10. City Code Section 18-57 StreetsI
I MEMORANDUM
AftTJ by CityAdministteldt
6ndorsed --r> -A-
i4lodfiie
D ecie i b -7 -9�-
Oate uubmitted to Commissim
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
Date S;` T tted to CounCH
FROM: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II & - r3 _q 4f
DATE: June 6, 1994
SUBJ: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 18 -57. Streets, by amending sections (n)
and (o), to include Standards for Private Streets serving R -4, R -8, R -12, R -16, and
Non - Residential Uses and Amendment to Article XXIV. Off - Street Parking and
Loading.
BACKGROUND /PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
Staff published this ordinance amendment for the May 18, 1994, Planning Commission meeting.
At the meeting, staff noted that the City Attorney had suggested additional changes which
required staff to republish the requested amendment as required by City Code. On May 18,
1994, staff requested that the Planning Commission discuss the requested ordinance amendment
and give staff some direction and 'feedback on any changes or issues they wanted to see
addressed. The two issues that were raised were the impact of this amendment on affordable
housing and hard surface coverage. The private street ordinance will have a positive impact on
both the hard surface coverage as well as affordable housing because the streets are built
narrower.
On June 1, 1994, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council' approve this
ordinance. Mr. Stuart Hoarn, a realtor with Burnet Realty, questioned the impact on lots of
record that will have to conform according to the amendment proposed by staff. We have added
a minor modification that would exempt lots of record. We are aware of two subdivisions that
fall into this category. The first is located on Dogwood and the second is served off of Great
Plains Boulevard.
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
The current private driveway ordinance sets standards for the Residential Single Family District
only. A number of the high density residential as well as non - residential use proposals that have
CITY OF ID
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
Mr. Don Ashworth
June 6, 1994
Page 2
been submitted to the city, have been utilizing private driveways. The zoning and subdivision
ordinances do not have standards to measure these types of private driveways. Staff is proposing
' an amendment to the subdivision ordinance, Section 18 -57 (n) and (o) and to the zoning
ordinance, Article XXIV, Off - Street Parking and Loading, to read as follows:
' (n) Public streets to be constructed in subdivisions located inside the metropolitan urban
service area line, as identified in the city comprehensive plan, shall be constructed to
urban standards as prepared by the city engineer's office. Streets to be constructed in
subdivisions located outside the metropolitan urban service area shall conform to the rural
standard requirements as prepared by the city engineer's office. The construction of
private streets are prohibited except as specified in Section 18 -57 (o).
(o). Private streets may be permitted in business, industrial, office, R -8, R -12, and R -16.
Up to four (4) lots in the A -2, RR, RSF, and R4 districts may be served by a private
' dr- y street if the city finds the following conditions to exist:
1. The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to
' construct a public street. In making this determination the city may consider the
location of existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and
' the existence of wetlands.
2. After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the
public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve
access, or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan.
I 3. The use of a private -dove vay street will permit enhanced protection of the city's
natural resources including wetlands and forested areas.
' If the use of a privateer street is to be allowed, they shall be subject to the
following standards:
' 1. The common sections of a private dfiveway street serving 2 units or more in the
A -2, RR, RSF, and R4 districts must be built to a seven (7) ton design, paved
to a width of 20 feet, utilize a maximum grade of 10 %, and provide a turnaround
' area acceptable to the fire marshal based upon guidelines provided by applicable
fire codes. Private streets serving R -8, R -12, and R -16, shall be built to a
seven (7) ton design, paved a minimum width of 24 feet, utilize a maximum
' grade of 10 %, and provide a turnaround acceptable to the Fire Marshal
based on applicable fire codes. Private streets serving business, industrial,
and office districts shall be built to a nine(9) ton design, paved a minimum
' width of 26 feet, utilize a maximum grade of 10 %, and provide a turnaround
area acceptable to the fire marshal based on guidelines provided by
n
Mr. Don Ashworth
June 6, 1994
Page 3
applicable fire codes. Plans for the street shall be submitted to the city
Y
engineer. Upon completion of the driveway, the applicant shall submit a set of '
"as- built" plans signed by a registered civil engineer.
2. Private dr4veways streets must be maintained in good condition and plowed '
within twenty -four (24) hours of a snowfall greater than two (2) inches.
Covenants concerning maintenance shall be filed against all benefitting properties.
Parking on the day private street or otherwise blocking all or part of the
dFiVeWa:y private street shall be prohibited.
3. Private dfiveways streets that are not usable by emergency vehicles because of
obstructions, snow accumulation, or poor maintenance are a public safety hazard.
The city may remedy such conditions and assess the cost back to the property
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 429.101, Subd. 1(C).
'
4. Thee private street shall be provided with adequate drainage facilities
to convey storm runoff which may require hydrologic calculations for a 10
'
year storm should be included '
E4 eIf g ineef. In the R -8, R -12, R -16, business, industrial, and office districts,
these improvements shall include concrete curb and gutter.
'
5. Street addresses or city approved street name sign, if required, must be posted at
the point where the private dr-iveway street intersects the public right -of -way.
6. The —day private street shall be designed to minimize impacts upon
adjoining parcels. The city may require revised alignments and landscaping to ,
minimize impacts. An erosion control plan should be completed and approved
prior to construction.
7. The dfiveway private street in the A -2, RR, RSF, and R -4 districts, must be
located within a strip of property at least thirty (30) feet wide extending out to the
public right -of -way or covered by a thirty foot wide easement that is permanently ,
recorded over all benefitted and impacted parcels. Private streets serving R -8,
R -12, R -16, business, industrial, and office districts, must be located within ,
a strip of property at least forty (40) feet wide extending out to the public
right -of -way or covered by a forty foot wide easement that is permanently
recorded over all benefitted and impacted parcels. '
8. Maintenance and repair of utilities located within the private driveway
easement shall be the responsibility of the benefiting property. '
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
' "The City ouncil recommends approval of subdivision ordinance amendment Sec. 18 -57 n
Y PP ( ) and
' (o) Design standards for private dr-iveway streets, and the zoning ordinance Article XXIV, Off -
Street Parking and Loading to read as follows:
' (n) Public streets to be constructed in subdivisions located inside the metropolitan urban
service area line, as identified in the city comprehensive plan shall be constructed to
urban standards as prepared by the city engineer's office. Streets to be constructed in
subdivisions located outside the metropolitan urban service area shall conform to the rural
standard requirements as prepared by the city engineer's office. The construction of
private streets are prohibited except as specified in Section 18 -57 (o).
Mr. Don Ashworth
June 6, 1994
Page 4
'
ARTICLE XXIV. OFF - STREET PARKING AND LOADING
DIVISION 1. GENERALLY
'
Sec. 20 -1101. Driveway and private street setbacks and widths in business, industrial, office
and multiple family districts.
The following controls driveway and private street setbacks and widths in the business,
'
industrial, office, and multiple - family districts:
(1) The width shall be measured between driveway or private street edges and shall be as
1
follows:
Type of Driveway or private street District Maximum
Minimum
One -way traffic Business W 22
42- 20
'
Two -way traffic Business W 36
-24 26
One -way traffic Industrial W 22
42- 20
Two -way traffic Industrial W 36
-24 26
'
One -way traffic Office W 22
42- 20
Two -way traffic Office -34 36
-24 26
One -way traffic multifamily 22
20
Two -way traffic multifamily 36
24
'
Sec.20 -1103. Private Streets.
Private streets are prohibited unless created and maintained pursuant
to City Code
Sections 18 -57 (n) and (o). Lots of record created prior to December 10, 1990 are exempt from
the private streets requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
' "The City ouncil recommends approval of subdivision ordinance amendment Sec. 18 -57 n
Y PP ( ) and
' (o) Design standards for private dr-iveway streets, and the zoning ordinance Article XXIV, Off -
Street Parking and Loading to read as follows:
' (n) Public streets to be constructed in subdivisions located inside the metropolitan urban
service area line, as identified in the city comprehensive plan shall be constructed to
urban standards as prepared by the city engineer's office. Streets to be constructed in
subdivisions located outside the metropolitan urban service area shall conform to the rural
standard requirements as prepared by the city engineer's office. The construction of
private streets are prohibited except as specified in Section 18 -57 (o).
Mr. Don Ashworth
June 6, 1994
Page 5
(o). Private streets may be permitted in business, industrial, office, R -8, R -12, and R -16.
Up to four (4) lots in the A -2, RR, RSF, and R4 districts may be served by a private
fkiyeway street if the city finds the following conditions to exist:
1. The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to
construct a public street. In making this determination the city may consider the
location of existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and
the existence of wetlands.
2. After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the
public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve
access, or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan.
C
J
3. The use of a private -dfiy street will permit enhanced protection of the city's I
natural resources including wetlands and forested areas.
If the use of a private &iw way street is to be allowed, they shall be subject to the
following standards:
1. The common sections of a private dfiveway street serving 2 units or more in the
A -2, RR, RSF, and R4 districts must be built to a (7) seven ton design, paved
to a width of 20 feet, utilize a maximum grade of 10 %, and provide a turnaround
area acceptable to the fire marshal based upon guidelines provided by applicable
fire codes. Private streets serving R -8, R -12, and R -16, shall be built to a (7)
seven ton design, paved a minimum width of 24 feet, utilize a maximum grade
of 10 %, and provide a turnaround acceptable to the Fire Marshal based on
applicable fire codes. Private streets serving business, industrial, and office
districts shall be built to a (9) nine ton design, paved a minimum width of 26
feet, utilize a maximum grade of 10 %, and provide a turnaround area
acceptable to the fire marshal based on guidelines provided by applicable fire
codes. Plans for the dfiveway street shall be submitted to the city engineer.
Upon completion of the driveway, the applicant shall submit a set of "as- built"
plans signed by a registered civil engineer.
2. Private dfivevways streets must be maintained in good condition and plowed
within twenty -four (24) hours of a snowfall greater than two (2) inches.
Covenants concerning maintenance shall be filed against all benefitting properties.
Parking on the Mve way private street or otherwise blocking all or part of the
dray private street shall be prohibited.
1
3. Private dfiveways streets that are not usable by emergency vehicles because of '
obstructions, snow accumulation, or poor maintenance are a public safety hazard.
1
Mr. Don Ashworth
June 6, 1994
Page 6
The city may remedy such conditions and assess the cost back to the property
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 429.101, Subd. 1(C).
4. The &iveway private street shall be provided with adequate drainage facilities
to convey storm runoff which may require hydrologic calculations for a 10
year storm should be included
In the R -8, R -12, R -16, business, industrial, and office districts,
these improvements shall include concrete curb and gutter.
5. Street addresses or city approved street name sign, if required, must be posted at
the point where the private dfiveway street intersects the public right -of -way.
6. The Ekiveway private street shall be designed to minimize impacts upon
adjoining parcels. The city may require revised alignments and landscaping to
minimize impacts. An erosion control plan should be completed and approved
prior to construction.
7. The -day private street in the A -2, RR, RSF, and R -4 districts, must be
located within a strip of property at least thirty (30) feet wide extending out to the
public right -of -way or covered by a thirty foot wide easement that is permanently
recorded over all benefitted and impacted parcels. Private streets serving R -8,
R -12, R -16, business, industrial, and office districts, must be located within
a strip of property at least forty (40) feet wide extending out to the public
right -of -way or covered by a forty foot wide easement that is permanently
recorded over all benefitted and impacted parcels.
8. Maintenance and repair of utilities located within the private driveway
easement shall be the responsibility of the benefiting property.
ARTICLE XXIV. OFF - STREET PARKING AND LOADING
DIVISION 1. GENERALLY
Sec. 20 -1101. Driveway and private street setbacks and widths in business, industrial, office
and multiple family districts.
The following controls driveway and private street setbacks and widths in the business,
industrial, office, and multiple - family districts:
(1) The width shall be measured between driveway or private street edges and shall be as
follows:
Mr. Don Ashworth
June 6, 1994
Page 7
Type of Driveway or private street
One -way traffic
Two -way traffic
One -way traffic
Two -way traffic
One -way traffic
Two -way traffic
One -way traffic
Two -way traffic
20 -1103. Private Streets.
District
Maximum
Minimum
Business
-9
22
42
20
Business
39
36
-24
26
Industrial
38
22
42
20
Industrial
39
36
-4
26
Office
39
22
42-
20
Office
39
36
-24
26
multifamily
22
20
multifamily
36
24
Private streets are prohibited unless created and maintained pursuant to City Code Sections 18 -57
(n) and (o). Lots of record created prior to December 10, 1990 are exempt from the private
streets requirements.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission minutes dated May 18, 1994.
2. Planning Commission minutes dated June 1, 1994.
3. Letter from Stuart Hoarn dated May 26, 1994.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994
we said, we make recommendations to the City Council. They make the final decisions.
Since in my mind I believe that this property will be developed sometime and it will have an
impact on your hooking up to city services, I would suggest that right now you become as
familiar as possible with that ordinance. The process to get a variance and all of the City
Council members have got their telephone numbers in the phone book, except for one as I
recall, but you can get those from City Hall. There's nothing wrong with calling and
lobbying so I'd encourage you to do that on any issue. My thoughts, I'd like to see this
again. The directions are quite clear from the other commissioners so I'd like to ask for a
motion please.
Steve Johnston: Could I address the commission please?
I Scott: No.
l
Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission table preliminary plat, Case # 93 -11.
Conrad: I second that.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that the issue be tabled. Is there any discussion?
Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded to table action on the Preliminary Plat #93-11 for
Harstad Companies. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Scott: We'd like to see this as soon as possible so it looks like June Ist. Okay, thank you all
very much for coming.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CITY CODE SECTION 18.57, STREETS, BY AMENDING (0.) TO INCLUDE
STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS SERVING R4, R8, R12. AND R16 AND
NON - RESIDENTIAL USES.
Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item and stated that because of a change,
the public hearing would have to be re- published.
' Scott: That kind of brings up an impervious surface issue. Where we get dueling ordinances.
I think if we're talking about an R -12 or an R -16, so that's, if there's any direction. I just
don't want to get in a situation where we're focusing on a particular issue and we kind of
forget about what's going to happen with another ordinance and then we get a development
and we have, and then all of a sudden the development gets held up because of you know,
48
Plannii.g Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994
dueling ordinances so. We need to see how that's going to play. Maybe we have to do
something with, you know if it has to do with a public safety issue, obviously we have to
take that into strong consideration but then if it impacts the ability of someone building an R-
16, that may preclude someone's ability to do that so, just as long as we don't, I personally
don't want to have to deal with that when we're considering a large development, which is
probably what we're going to be getting when we're looking at this kind of zoning. So
anyway.
Al -Jaff: I might add, for instance the development you were looking at before this one.
Kings Road was going to be 31 feet curb to curb. So in most cases it will be below the 36
that is recommended or that is requested by the Fire Department. But again I have been
looking at the ordinance before and I asked for their input and that's what they requested.
And that's what their reasoning is behind it.
Scott: Okay. So you're just looking for comments.
Al -Jaff: Input and comments.
Scott: And then we'll have another public hearing.
Ledvina: This is the, you know the forest through the trees. I mean talk about all these
things creep up and when you look at a multi- family and all of a sudden you're going to
require a minimum of 24 feet. You've started to build a barrier to affordable housing again.
I mean these are little things and maybe I'm off base but I don't know. Sometimes you have
to look at the overall goals and see what's happening here. I don't know that that makes any
difference but I don't know. I think it's kind of a creep process.
Al -Jaff: So you would rather see the private driveways narrower?
Ledvina: Narrower, I don't know. And getting back to Joe's issue with impervious surface.
I mean that's going to work into it too. I mean you get these things fighting against each
other. You're trying to get the densities up to make things affordable. I don't know. I'm
just throwing it out. I don't know how it all fits together but just a thought.
Al -Jaff: Well...
Ledvina: Than having a full street, yeah. Right.
Nutting: Is this guidance or confusion?
49
r
Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994
Scott: I think you get some of both from us. More of the later than the former sometimes.
Ledvina: This is a public hearing though, right?
Scott: Not yet. It wasn't properly noticed so we'll have to continue it. To be continued.
Conrad: Just philosophically, I'm sort of not listening so bear with me. Philosophically the
standards for a private street, why are they different than a public street?
Al -Jaff: We would not be maintaining a private street. It would be the responsibility of the
homeowners association. Whoever owns that strip. It will be dedicated to...
Conrad: So in terms of construction requirements, it would still be the same for a public
versus private? You've changed some tonnage requirements.
Al -Jaff: Correct. What's required. We still want to have emergency vehicles to be able to
access the roads but we won't be maintaining them.
Conrad: So this is a, there's some environmental impact here. We can allow a private street
that may not, they can come in at a smaller size with a private street so that's one thing this
does. What else?
Al -Jaff: It reduces hard surface coverage. In comparison to a full fledged city street, which
requires 60 feet typically.
Aanenson: We see them a lot when we've done condominium or apartment projects and you
see them ... Again what it goes back to, as Sham indicated, the impervious surface. What
we're doing right now is trying to legitimize what we've been doing. As the attorney
indicated we're promoting private driveways for whatever reason but certainly not, there's
really more streets when you're serving more than one person. And we're going to—and we
usually talking about land functions and things to do that in and it does address...wetland
plan. Our tree canopy, which I think is really on the cutting edge of tree preservation. And
now with this private drive. Again, it's tools to preserve landforms.
Conrad: Yeah, I sure like some of the tools that are in place or real close. It sure makes
some decision making a lot easier than willy nilly. You know it's nifty stuff.
Ledvina: Does that mean that sewer lines don't go as far and you have Ionger laterals and
things like that?
0
Planning Commissii , Meeting - May 18, 1994
Aanenson: Not necessarily.
Ledvina: I mean because your city improvement is less. I mean it's not going all the way
kind of thing.
Al -Jaff: It would be than the private street's.
Ledvina: Well I mean just for example White Oak Lane. The one that we had today. This
evening where you're actually truncating the street 100 feet or something like that. Well, that
means 100 feet less sewer and are those laterals coming in longer or does the?
Aanenson: Actually it came to a Y and they all separated. Under that circumstances it would
come just like a big cul-de -sac and they all have their connections off that. I think you have
to look at it on an individual basis depending on where the driveway is split off and...
Ledvina: But that means longer laterals right?
Aanenson: Again, it depends on how the lots lay out. I mean it may have a continuous...
Ledvina: I don't know that that's necessarily bad but.
Aanenson: That's a legitimate concern but I think it would depend on the length of the
common driveway. It's just like if we looked at townhouse project -..and this one I don't
think so. When we were looking at the Oaks on Minnewashta, I think the laterals...
Conrad: So do we recommend private streets? Are we recommending or is the developer
requesting? It can be either?
Aanenson: On this one he.
Conrad: Well, in our ordinance. In the ordinance is it staff saying, we don't want to
maintain that or build that.
Al -Jaff: Well if he's going to meet our standards, therefore we don't want to maintain them.
Aanenson: Are you asking who's asks for them?
Conrad: Yeah.
Aanenson: Normally that's the only way to subdivide the property, we would recommend
51
.,
1
Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994
that. Or if for environmental reasons it makes more sense. That would be two options. This
engineer wasn't even aware that was an option so we showed him and he said well hey, that
makes sense. Great, I'1L..can save more trees.
Ledvina: Are we compromising our infrastruction though for people to gain access to their
houses? By doing this.
Aanenson: As far as, do they have an association to maintain that segment?
Ledvina: Right.
Aanenson: Well that's a trade off. It's a trade off.
Ledvina: I understand you know but.
Conrad: I think it's a nice tool. It gives us some liberty to do some things.
Ledvina: Sometimes it's going to work really well. Sometimes if it's misapplied, it's not
going to work.
Aanenson: I think we've got-where we apply it and certainly for the right reasons. Not just
because well, the developer wants to do it. There's got to be a specific reason.
Scott: And then what happens? Let's say you've got some sort of a homeowners association
or something that has, I'm thinking about like a R -16 and then for some reason the
association does not take care of it or something like that Is the city going to end up with
the responsibility? It's just like henceforth and whatever. If your association doesn't handle
it, get your shovel out. I just don't want to see stuff coming back where the city's going to
have to then maintain something that's not easy to maintain.
Al -Jaff: The intention is also to have all those agreements with that association recorded with
the County. And Kate, I don't know how much weight that caries.
Aanenson: No, but that's what we do right now when we get those agreements...
Scott: Okay. Do you guys have any questions or comments?
Ledvina: No.
Aanenson: I guess we wanted to have this ... because the next 2 weeks agenda is ... hopefully
52
1
Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994
we flushed out a lot of issues tonight, we though we tabled quite a few of them...
Al -Jaff: So the two issues that you definitely want us to look at is, impact on affordable
housing as hard surface coverage?
Ledvina: Well, just some thoughts. I mean I don't need a science project or whatever, or a
research study but what I'm thinking about is, and kind of working off of your comment is
that, we've got things that we're trying to accomplish goals and are we putting hurdles in the
way of ourselves without even knowing it I guess. You imow a lot of times we look at
things. We work hard to do it right but we don't we it in light of the big picture and that's, I
don't know.
Scott: Do we need to do anything? I mean do we have to vote to continue? Okay, it's
continued.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded to approve the Minutes of
the Planning Commission meeting dated May 4, 1994 as presented. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Aanenson: ...Just a reminder that I need somebody from the Planning Commission to attend
the charette on the 26th. I think Nancy was going to try to.
Ledvina: What charette?
Aanenson: That's on the Bluff Creek.
Ledvina: What's the?
Aanenson: It's from 9:00 to noon. Possibly 12:30 down in the senior center with Bill
Morrish and we're going to try to...
Ledvina: Those day meetings are really tough. I'd really like to go but I just can't sneak
away.
Aanenson: Well after we.
Nutting: Didn't Nancy say something about a charette?
n
53
I Sharmin Al -Jaff Planner
1
City of Chanhassen, POB 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Ms. Al -Jaff:
May 26, 1994
RE: Proposed Zoning
Ordinance Amendment to
Sec. 18 -57
Minnetonka Office
19400 Highway 7
Excelsior, MN 55331
612/474 -2525
Fax 612/474 -9583
We believe Buresh Addition should be exempt from the proposed private streets standards.
When Buresh Addition was approved, there were three residential parcels served by the
existing private drive; two parcels had existing houses. With City and County approval
of Buresh Addition, the third (vacant) parcel was divided in two, creating an added lot.
This allowed for a total of four residences to be served by the existing private drive.
Recently, City Attorney Roger Knutson confirmed that the paving requirement of the
current subdivision ordinance did not apply to Buresh Addition (see Atch 1). Buresh
addition pre -dates the current subdivision ordinance by several years. Mr. Knutson
did alert Mr. Buresh that City Staff was drafting a counterpart amendment to the zon-
ing ordinance, which, unlike the similar requirement in the subdivision ordinance,
could make the paving standards retroactive.
However, both Buresh Addition lots had been on the market with pricing based on the
developer's reliance on the non - applicability of the paving requirement. Both lots
have sold at prices which, obviously, do not contemplate paving expense.
Developer Robert Buresh obtained an estim =te for the paving after receiving the City
Attorney's letter. According to PI hal P. -ving Co., cost would be in excess of $35,000.
This represents almost 78% of the entire sale price of Lot 1, the fourth residence
which, under the proposed zoning amendment, would "trigger" a retroactive paving re-
quirement for Buresh Addition if enacted without exempting this existing subdivision.
This poses extreme potential hardship for the buyers of the two Buresh Addition lots:
Paul and Leslie Yager (Lot 1) and Jonathan and Gaye Guyton (Lot 2); both couples plan
to start building their homes in August or September of this year.
' It should be noted that the proposed Halla subdivision to the north and east of Buresh
Addition may afford the City opportunity to provide alternative access to Buresh Addn.
The Halla subdivision has received preliminary plat approval and includes a north -south
street opening to Pioneer Trail. As presently platted, this proposed new street ends
in a cul -de -sac which, if shifted slightly, would enable the new Halla parcels and the
two existing Buresh Addition parcels to be served by the cul -de -sac. If this approach
is ultimately adopted by the City and the Halla developers, the existing private drive
would no longer be shared, and much of it would no longer be nece�sary or used. Thus,
it would be foolish to have had it paved at great expense; much of it would need to be
removed, also at further great expense, to include hazardous waste disposal (asphalt).
' The approved preliminary Halla plat annotated to show possible cul -de -sac relocation
is at Atch 2.
It is requested that, if adopted, the zoning ordinance amendment not take effect for
' any building permits issued before December 31, 1994. This should prevent any undue
hardship affecting Buresh Addition -- which may or may not be unique -- and any other
similar situations which might exist.
Thank you for your consideration. Please pass this along to the planning commissioners
and Council.
Sincerely, 2 Attachments: a/s
`Stuart Hoarn, Realtor CC: Roger Knutson (w /atchs)
r e
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A.
Attorneys at Law
Thomas J. Campbell
Roger N. Knutson
Thomas M. Scott
Gary G. Fuchs
James R. %Valston
Elliott B. Knersch
Elizabeth.-\. Lun_er
Andrea McDowell Poehler
Mr. Stuart Hoarn
19400 Highway 7
Minnetonka, Minnesota 55331
RE: Private Driveways
Dear Mr. Hoarn:
May 12, 1994
(612) 452 -50N
Fax (612) 452 -5550
Section 18 -57(o) of the Chanhassen City Code contains design standards and limitations
on private driveways that serve more than one lot. These standards apply to the creation of new
lots, not to lots created before the standards went into effect.
You should be aware, howeve that City Staff is presently working on an amendment
to the zoning ordinance that, if enacted, could affect you if your new home is not already
constructed by the time of its adoption. I don't know how long it will take to process the
ordinance amendment or even if it will be eventually passed. As a guess, the process will take
at least a month.
Very t urs,
C BELL, Kh
FUCH
BY:
I WK
cc: Bob Generous
Dave Hempel
Sharmin Al -Jaff
ON, SCOTT
Roger N. Knutson
Chanhassen City Attorney
Suite 1 1 • EwandaIe Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center CUrVe • Eagan, Iv1N 55 121
EXCERPT - APPROVED PRELIMINARY HALLA SUBDIVISION FIAT
Showing possible relocation of cul -de -sac (dotted line)
eliminating shared driveway serving Buresh Addition
0
v
0
z
M
M
D
r
isting shared
ivate drive j - 1
i Ll
I �
so 0
CO
f
— u
r
Z.4 o __. 450' O n •:
s: _
♦ "' L de sac
ceg e5 on lel
share s
d dri�ewaY =
C� \ v°-
a \ t cJ . N
IA
Cb
n
t-
�° o
A�,4 z
f
Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994
Ledvina: Okay. Subject to staff review for feasibility.
Aanenson: We still want the compliance for the residential so basically I think if you strike
any reference to the commercial development...
Ledvina: Okay. So as part of the motion we strike the reference to commercial
developments associated with Outlot A. On page 34, the ordinance, or I should say the
setback requirements for the, the home setback requirements for the rear lot for Block 2, Lots
1 thru 7, identify that rear setback as 80 feet subject to review by staff for feasibility. I think
that's it.
Scott: Is there a second?
Mancino: Second.
Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to recommend approval of the preliminary PUD
development plan as outlined by staff in the staff report striking out any reference to
commercial development and adding a provision that rear yard setback requirements for
Block 2, Lots 1 thru 7, be identified as 80 feet subject to review by staff for feasibility.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Scott: Let me just ask a question. We have 3 items here. The rezoning, site approval and
preliminary plat for the subdivision. Did we do all of them? Okay, good.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CITY CODE SECTION 18 -57, STREETS, BY AMENDING SECTIONS (N) AND (0)
TO INCLUDE STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE STREETS SERVING R4, R8, R12 AND
R16 AND NON - RESIDENTIAL USES.
Scott: Is anybody going to cry if we leave this for next time? Okay. We're going to
continue item number 6 to the next time. Can I have a motion to approve the Minutes? I'm
sorry, yes.
Al -Jaff: There is someone here that has been waiting for 5 hours.
Scott: Then we need to do it then. I apologize sir. I didn't realize you were there.
Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
82
1
I �
L
I
r] i
h
r
Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994
Scott: Any questions or comments for staff? Anybody else? I don't happen to have any.
This is a public hearing and I'd like to have a motion to open the public hearing please.
Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Scott: Sir. Please identify yourself and give us your address.
Stuart Horn: I'm Stuart Hoarn with Burnet Realty at 19400 Highway 7 in Minnetonka.
Actually Excelsior. I'm appearing on behalf of Robert and Paul Garrish who have property
on Great Plains Boulevard. There was a situation that there were 4 lots that were created
long before the subdivision ordinance required the 7 ton road. I think that was, Sharmin was
that I believe in '87? When did that. This was approved in '86 or '87, I can't remember
which. And the ordinance came along in 1991.
Al -Jaff: So.
Stuart Hoam: These are grandfathered in. There were 4 lots. Two of them had houses on
and there's 2 in the middle that don't have houses on them. These 2 lots in the middle were
recently sold. It's too late to reprice them. It's too late for the people who bought them to
do anything about ... The issue then becomes that the paving, the paving bill is close to
$40,000.00 that would be retroactively applied to these lots. If they come in for a building
permit. If they come in tomorrow, they wouldn't but if they come in after this is passed, they
would. That's the issue. That the lots are sold. It's too late to do anything about what they
paid. It's too late to ... to reprice them because they had already sold. And there could be
other situations, I don't know. We know about it. We inquired about it. It's happening in
this timeframe. But there could be other situations out there where people don't know it's
going to hit them so our request is that the ordinance not take affect for building permits
issued prior to the end of the year so there's a chance for people to sell their lots or reprice
them. If they have their lots priced at something now and they haven't got that $20,000.00
built in, they have time to change the price and remarket them or whatever they're going to
do. I don't know how many other situations there are in the city—but there's this one for
sure. That's really all...
' Scott: Okay. Any questions or comments? I'm just kind of looking at this correspondence
here. We'll have to take a moment here to go through this. Let's see here. So basically the
new home has to be constructed for it not to require paving.
' Stuart Hoarn: That's correct. If the ordinance amendment is passed as it is.
83
u
f
Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994
Scott: Oh I see.
Stuart Hoam: When these 2 lots were added in, where there were 2 and now there's 4.
When these 2 lots were added in there, there were 2 houses and 1 large piece which was then
divided in half. We had 3 lots. Two with houses on them and the 1 in the middle didn't
have a house on it. That was divided in half so now there's 2 in the middle and these still
don't have houses on them. This subdivide took place in I believe it was '86 or '87. If the
subdividing had taken place after 1992, the developer would have had that as part of the
conditions for the development of that and provide for this paving. That as a new ordinance
or change in the ordinance. That was the subdivision ordinance, not the zoning ordinance.
Now this is going to be under this amendment that's before you now, it would be...
subdividing into the zoning ordinance which means when people apply for building permits,
they have to have this paving done. And the other issue in particular instances is there's a
new subdivision to the north of this one that has already received preliminary plat approval
by the Planning Commission in which there could be a new street added and that's also from,
there is a new street there. But just by moving the cul -de -sac slighting would eliminate the
need for a shared driveway entirely.
Scott: This is almost like a variance application for an ordinance that isn't on the books yet,
which we don't do.
Conrad: You just hope we don't do that. You don't know Joe.
Scott: Well I'm kind of looking at it. We have, the issue in front of us is whether we want
to recommend to the City Council that this happen. I mean that's what we're doing.
Stuart Hoam: Well also when it takes affect.
Conrad: Is it worded so it's retroactive?
Aanenson: Well that's a definite option. It could be. There could be exemptions existing off
the record. Normally when a subdivision comes through now ... we're going to tell you right
up front. This is what's going to happen...
Stuart Hoam: When they're applying for a mortgage. I mean they don't know this. I mean
$20,000.00, one way or the other, when they say to the mortgage officer, well how much do
we loan. Give or take $20,000.00. Maybe it will fly, maybe it won't. This is a very
difficult thing for some people who are living through this right now. Time is of the essence
for them.
84
I n
u
1
1
i
I
r
Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994
Scott: I'm just thinking what's the risk if it's a lot of record versus somebody who now
wants to subdivide. I mean somebody who wants to subdivide, there's a process and it goes
on forever, especially once they get to the Planning Commission but, I guess my thought, and
you guys are going to have to maybe, like what are we missing? I mean I'm thinking if
there's a lot already of record, to me I don't see the loss on the residents of the city, the
grand whole here we're talking about. I don't see a problem with just saying hey, this does
not apply. But I could see, such as the case with the property, the subdivision that we saw
this by Timberwood, that's serviced by a private drive. They're subdividing and they have to
pave it and upgrade and all that good stuff so, it kind of looks like the intent is for things that
subdivide, we want to upgrade the streets. But something where it's a lot of record that's
maybe served by a public. We're probably talking about smaller number of lots and it maybe
doesn't make sense for us to apply this particular proposed ordinance to that situation. I
don't know, what do you guys think? I thought it made sense. I don't know.
Conrad: Joe, I think you're right. We've got to get out of here.
Scott: I guess well, I could repeat that.
Conrad: I think it's wise if staff could show us the implications of what that meant though
and I don't know if we want it back but.
Scott: No, I don't want to see it again.
Conrad: '? ut on the first cut at it, at the quarter to 1:00, it sort of seems like it shouldn't be
retroactive unless staff really says we're going to miss some things or there's going to be
some real harm.
Aanenson: ...identify those. Get a map and identify ... and get an idea of how many we're
talking about.
Conrad: Right. I think we should do that but otherwise.
Scott: Well I think our direction is to exempt lots of record.
Aanenson: Or to research it.
Scott: Our feeling is right now, exempt lots of record and then go from there ... anyway, can I
have a motion to close the public hearing?
Ledvina moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
M.
t
Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 1
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. I
Scott: Can I have a motion please? I
Mancino: I move that we adjourn.
Scott: Yeah, we need a motion on this particular item. ,
Conrad: I like how Nancy tracks. '
Scott: Even though I'm not supposed to be doing this.
Ledvina: You can't do it. '
Scott: I would make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the ,
Zoning Ordinance Amendment as stated in this here document but that the staff research
exempting existing lots of record from this proposed ordinance.
Conrad: I think that's very good. I would have made the motion just like that.
Scott: Thank you sir. Is there a second please? '
Mancino: I would have changed it. '
Scott: Can somebody else second this motion I shouldn't have made?
Mancino: I second. ,
Scott: Okay, good. It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? I
Scott moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 18 -57, Streets, by amending sections (n) and '
(o), to include Standards for Private Streets serving R -4, R -8, R -12, R -16 and Non -
Residential Uses and Amendment to Article XXIV, Off Street Parking and Loading with
direction to staff to research exempting existing lots of record. All voted in favor and '
the motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: I
Ledvina: I would move that we approve the Minutes with the correction as indicated on the
86
Roger N. Knutson, Esq.
Campbell, Knutson Scott & Fuchs, P.A.
1380 Corporate Center Curve #317
Eagan, MN 55121
I Dear Mr. Knutson,
May 26, 1994
Minnetonka Office
19400 Highway 7
Excelsior, MN 55331
612/474 -2525
Fax 612/474 -9583
Reference your letter of May 12 and subsequent proposed amendment to the City of
' Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance which incorporates some standards (i.e., paving require-
ments) for new subdivisions enacted in the 1992 Subdivision Ordinance into the Zon-
ing Ordinance -- so as to apply these same standards retractively to unimproved lots
in existing subdivisions approved prior to 1992.
Herewith a copy of a letter sent to the Planning Department on behalf of Robert and
Paula Buresh.
' Your May 12 letter to me indicated that the City Staff was "presently" working on
an amendment to the zoning ordinance. While your letter is clear that work on the
' amendment was "presently" underway as of May 12, we are wondering if work on the
amendment also pre -dates Mr. Buresh's inquiry with the City in which he questioned
the applicability of the Subdivision Ordinance paving requirement to his Buresh
' Addition, subdivided and approved long before the current Subdivision Ordinance was
enacted ( ?).
We hope you will join us in urging your client to enact the ordinance if desired,
but in a manner which does not pose specific /targeted hardship to the owners of the
two -lots that comprise the Buresh Addition.
Thank you,
S�t
n CC: Sharmin Al -Gaff
Executive Sales Associate (w /o encl.)
Realtor
1 Enclosure: Letter, w/2 Atchs
' �Q