12-19-1983 JointCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSSON MEETING
December 19, 1983
5:30 P.M.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hamilton at 5:45 p.m.
Present: Bunce, Priebe, Kirsch, Ludeman, Hamilton (Council
Member Hassenstab was absent due to illness in the family
Planning Commission Members Present: Ahlq'uist, Anderson,
Hoverson, Jensen, Kauth, Luettinger, and Quam... (Ahlquist arrived
at 6 : OS p.m. ~
In the absence of Chairman Ahlquist, Community Development
Director Dennis Kraft introduced the discussion regarding the
recommendations proposed by~~the Joint City Council/Planning Commission
Variance Committee as to whether or not a separate Board of Adjust-
ments should be created.
Council Member Priebe said that he would be opposed to a separ-
ate board since he believed the final decision on variances should
rest with the Council. Council Member Bunce.said he would also be
opposed, and that the ordin.ancesshould be reviewed and changed where
necessary.. Planning Commission member Quam commented that he
thought this might be something'~the Council may wish to try out,
to see whether or not it •aould work.
Discuss ion followed concerning the three criteria fnr granting
variances set out in state law, and in the city ordinances, and
whether or not it was necessary to absolutely hold to these criter-
ia. Some Planning Commission members and council members believed
that these criteria should have some flexibility in their applica-
tion to variance requests.
City Manager Cartwright commented that he thought that under
either system, an independent Board of Adjustment or an advisory
Council/Planning Commission Meeting -2- December 19, 1983
board of appeals making recommendations to the council, that the
quality of decisions is dependent upon the quality of the people
serving on the board. He noted that he has had experience with
both systems, and both have worked well.
Council Member Kirsch said that he would be agreeable to a
separate Board of Adjustment, although it would be necessary to
change the ordinances as deemed desirable by the Council, and he be-
lieved it would have the effect of reducing the number of variances.
Council Member Priebe said that he believed this to be a
policy question rather than a technical legal matter. He said
the council has a hi-story of granting variances and it would be
appropriate to continue to have people do as they choose with their
property, within certain bounds.
Council Member Ludeman said that he doesn't want to create a
board to solve a problem that can be solved by the Planning Commissi.
and the City Council. He said there needs to be standards that
promote the well-being of the community, and the City Council has
been too free in granting variances in the past.
Planning Commission member Luettinger said that people have
;;
enough red tape to go through. He believes it appropriate to approve
variances as long as community good is preserved. He said the ordin-
ances should be changed if necessary.
Planning Commission Chair Mark Ahlquist stated that regardless
of what system we used, the findings by each body need to be made
with supporting facts to establish those findings. He said vari-
ances are inherently inappropriate anal the ordinances should be
amended if necessary. ~He also raised the question about people
who don't pursue the variance process because of being discouraged
Council/Planning Commission Meeting Minutes -3- December 19,
with the red tape or the cost of processing. Comment was also made
that it is unfair to turn down applicants for variances when it is
the ordinance that seems to be unfair.
Chairman Ahlquist discussed the three legal criteria for var-
iances and the case law that has been established. He indicated
that law cases coming before the Planning Commission and the City
Council actually meet the conditions set out in the law.
Planning Commission member Luettinger said that although we
give people the right to go through the process, the result is often
a foregone conclusion because of the history of the Planning
Commission and Council action. Fie thought the legislature intended
more flexibility in the state law. Chairman Ahlquist commented that
he thought the Statutes had been strengthened to be more stringent.
For example, the legislature eliminated cost as a hardship that
could be claimed in a variance request, The City Manager commented
that the Planning Commission and the City Council as policymaking
bodies, should consider establishing a separate board so that the
Planning Commission and City Council would have more time for im-
portant policy questions. He said that as more variances are
granted, the number of applications will increase as well. Where
the council now~has two to four variance hearings a month, it will
increase to six to eight variance hearings.
Council Member Kirsch said that a separate board would allow
the Planning Commission to devote time to the review of ordin ances
and long-range planning.
Discussion followed concerning administrative approval through
the use of a hearing officer system. Planning Commission Chairman
Council/Planning Commission Meeting Minutes -4- December 19, 1983
Ahlquist said an administrative process can be set up under what-
ever limits the Planning Commission and City Council wish to estab-
lish. Council Member Priebe said that if a waiver provision for
administrative action could be put in, it would save a lot of
time and the City Council and Planning Commission could spend time
on more important matters. Planning Commission member Hoverson
said that administrative review would be better. Also, she said
that citiaens should be able to expect that the ordinances will be
uniformly applied to their situations. Community Development
Director Dennis Kraft made comments concerning how an administrative
review process would work.
Planning Commission Chairman Ahlquist commented that under
whatever system is used, effort should be made to get down to one
hearing.. For example, if the Council is to hear appeals, then have
the public hearing occur there. Discussion followed, and Planning _
Commission and Council Members arrived~~at a consensus that further
consideration should be given to establishing an administrative
hearing officer system with either the City Council or the~Planning
Commission serving as the final step in the administrative hearing
process.
Mayor Hamilton directed. the city staff to prepare for a future
agenda an item that would incorporate the concept of a hearing
officer/ administrative waiver system, with the City Council as the
avenue of appeal from that decision.
Discussion followed concerning what type of fee schedule that
might be used under the administrative system, and what flexibility
might have to be given to the ordinances under a hearing officer ~
Council/Planning Commission Meeting Minutes -5- ?2/19/83
I~
concept.
The staff was directed to place this item on a future council
agenda after the staff report had been transmitted to the Planning
Commission for comment review and recommendations.
The meeting ad~ouzned at 6:5L
Date Approved : January 9, 1984
Rona d Ran in sting City C erk