08 -16 Variance 4840 Bedford Rd Susan Chambers 08 -17 Variance 6001 Ridgewood Rd Mark Tyler CC Appr 812912008 10128/08 08 -103 Unanimous CC Appr Skinner 10/8/2008 12!9108 against CC Appr 11/19/2008 11/25/08 Unanimous 12/5/2008 3/24/09 City of Mound Permits Issued & Fees Report - Summary issued Date From:.1 /IR008 To: 1213MOOS Permit Type: Select Property Type: Ail Construction Type: All Include YTD: Me Status: Not Voided Permit Kind Permit Dwell Valuation Revenue Plan Check State Comet URNS Surcharge Park SAC SAC Fees Total Fees Fees Units Permit Type. BUILDING COMMERCIAL ALTERATION Period 3 0 19,597.00 497.70 323.52 9.80 COMMERCIAL NEw CONSTRUCTION Period 1 0 150,000.00 1,413.85 919.00 75.00 COMMERCIAL REMODEL Period 1 0 7,000.00 165.90 107.84 3.50 COMMERCIAL SIDING Period 1 0 9,900.00 212.10 137.87 4.95 COMMERCIAL SIGN, ALTERATION Period 1 0 3,449.00 119.70 77.81 1.72 COMMERCIAL UTILITY CONSTRUCTION Period 1 0 25,000.00 443.10 288.02 12.50 MULTI FAMILY (34 UNITS) RETAINING WALL Period 1 0 600.00 4146 0.30 MULTI FAMILY (5+ UNITS) ALTERATION Period 1 0 13,500.00 273.70 177.91 6.75 MULTI FAMILY (S+ UNITS) REMODEL Period 1 0 45,000.00 665.30 432.45 22.50 MULTI FAMILY (5+ UNITS) UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS Period 1 0 16,000.00 304.50 197.93 8.00 PUBLIC ALTERATION Period 2 0 32,54800 624.40 405.87 1627 PUBLIC REMODEL Period 2 0 75,000.00 91335 593.68 37.50 PUBLIC ROOFING Period 1 0 500.00 38.50 025 3/19/2009 2 3,350.00 831.02 5,757.85 277.24 354.92 199.23 743.62 42.16 458.36 1,120.25 510.43 1,046.54 1,544.53 38.75 Pagel of 3 Permit Wad Permit Dwell Valuation Revenue Plan Check State Park SAC SAC Fees Total Fees Coast Units Surcharge Fees Units Permit Type: BUILDING SINGLE FAMILY, ATTACHED DECK Period 1 0 SINGLE FAMILY, ATTACHED FIREPLACE Period 1 0 SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE Period 3 0 SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED ADDITION Period 10 0 SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED ALTERATION Period 9 0 SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED BASEMENT FINISH Period 12 0 SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED CHIMMY REPAIR Period l 0 SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED DECK Period 27 0 SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED DEMOLITION Period 11 0 SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED DOORS Period 3 0 SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED EGRESS WINDOW INSTALL Period 2 0 SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED FIREPLACE Period 21 0 SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED FOUNDATION REPAIR Period 2 0 SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED MANUFACTURED HOME Period 1 0 SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED MEMBRANE STRUCTURE Period 1 0 SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED NEW CONSTRUCTION 3/18/2009 1,120.00 62.02 40.31 0.56 102.89 1,600.00 76.66 0.80 77.46 58,743.00 1,033.95 672.08 2937 750.00 2,485.40 814,95200 8,603.52 5,592.30 407.47 750.00 15,353.29 21,525.00 625.86 483.43 10.77 1320.06 213,493.00 3,947.15 2,565.69 106.75 6,619.59 2,000.00 177.80 57.79 1.00 236.59 130,399.00 3,748.48 2,40216 62.78 6,213.52 1,750.00 1,500.00 3,250.00 19,376.00 447.30 9.69 456.99 4,335.00 171.64 111.57 2.17 285.38 68,934.00 2,266.61 36.67 2,303.28 11,500.00 301.00 127.86 5.75 434.61 19,495.00 711.10 237.97 9.75 750.00 1,708.82 50.00 50.00 Page 2 of 3 Permit Kind Penult Dwell Valuation Revenue Pies Check State Park SAC SAC Fees Total Fees Count Units Surcharge Fees Units PermkType: BUILDING Period 6 0 1,746,973.00 15,851.00 10,00734 873.49 28,750.00 55,481.83 SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED PORCHlSUN ROOM Period 4 0 73,752.00 1,372.00 891.82 36.88 2,300.70 SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED REISSUE Period 1 0 0.00 19.25 19.25 SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED REMODEL Period 22 0 711,102.00 10,752.36 5,696_53 355.55 16,804,44 SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED RETAINING WALL Period 4 0 44,000.00 1,152.90 22.00 750.00 1,924.90 SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED ROOFSWING/WINDOWS Period 2 0 38,000.00 679.95 19.00 698.95 SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED ROOFING period 72 0 410,009.00 10,583.49 204.98 10,78 &47 SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED ROOFING & SIDING Pc nod 7 0 85,100.00 1,701.01 42.55 1,743.62 SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED SIDING Period 11 0 100,42532 1,950.80 50.20 2,001.00 SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED TANK INSTALL & REMOVE Period 1 0 2,685.00 104.30 1.34 105.64 SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED WINDOW INSTALL Period 17 0 97,797.00 2,514.08 48.90 2,562.98 SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED WINDOWS & DOORS Period 8 0 57,341.00 1,351.85 217.95 28.66 1,598.46 SINGLE FAMILY. DETACHED WINDOWS & SIDING Period 5 0 90,991.00 1,677.27 45.49 1,722.76 Permit Type: BUILDING - Totals Period 282 0 5,223,741.32 79,59737 32,7"" 2,611.61 33,230,#@ 2 3,356A@ 151,S7S.78 Report Total Period 282 6 55,223,741.32• 79¢9737 32,76f.@@ 2 MaNA@ 2 3,358.08 151473.78 3/18/2009 Pegs 3 of 3 Vt. q�- PLANNING COMMISSION 1 CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING Notice is hereby given that the Mound Planning Commission and the Mound City Council will hold a special joint meeting on Tuesday, May 19, 2009 at 7:00 PM to review and discuss City projects and the proposed 2009 work program. The special meeting will be held in the Council Chambers at Mound City Hall located at 5341 Maywood Road. All interested persons are invited and encouraged to attend. Posted: April 15, 2009 American Planning Association "A Planners Dictionary" Definition of Hardship Hardship 1) A restriction on property so unreasonable that it results in an arbitrary and capricious interference with basic property rights. Hardship relates to the physical characteristics of the property, not the personal circumstances of the owner or user, and the property is rendered unusable without the granting of a variance. (Clarkdale, Ariz.) 2) A hardship that is unnecessary in the sense that the preservation of the spirit and intent of this [ordinance or chapter] does not depend on the denial of the variance. Ufferson, Mo.) 3) Arduous restrictions upon the uses of a particular property that are unique and distinct from that of adjoining property owners in the same zoning district. (Coral Gables, Fla.) 4) A hardship by reason of exceptional shape of a lot, exceptional topographic conditions, or other exceptional physical conditions of a parcel of land. "Unnecessary hardship" shall not include personal or financial hardship or any other hardship that is self - imposed. (EI Paso, Tex.) Undue hardship (See also hardship) l) (A) That the land in question cannot yield a reasonable return unless a variance is granted; (B) that the need for a variance is due to the unique circumstances of the property and not to the general conditions in the neighborhood; (C) that the granting of a variance will not alter the essential character of the locality; and (D) that the hardship is not the result of action taken by the applicant or a prior owner. (Limington, Maine) 2) As used in connection with the granting of a variance, [the term] means that (a) the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, (b) the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and (c) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this code. Undue hardship also includes but is not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. (8obbinsdale,Minn.) 3) Circumstance where special conditions, which were not self - created, affect a particular property and make strict conformity with the restrictions governing area, setbacks, frontage, height, or density unnecessarily burdensome or unreasonable in light of the purposes of this ordinance. (Ephraim, Wisc.) 4) The circumstance where special conditions, which were not self- created, affect a particular property and make strict conformity with the restrictions governing dimensional standards (such as lot area, lot width, setbacks, yard requirements, or building height) unnecessarily burdensome or unreasonable in light of the purpose of this code. Unnecessary hardship is present only where, in the absence of a variance, no feasible use can be made of the property. (Cudahy, Wisc.) Minnesota State Statutes 462.357 OFFICIAL CONTROLS: ZONING ORDINANCE. Subd. 6.Appeals and adjustments. Appeals to the board of appeals and adjustments may be taken by any affected person upon compliance with any reasonable conditions imposed by the zoning ordinance. The board of appeals and adjustments has the following powers with respect to the zoning ordinance: (1) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative officer in the enforcement of the zoning ordinance. (2) To hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue 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 the ordinance. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be gut to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the 1=12ertj exists under the terms of the ordinance. Undue hardship also includes. but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in section 2160.06, subdivision 14 , when in harmony with the ordinance. The board of appeals and adjustments or the governing body as the case may be, may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under the ordinance for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or governing body as the case may be, may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one family dwelling as a two family dwelling. The board or governing body as the case may be may impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect adjacent properties. 350.530 Variances Subd. 1. Criteria for Granting Variances A variance to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance may be issued to provide relief to the landowner in those zones where the ordinance imposes undue hardship or practical difficulties to the property owner in the use of his land. No use variances may be issued. A variance may be granted only in the event that the following circumstances exist: A. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property since enactment of this ordinance have no control. B. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance. C. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. D. That granting of the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. E. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. F. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Ordinance or to property in the same zone. PROMOTING SAFETY, PREVENTING LOSS Land Use Ordinance Mistakes Minnesota cities spend millions of dollars on land use claims each year To help avoid land use problems, make sure your city is starting out on solid ground with consistent and legal ordinances. By Jed Burkett ities should periodically review zoning and subdivision ordi- nances to ensure they are con- sistent with recent laws, court decisions, staff" interpretations, unwritten city policies (prac- tices), comprehensive plans, and other community goals. The legal foundation for city land use ordinances in Minnesota is the Municipal Planning Act (Minnesota Stat- utes, sections 462.351 –.365), which was passed by the state Legislature in 1965 and authorizes cities to adopt land use ordinances. The Act has been amended many times over the years. The purpose of the Act is to provide municipalities with the necessary pow- ers and a uniform procedure for con- ducting and implementing municipal planning. City leaders should make sure their zoning and subdivision ordinances are consistent with the Municipal Plan - ning Act and other state and federal laws. Review ordinances periodically, and consult the city attorney about any changes that may be needed.There are a few common mistakes to look out for. 11me limits In 1995, Minnesota joined about two dozen states in adopting an "auto- matic approval" statute (Minnesota Stat- utes, section 15.99). Often referred to as the "60 -day rule," the statute pro- vides that a municipality must approve or deny a written request related to zoning within 60 days, or it is deemed approved. . It's important to note that the final decision of the city council must be made within those 60 days —not advi- sory or appealable decisions made by planning commissions or other bodies. Some city zoning ordinances have built - in time limits for acting on requests that exceed the timeline permitted by the 60 -day rule. Timelines should either not be included in land use ordinances or should be changed to conform to the 60 -day rule. For more informa- tion on the 60 -day rule, see the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust ( LMCIT) risk management memo, The 60-Day Rule: Minnesota's Automatic Approval Statute at www.Imc.org/ media /docutnent/1 /60dayrule.pdf. Young thresholds In 2001, the Legislature changed the Municipal Planning Act requirements regarding the vote of the city council necessary to adopt or amend a zoning ordinance. The prior law was that a supermajority (two - thirds) vote of the council was needed to adopt or amend a zoning ordinance. The statute was changed so that a simple majority of the council is all that is required with one exception —a two - thirds vote of the council is required to change the zoning classification of a district from residential to either com- mercial or industrial. City land use ordinance provisions that have other supermajority requirements are prob- ably not consistent with state law and should be removed. Land use fees Several times in the last 10 years, the Legislature has amended and added provisions to the Municipal Planning Act concerning land use fees. Land use fee provisions and practices under old zoning ordinances may not meet the standards laid out in current state law. Under current law, a city may pre- scribe fees sufficient to defray the costs incurred in reviewing, investigating, and administering a land use applica- tion. These fees must be fair, reasonable, proportionate, and have a nexus to the actual cost of the service. Land use fees generally must be established by ordinance. All cities col- lecting land use fees are required to adopt management and accounting procedures to ensure that fees are main- tained and used only for the purpose for which they are collected. Cities should review, evaluate, and adapt their land use fees on. an annual basis to make sure the fees are fair, reasonable, and proportionate to the cost of the service. The Legislature has also amended pro- visions in the state subdivision statute concerning so -called park dedication fees. Among other things, park dedication fees must be placed in a special fund to be used only for acquisition - or improvement, and not for ongoing operation or mainte- nance, of parks and recreational facilities. For more information on the statutory requirements regarding park dedication fees, see the LMCIT risk management memo Subdivisions, Plats, and Development Agreements at www.Imc.org/media/ document /1 /subdivisionsplats.pdf. Nonconfonnities Nonconformities are uses, structures, or lots that do not comply with the current zoning ordinance. Legal nonconformi- ties are those that were legal when the zoning ordinance or amendment was MINNESOTA CITIES FEBRUARY 2009 adopted. Legal nonconformities gener- ally have a statutory right to continue. In 2004, the Legislature expanded the continuance rights of legal non - conformities to include repair, replace- ment, restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but not expansion. The 2004 legislation also altered the so- called 50- percent rule —which provided that continuance rights could be lost if the nonconformity is destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent of greater than 50 percent of its market value — by creating an exception to the rule if a building permit is applied for within 180 days of the property damage. Some city zoning ordinances may have provisions to phase out noncon- formities over time through a process called amortization. But in 2001, the Legislature prohibited amortization, except for adult uses. Variance standard Many zoning ordinances were drafted with provisions for granting variances that may differ from the standard pro- vided in the Municipal Planning Act. Under the Act, variances are permit- ted departures from strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance as applied to a particular piece of property if the strict enforcement would cause the owner "undue hardship." Undue hardship is a legal standard set forth in Minnesota Statutes, section 462.357, subdivision 6. Minnesota cities must apply the state statutory undue hardship standard when considering applications for variances. The state statute specifically defines undue hardship to mean that (1) the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, (2) the plight of the landowner is due to cir- cumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and (3) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The statute further provides that economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship. Conditional uses Conditional uses are specific land uses designated in a zoning ordinance as allowed in a zoning district so long as certain standards provided in the city's ordinance are met. Conditional use permits (CUPS) are authorized under Minnesota Statutes, section 462.3595. The statute provides that the stan- dards and criteria provided in the ordinance shall include both general requirements for all conditional uses, and insofar as practicable, requirements specific to each designated conditional use. If a particular use is not designated by ordinance as a conditional use, then arguably the city has no authority to issue a CUP. Many city zoning ordi- nances could do a better job of meeting the statutory requirement of detailing general and specific standards and crite- ria for designated conditional uses. Reasonable conditions relating to the ordinance standards may be attached to a CUP based upon factual evidence contained in public record. State statute provides that a CUP remains in effect as long as the conditions are observed. The attorney general has found that time limits, such as sunset provisions or automatic annual review, are not consis- tent with state law, explaining that cit- ies may not enact or enforce provisions that allow a city to terminate CUPS without regard to whether the condi- tions agreed upon are observed. If a city wishes to place time constraints on par- ticular uses, then the appropriate zon- ing tool is an interim use permit, rather than a CUP. Manufactured homes Many cities have ordinances that con- flict with state law concerning the location of manufactured homes on residential lots. The Municipal Plan- ning Act provides that no city zoning regulation may prohibit manufactured homes that are built in conformance with the manufactured home building code and comply with all other zon- ing ordinances. Cities can apply archi- tectural and aesthetic requirements to manufactured homes only if the same requirements also apply to all other sin- gle- family homes in the zoning district. Cities cannot require a manufactured home that complies with the manu- factured home building code to com- ply with any other building, plumbing, heating, or electrical code, or any con- struction standards. In contrast, manu- factured or "mobile" homes that do not comply with the manufactured home building code are not covered by the state statutory protections and may be restricted or prohibited within a city. Homes built before July 1, 1972, most likely do not comply with the code. Existing noncompliant mobile homes may have continuance rights as legal nonconformities. Many cities also have ordinances that are inconsistent with state law and rules concerning manufactured home parks. Under the Municipal Planning Act, a manufactured home park is by law a conditional use in any zoning district that allows the construction or place- ment of a building used or intended to be used by two or more families. Manufactured home parks are licensed by the State Department of Health, and cities are. prohibited from licensing manufactured home parks. In their zoning ordinances, cities should establish CUP standards for manufactured home parks that are consistent with the state licensing rules. There are many other ways in which a city land use ordinance may improperly deviate from state law This list is by no means exhaustive, but it can be used by cities as a tool to get started in reviewing and updating land use ordinances. Cities should work closely with their city attor- ney, zoning administrator, and planning commission to review land use ordinances for consistency with current law or prac- tice. LMCIT offers land use consultations, training, and information to members. Contact land use attorneys Paul Merwin at pmerwin@lmc.org or (651) 281 -1278, or Jed Burkett at jburkett@lmc.org or (651) 281 -1247, or visit the League web site at wWw.Imc.org /page /1/ land - use -lc jsp. Ir Jed Burkett is loss control /land use attorney u4th the League of Minnesota Cities. Phone: (631) 281 -1247. E-mail:jburkett@,Imc.org. FEBRUARY 2009 MINNESOTA CITIES Duties of City Planning Commissions By .Rachel Carlson ities form planning commissions when they are interested in adopting a comprehensive plan. Comprehensive planning is not mandatory for cities outside the seven -county metropolitan area, but it can be beneficial for all cities. Comprehensive planning is an important tool for cities to guide future development of land so as to ensure a safer, more pleasant, and more econom- ical environment for residential, com- mercial, industrial, and public activities. Planning can also help preserve agri- cultural and other open lands.The city comprehensive plan is usually a first step for a city interested in adopting zoning and subdivision regulations. For cities that have a commission, a common concern is what duties should be delegated to the commission. In addition, cities are often concerned about the appropriate role of the commission when fulfilling duties. Specifically, cities need to decide whether the planning commission should act in an advisory role or as a final decision - maker. State statute requires that sonic specific duties be delegated to the planning commission. Comprehensive plan adoption or amendment. Generally, the planning commission is charged with drafting the city comprehensive plan. However, the city council may also propose a comprehensive plan or amendments to an existing plan.When a plan or amendment is generated by council, the council may not adopt the proposed language until the language has been reviewed by the commission.The com- mission must complete its report within 60 days. Prior to adoption or amend- ment of a plan, the commission must hold at least one public hearing. Purchase and sale of city real property. After a comprehensive plan has been adopted, no publicly owned real estate within the city (whether owned by.the city, school district, state agency, county, or any other political subdivision) may be bought or sold until the transaction has been reviewed by the commission for its compliance with the city com- prehensive plan.The commission must complete its report within 45 days or by any other period designated by the city council. In addition, the city coun- cil may dispense with this requirement by a resolution adopted by a two - thirds vote if the council determines that the purchase or sale has no relationship to the comprehensive plan. Capital improvements within the city. After a comprehensive plan has been adopted, no capital improvement within the city may be authorized by the city or a school district, state agency, county, or any other political subdivision without the prior review of the planning commis- sion.The same timelines apply as above for reviewing real property transactions. Zoning ordinance adoption or amend- ment. Zoning ordinance amendments not suggested by the planning commis- sion must be referred to the commission for review The commission must report its recommendations to the council within 60 days. In all of the above situations, where referral to the planning commission is required under state law, the planning commission serves in a strictly advisory role.The city council ultimately decides on the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan or zoning ordinance, the purchase or sale of real property, and capital improvements for the city. The planning commission can play an important role in advising the city, but the council is not bound by planning commission recommendations. State statute allows (but does not require) other duties to be delegated to the planning commission. City ordinance should state clearly when these duties have been delegated. Some of these duties include reviewing conditional use permit applications, serving as the board of zoning adjustments and appeals, and reviewing subdivision applications. Conditional use permit applications. Cities can delegate review of condi- tional use permits to the commission. Review authority can either be advisory to the city council or final. Board of zoning adjustments and appeals (BZA). All cities that have adopted a zoning ordinance must also have a BZA to hear requests for variances and decide appeals. Cities may choose to designate their planning commission as the local BZA. Review authority as the BZA may be designated by local ordinance as final subject only to later judicial review, or final subject to council review (and then judicial review), or merely advisory to the city council. In cities where the commission is not the BZA, applications to the BZA must be referred to the commission for review. The commission must complete its review within a reasonable time, not to exceed 60 days. Subdivision applications. Cities may delegate authority to review subdivi- sion proposals to the planning commis- sion. However, state law requires final approval or disapproval of the proposal to be made by the city council. For more information about the requirements and duties of planning commissions, see the League of Min- nesota Cities new information memo, Planning Commission Guide for Cities. The Guide is available at www Imc. org /page /1 /resource- libraryjsp. Type the name of the memo in the keyword field, and check the box next to Information Memos — Governing and Managing. Ir Rachel Carlson is a research attorney with the League of Minnesota Cities. Phone: (651) 281 -1226. E -mail: rcarlsongmc.orq. 'kPKIL 2009 MINNESOTA CITIES 19