1h3 Code Amendments CITYOF
CH H SE
690 CiO, Ce,ret Drive
PO t3ox 147
Chanhassen, Mi,,esota 55317
Phone
952. 937.1900
Genera/Fax
952.937.5739
Engineering Department Fax
952.93Z9152
Bnilding Deparnnent Fax
952.934.2524
Web Site
WWlC:Ci.C/~a,hassen. m,.us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Scott A. Botcher, City Manager
FROM:
Kate Aanenson AICP, Community Dex~elopment Director
DATE: March 22, 2001
SUB J:
Code Amendments
Sec 20-508 Minimum Lot size in PUD, (b) "g4inin?um lot sized. :l&'nimum lo~
sizes dou.v~ to five tho.z~sand (5, 000 square-feet may be a!lo~4.'ed There shall be
no minimum lot size, however in no case shall net density exceed guideli~2es
established by the cio'"
In 1986 the City of Charub, assen had a PUD ordinance. In 1991 the Planning
Commission spent an arduous process of revising the PUD ordinance. The reason
for the revision to the' ordinance was to move away from the 15,000 square foot '
lot minimum. There were to be trade-offs including preservation of natural
features. The Council and the Commission moved from between a 9,000 and
10.000 square foot minimum. Ultimately, the Council settled on an 11,000 square
foo'i- minimum with a 15,000 square foot average~ The 1991 ordinance also had a
minimum for single family attached or cluster homes.· In 1995. staff
recommended a change to the ordinance because the language in the original
language stated the following:
"Minimum lot sizes. Minimum lot sizes down to five thousand (5,000)
square feet may be allowed. However, in no case will gross density
exceed guidelines established by the comprehensive plan."
This comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance clearly conflicts. If we're
allowing multifamily, the only zoning option is the 5,000 square foot lot or the R-
8 zoning district, which allows a 5,500 square foot lot. The ordinance as stated
would eliminate the ability to cluster lots, preserving open space, allow density at
8 units and acre and prohibit transfer and density bonus. Transfers are the
backbone of the Bluff Creek Overlay district.
In 1995 in the Glitch ordinance, staff recommended changing this section
eliminating the minimum lot size. The Council and the Planning Commission
recommended approval. Unfortunately in the codification of the code the change
was made incorrectly. The City has been using the no minimum lot size in the '
C/tv o£Cha,has.~en. A .~ro,.,i,a c,,t,,:,in, with c/ea, /ake, a,a/it]..vcl~ooh, a cha,,i,.~ dow, tow,. thrivi,~ busi, esses, atzd beaut/f~d oarks. A .~reat o/ace to lb,e.
PUD size 1995. This change does need to be made to make the zoning ordinance
and the comprehensive plan consistent.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
On March 6,2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and unanimously
recommended approval of the revised language.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following code amendment:
Sec 20-508 Minimum Lot size in PUD, (b) "~[~finimum lot sized. Minimum lot sizes do~wt to
five thousand (5, 000) square feet may be allou'cd. There shall be no minimum lot size, however
in no case shall net density exceed guidelines established by the city."
ATTACHMENTS
to
Plmming Colnlnission Minutes dated March 6, 2001
City Council Minutes dated July 1 O, 1995
g:\user\vicki\code amend 2001-3.doc
Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2001
.
Sacchet moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Burton: Anybody want to address the Planning Commission on this matter?
Sacchet moved, Biackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Burton: Any additional discussion? Can I have a motion please?
Sacchet: I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the ordinance amendment as
follows: Section 20-109 and Section 20-505(f) as stated in the staff report.
Conrad: Second.
Sacchet moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
ordinance amendment as follows:
Sec. 20-109 Applications.
... shall be made to the city planner on forms...
Sec. 20-505(0 Require General Standards
... 50 feet fi'om Railroad lines or collector or arterial streets...
All voted in favor and the. motion carried unanimously.
Aanenson: Okay the next one is regarding Section 20-508, minimum lot size in a PUD. Here again it's
an instance where the two sentences clearly contradict each other and the one is that the' minimum lot'
size should not be less than 5,000 square feet. The next sentence says there is no minimum lot size. We
have not been requiring a minimum lot size but if you go into the R districts, there are districts that, uses
that allow you to go smaller so you're being punitive in the PUD and it wasn't the intent so the staff's
reco~nmendation is that the minimum lot size be taken out.
Burton: Any questions for staff?.
Sacchet: Yes Mr. Chair. So I just want to be really clear and understand this completely. You're saying
that instead of specifying the mini~num size, the minimum size is implied by the density specification?
Aanenson: Correct. That's how it's been.
Sacchet: And in addition, what I'm reading here, excuse me, is that this actually has been approved at
some point but for some reason wasn't anchored into the zoning ordinance.
Aanenson: The way it's been used, if you look at the R-12 district, it allows lots smaller than that. It's
never been used that way. It wasn't used this way on Walnut Grove, North Bay. It's never been used as
a minimum lot size of 5,000. The way it's been used is that there is no minimum lot size as long as you
don't exceed the density standards. That's how it's been used.
Sacchet: Okay. That's my question.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2001
Burton: Any other questions for staff'?.
Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. Getting back to Uli's question though, the way I read the staff report is that, at the
bottom of that page that in 1995 the council and Planning Commission at that time recommended
approval and the language, let's see. Unfortunately in the codification of the code the change was made
incorrectly.
Aanellson: Correct.
Kind: So this was intended to be done years ago. I just xvanted to clarify that.
Burton: Any other questions?
Conrad: The only thing I would say Mr. Chair is that I think when this goes to council, you should put
the, there should be some background or some support.
Aanenson: For the 19957
Conrad: Yeah.
Burton: May I have a motion to open the public hearing?
Sacchet moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Burton: Anybody like to address the Planning Commission on this matter?
Sacchet moved, Kind seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Burton: May I have a motion.
Kind: Mr. Chair, I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of the ordinance amendment
as follows. Section 20-508. Minimum lot size in PUD, (b) peT' the staff report dated February 28, 2000.
Conrad: Second.
Butxon: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any other discussion?
Kind moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
ordinance amendment as follows:
Sec. 20-508 Minimum Lot Size in PUD (b). There shall be no minimum lot size, hoxvever in no case
shall net density exceed guidelines established by the city.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Aanenson: I'I1 turn the next one over to Matt but I just wanted to make a point of clarification.
Revisions to Chapter 7 do not require a public hearing before this body but we just wanted to include that
in this report so you could see how we're carrying these forward together. You have public hearings on
11
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1995
6. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to storm water ponds or wetlands shall be a minimum of
three feet above the 100 year high water level.
7. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and
shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. ·
8. Fire Marshal conditions:
A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes,
NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly
located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9-1.
b. Pending review by Engineering staft; fire hydrant locations are acceptable.
9. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail
construction.
10. The applicant will be responsible for a water quantity fee of $440.00 and a water quantity fee of $990.00.
11. The applicant's grading and erosion control plan shall be in conformance with the City's Best Management
Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan
shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval in conjunction with final plat review.
12. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The
City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20.00
per sign.
13. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and
wetland areas lying outside the right-of-way. The MWCC easement shall be increased from 20 feet wide to
30 feet wide centered over pipe.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE, CHAPTER 18 REGARDING PLATTING PROCEDURES, DATE
REOU1RED AND DESIGN STANDARDS AND CHAPTER 20 REGARDING DEFINITIONS;
IDENTIFICATION OF ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR STREETS, STANDARDS FOR SALES TRAILERS,
WETLA ND PROTECTION A ND SHORELA ND REGULATIONS, SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS A ND
THE FOLLOWING ZONING DISTRICTS OF PUD, A2, RSF, R8, BN-NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS, BH-
HIGHWAY & BUSINESS AND IOP-INDUSTRIAL OFFICE, FIRST READING.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. We call this the glitch ordinance. What this...clarify things that...or change or are
not longer appropriate. The Planning Commission had a work session on it and then held a public hearing and
there is a couple changes I'd like to go through with you. I wasn't going to go through all the changes. If you
had any questions you had specifically but what we're doing here is Chapter 18, xvhich is Subdivision
regulations and Chapter 20 from the City Code. Under Chapter 20, streets and their classifications such as
Section 20-5... The other discussion of the Planning Commission was the PUD ordinance. The Planning
Commission bad been tossing around the idea, similar to...because we feel like our tree ordinance and our slope
18
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1995
protection, our other ordinances...we're getting that anyway so we've always asked the question, well `.`.,hat are
we getting .... but what are we getting on the other end. So really the Planning Commission was of the mind
that maybe doing a cluster development..small lots and leaving the rest of it as open space, may be a better way
to do it.' But they felt this wouldn't be an appropriate place to do it. Making the change now...and they
recommended eliminating that. But other than the PUD, there was...changing the gross and net clarifications but
they want to leave the PUD ordinance as it is no,,','. Other than that, it's again updating and as I'm saying,
glitches...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Steve, do you have an5, questions?
Councilman Berquist: Yeah, I have got a couple. I tried to go through as much of this as I could. The Section
18-39(f')(c). Lack of adequate sanitalT sewer systems and not individual sewer treatment systems. Is that, I've
got to re-read it now and figure out what I was thinking when I read it the first time. A Subdivision is
premature if any of the following exists. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems and to not individual sewer
treatments. So a subdivision is premature if we don't have proper sewer and we do not have the capability of
putting in individual sewer?
Kate Aanenson: Right. Again the purpose of this...actually on the public sewer. Not individual. We don't want
to see small...large lots with individual septic tanks in the future. Our goal is to provide sewer. So if we have a
development that comes in and says, well I can provide individual septics. Right now the5, would be allowed to
do that. We've had circumstances where people have come in and.
Councilman Berquist: Tim Erhart's land for instance.
Kate Aanenson: Well that's existing but yeah, if he wants to right. If he wants to build up the rest of that, that
would be an option. But what we're saying, and this is again...wait until urban services are available for future...
so right now it could prevent someone from coming in, if they can demonstrate that the individual septics. And
it may be okay but we're saying...It just gives us an out to say it's premature right now. That would be...and it
may be appropriate in some areas where we can't service...
Councihnan Berquist: But this language does not rule out that type of project?
Kate Aanenson: No.
Councilman Berquist: In other words, if Timberwood came in again, it would still be a viable?
Kate Aanenson: It gives us the option to sa5, that it should wait until sewer's available. But we ma5, say...gives
the city the flexibility.
Councilman Berquist: Okay. Can I continue on?
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead.
Councilman Berquist: Section 18-40. And this is simply a housekeeping thing. You've got 10% or less and
then you've also got, 10% to 15%. Wouldn't you want to use 10% or less and greater than 10%? Right now
you've got 10% as both ends of the reference point. Yes or no?
19
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: She's reading.
Councihnan Berquist: Yes. Now I see that.
Kate Aanenson: The reason we changed it to 10...
Councilman Berquist: Well I knoxv but I mean wouldn't 11 to 15 be. I mean somebody's going to come in and
say, I don't knoxv. They never would but I'm trying to track documents. Definition of a sign or flag. You've
got 100 square feet. I seem to remember reading part of the Perkins Planning Commission approval. You
approved 80 square foot.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. They wanted to come in with...that was an issue that came up with the Highway 5
corridor study too and similarly with the...It got left out of the sign ordinance so we wanted to clarify what the
square footage could be. That's specifically stated in the...What we're saying is if they've got commercial...
Councihnan Berquist: Okay. And the only other one I had, I had actually typed something on. 20-978. This
one is referencing neighbors and contractors yards. In my neighborhood I have a couple of houses that may or
may not qualify as a contractors yard. What is it?
Kate Aanenson: Well the ordinance...home occupation ordinance 45% of the primary structure can...we have a
list that are acceptable and...Again, if they're running it out of their home, that's fine. It's when you have
outside employees parking cars that it becomes a problem.
Councilman Berquist: Well my exposure is minimal but I've gotten a number of phone calls from folks who
would like to see it a little bit more spelled out.
Kate Aanenson: Right, and that's what the intention of this is. It's to... Right noTM the list of things that you...
Councilman Berquist: Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Anything else?
Councilman Berquist: No, those were all I had. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I was mostly concerned with the PUD changes. But I do understand the
rationale so I guess I don't have any changes to what the Planning Commission put. Very small item under
Chapter 18, Section 18-37. On page 2. Change to Zoning Administrator. The City Cler'k/City Manager does
not administer as opposed to administrate. How's that for petty?
Councilman Mason: Good for you.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Other than that, I don't have any comments.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael.
20
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1995
Councilman Mason: I was going to sa}', nothing could be farther from the truth but.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That would be distance.
Councilman Mason: One question. On Section 18-60. Lots. It says, (i). Driveway grades shall be a minimum
of 1/2% and maximum grade of 10%. Does that mean you can't have a driveway going down then.'?
Kate Aanenson: Here's how we...fixing this. Right noxv when the), come in for a lot survey, you have to show
that you're under that percentage. Nowhere is there a standard when you come in that says you have to build to
this standard. Now if someone wants to come in xvith a plat and the only way they could develop their lot was
in excess of that, then we'd look at a variance through the subdivision process.
Councilman Senn: What if you don't give them a variance?
Councilman Mason: But then, aren't you creating unbuildable lots that way then?
Kate Aanenson: Well, if you're a lot of' record, it's there. And we have those situations throughout the city
right now. There are situations throughout the city where the)' exceed 10%. The goal is to try to have them
less than that. If someone were to come in today, certainly we have situations but...you knox,,' we've done them
on streets where the driveway's south facing or somewhere we can have a turn around or something with a
bottom landing area or something... But right now in the ordinance, it's standard in the building section when
you come in...you have to show that you're under that. But there's not a standard on the subdivisions so if
someone was to come in today, that's our goals is to get under 10%. If that's the only way to develop that
property, then that's certainly something we have to look at. I mean you have to decide whether or not, if
there's no other way to develop it, then you start looking at mitigation. Other ways to accomplish that.
Mayor Chmiel: Anything else Mike?
Councilman Mason: Well.
Kate Aanenson: This is the standard right now. It's just not in the right place in the code. I mean if you were
to come in today, we would tell you...It's a building regulations. It's a city ordinance right now but ifs not in
the subdivision. Yes, you're right. There are places where that's only...We've got some in Hesse Farms...
Councilman Mason: Carver Beach.
Councilman Senn: Right now the)' don't require a variance though._
Kate Aanenson: No, because they're lots of record. Right. But if a subdivision were to come in today,
certainly we would try to get them less than 10%. That's code. But sometimes you can't and then we'd look at
variances through the subdivision process to sa), well, we have to put...make it a larger lot or.
Councilman Berquist: It doesn't sa), it has to slope away from the house.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, alright.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mark.
21
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1995
Councilman Senn: I had the same questions you did but I'm still not sure I have the answer. I'm sort of
confused.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, it's already in the code. It's just not in the right place, is that what I'm
understanding? It already is a standard in the building code. It's not in our subdivision code.
Councilman Senn: But now by putting it in the subdivision code, we subject it to basically reviexv by variance
basically.
Kate Aanenson: No. When you come in to plat, just like anything else. We have street standards. Minimum
curves. You can't have access on certain widths of streets, depending on classification. Certain curves...and if
you don't want to have someone landing on a street. Sliding out of their driveway. It's a safety issue...so that's
where the 10% came in. Now in instances where you're right. You can't, there's no other way to develop.
Then you have to decide, maybe...and start looking at other ways to mitigate. Maybe you provide a landing.
You're right. There are instances where we...but we certainly feel that 10% is...If you're uncomfortable with
10% and you want to look at something...It's not desirable to have those kind of driveways. We don't want
grade problems and that's kind of our job is to try to minimize problems in the future. People can't get up and
down their driveways.
Councilman Senn: Maybe let me rephrase the question a little different way. If every lot of record which needs
to exceed 10% requires a variance, does that then all have to go through like Board of Adjustments and all that
_
sort of thing or is that something you're going to just do as administratively part of the subdivision process or
whatever?
Kate Aanenson' If they were to come in for a building permit? '-
Councilman Senn: Yeah.
Kate Aanenson: I talked to Roger on this issue. We've got one right now in Hesse Farm that came in and we
didn't make them get a variance because they're already using it as a driveway to get to their property. There's
really not that many that we've approved recently that have more than 10%. If it's a lot of record, I don't see.
If the subdivision's been approved, that's where you catch these...
Tom Scott: If it's a lot of record...
Kate Aancnson: If it's a lot of record, they've already gone through the process so this is part of the subdivision
review...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So it wouldn't be an individual property owner, or an individual buyer of a home
that would have to go through it. It would be the developer.
Kate Aanenson: Well what I'm saying right now is, it's there right now. If somebody came in on a lot of
record, but we've been letting those go through...
Councihnan Senn: Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions Mark?
22
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1995
Councilman Senn: Yeah. The only other one I had I guess that's really all that important. This is first reading?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Senn: Okay. So we've got a chance to kind of, I'm still not comfortable with the, our use of
words as it relates to single family attached and detached. Now I know you started to get at it in here. In some
spots. I would be a lot more comfortable if we would get consistent and have it in all spots. So either we're
referring to, you know single family attached and detached or if one or the other or whatever because we've got
some pretty major misunderstandings over that and you know, I know I asked earlier that you do some of that
and I noticed back under Section 20 and stuff you started to get into that but as I look through the ordinances in
totality, I mean if we are, if this is the glitch and kind of the clean-up time, I'd really like to go through and
make sure that those definitions are consistent all the way through. So somebody can't pick up the ordinances
and just look at this section and not see it delineated one way or the other there. Okay? And that was really
the only other major comment.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess everybody covered eveo'thing that they felt they needed to. I don't have
anything on it. So is there a motion to accept the first reading of the amendment to City Code, Chapter 182
Councilman Mason' So moved.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Councihnan Mason moved, Councihvoman Dockcndoff seconded to al)pmve the first madlng of the Amcn&ncnt
to Ci~' Code, Chapter 18 mganllng platting l)rocetlums, date rcrlui~c(1 and design standards; and Chapter 20
reganling definitions, identification of arterial anti collector streets, standards for sales trailers, wetland protection
and shomland regulations; supplemental regulations and the following zoning districts of PUD, A2, RSF, RS,
BN-Neighbodmod Business, BH-Highway Business, and lOP-Industrial Office Park. All voted in favor and the
motion canied unanimously.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: SET CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION, CITY MANAGER.
Don Ashworth: Hopefully the Council...Monday evening to pick up the issue that we talked about with the City
Hall expansion. I'll have Todd Christopherson go through the old bank building so he's prepared to speak to the
issues of whether or not that can be remodeled. You've asked for a longer period of time so it's the only item
that I would place onto that agenda and I would propose that we start earl),, 5:30 to 6:00. Whenever Council's
available. And I proposed that we do it as a, provide food.
Mayor Chmiel' Next Monday. How does that look? 17th?
Councilman Berquist: Fine, as far as I'm concerned.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's fine with me.
Councilman Mason: Yeah. Maybe this is, I'm just, clearly, well I always, well whatever. I don't understand
why we're having this work session, to be honest with you.
Councilman Senn: What time?
23