1b. Zoning Ordinance RSF Lot Frontage & Access by Private Driveways CITY 0
CHANHASSEN
i .
'4‘
�., 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX(612) 937-5739Action by City Administrator
Endorsed V )A
Modified
MEMORANDUM Rejecter'
Date (_C-Q
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Date subm«zd to Ccrmiscion
ilFROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director Date su5~~ed to Ccuncil
DATE: March 21, 1990
IISUBJ: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Dealing with Lot Frontage and
Access by Private Driveways - Final Reading and Approval
IIof Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes
On February 26, 1990, and later on March 12, 1990, the City Council
reviewed the proposed final reading on ordinance amendments dealing
II with lot frontage and access by =private driveways. The first
reading of the ordinance had been approved on February 12, 1990.
The ordinance is designed to allow the limited use of private
II driveways to serve lots where it is considered to be infeasible by
the city to construct a public street. Design standards and
increased setback standards for these lots have been provided. The
ordinance also redefines lot frontage requirements as they are
II applied to lots fronting on cul-de-sacs or curvilinear streets. At
the February 26th meeting, several questions were raised which
resulted in the ordinance's adoption being continued to allow for
II further refinement. Staff modified the ordinance to further define
what was meant by the use of the term "prevailing development
pattern makes it infeasible or inappropriate to construct a public
I street". Questions were also raised by Councilman Boyt who
recommended that public right-of-way be dedicated over the private
driveway to allow the construction of a public street at some point
in the future if it proves to be necessary. Staff raised concerns
11 over this proposal believing that it is inappropriate since the
intent of the ordinance is only to allow the use of private
driveways when there is no potential for a public street. It is
II our belief that if a public street 1s feasible, that this is what
should be required since it provides the highest level of access to
the individual parcels. Staff also modified the ordinance as
requested by the ordinance to require that private driveways be
1/ plowed in a manner that was consistent with plowing requirements
established for city streets. The ordinace was also modified to
require refined lot area standards.
1 The City Council reviewed the revised final draft of the ordinance
on March 12th. There were two areas of concern. The first was
II
II
I Mr. Don Ashworth
March 20, 1990
Page 2
that the city re qu irements for plowing should also be applied to
maintenance of the private driveway. Action on the ordinance was
again tabled to allow time for its refinement. Accordingly, the
City Attorney has revised; language to read that private driveways
must be maintained in godd condition and plowed within 24 hours of
' a snowfall greater than 2 inches. Covenants concerning maintenance
shall be filed against all benefiting properties. Parking on the
driveway or otherwise blocking all or part of the driveway shall be
prohibited. The ordinance further provides that private driveways
that are not usable by emergency vehicles because of obstructions,
snow accumulation and poor maintenance are public safety hazards
and therefore, the city may remedy such conditions by taking action
to fix the problem and assessing the cost back to the properties.
Several members of the Council continued to voice concerns over the
potential need of requiring the dedication of public right-of-way
over private driveways. It was believed that doing so would
provide a safeguard for the city on the chance that a city street
is needed at some point in the future. There was also concern
raised that future Councils may allow indiscriminate use of private
driveways.
11 Staff continues to oppose a unilateral requirement that right-of-
way dedication be required for private drives. We believe it
confuses the issue. The draft ordinance is designed solely for use
in those areas where a public road is infeasible and inappropriate
to construct. Requiring the dedication of public right-of-way
would have a number of repercussions. It would result in the
imposition of setback requirements since nobody could build in the
11 easement, it may be difficult or impossible to accommodate a full
width right-of-way depending on the underlying development pattern,
and most importantly, we believe it is misleading in that the
intent of this ordinance is not to provide unlimited use of private
driveways but rather to restrict their use only to appropriate
situations. However, we believe that the concern that was raised
is a valid one. We are proposing that Section (o) (2) be modified.
This section defines the instances where the City could consider
allowing the use of private driveways. This section would read as
follows, "After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded
11 that an extension of the public street system is not required to
serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or provide a
street system consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. IF THE CITY
DETERMINES THAT A PUBLIC STREET IS FEASIBLE OR WILL ULTIMATELY BE
REQUIRED TO SERVE PROPOSED OR POTENTIAL HOME SITES, THE PROVISION
OF FULL CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY AND A STREET INSTALLED TO FULL CITY
' STANDARDS SHALL BE REQUIRED." Staff hopes that the inclusion of
this language clarifies this matter.
I
I/
Mr. Don Ashworth
March 21, 1990
Page 3
STAFF RECOMMENDATION t
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the final reading of
the amendments for the Zoning Ordinance dealing with neck and flag
lots and lot frontage requirements and approve the summary of this
ordinance for publication purposes.
ATTACHMENTS
I
1. Ordinance amendment.
2. Staff report dated March 6, 1990, including City Council
minutes.
I
1
I
I
1
11
I
I
I
I
I
II
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
I/ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 18-57 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE CONCERNING STREETS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section 18-57 of the Chanhassen City Code is
amended to read:
(n) Public streets to be constructed in subdivisions
located inside the Year 2000 Metropolitan 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
Year 2000 Metropolitan Urban Service Area shall
conform to the ural standard requirements as
prepared by the City Engineer's office. The
consturction of private streets are prohibited.
(o) Up to four (4) lots may be sreved by a private
driveway if the City finds the following conditions
to exist:
11 (1) The prevailing development pattern makes it
infeasible 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.
j (2) After reviewing the surrounding area it is
concluded that an extension of the public
street system is not required to serve other
11 parcels in the area, improve access. or to
provide a street system consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. If the City determines
that a public street is feasible or will
ultimately be required to serve proposed or
potential homesites, the provision of full
City right-of-way and a street installed to
full city standards, shall be required.
(3) The use of a private driveway will permit
11 enhanced protection of wetlands and mature
trees.
If the use of private driveway is to be allowed,
they shall be subject to the following standards:
R
. II
(1) Common sections of private driveways serving
two (2) or more homes must be built to a seven 11
(7) tone design, paved to a width of twenty
(20) feet, utilize a maximum grade of ten
percent (10%) , and provide a turnaround area
acceptable to the fire marshal based, upon
guidelines provided by applicable fire codes.
Plans for the driveway shall be submitted to
the City Engineer. Upon completion of the
driveway, the applicant shall be required to
submit a set of "as-built" plans signed by a
registered civil engineer. I
(2) Private driveways must be maintained in good
condition and plowed within twenty-four hours
of a snowfall greater than two (2) inches.
Covenants concerning maintenance shall be
filed against all benefiting properties.
Parking on the driveway or otherwise blocking
all or part of the driveway shall be
prohibited.
(3) Private driveways that are not usable by 11
emergency vehicles because of objections, snow
accumulation, or poor maintenance are a public
safety hazard. The City may remedy such
conditions and assess the cost back to the
properties pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
Section 429.101, Subd. 1(c) .
(4) The driveway must be provided with drainage
improvements determined to be necessary by the
City Engineer.
(5) The driveway shall be designed to minimize
impacts upon adjoining parcels. The City may
require revised alignments and landscaping to
minimize impact.
(6) The driveway shall be designed to minimize
impacts upon adjoining parcels. The City may
require revised alignments and landscaping to
minimize impact.
(7) The driveway 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 (30) foot wide easement
that is permanently recorded over all
benefitted and impacted parcels.
-2- 1
R
r
(p) Private reserve strips controlling public access to
streets shall be prohibited.
Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon
its passage and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this
day of , 1990.
ATTEST:
I
Don Ashworth, City Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
(Summary published in the Chanhassen Villager on
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
II
I/
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE
ZONING ORDINANCE DEALING WITH NECK/FLAG LOTS AND LOT FRONTAGE
REQUIREMENTS AND CHAPTER 18, THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, DEALING
WITH STREETS
I
On , 1990, the City Council approved the final
reading of ordinance amendments pertaining to lots accessed by
private driveways and lot frontage requirements for lots on cul- 11
de-sacs and curvilinear streets. The amendments will allow the
platting of up to four lots accessed by a private driveway sub-
ject to meeting a series of findings. Construction standards for
these private driveways are established to insure that adequate
levels of access are provided. The amendments also allow for the
measurement of lot width at the building setback line for lots on
cul-de-sac bubbles and along the outside curve of curvilinear
streets.
Enforcement of this ordinance shall be subject to the provi-
sions of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. This ordinance
is in full force commencing on the date of publication of this
summary. I
Don Ashworth
City Manager
(Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1990) 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITY OF
,,
I .01, r_ , if cHANH. AssEN.
1
,, 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 Action byY ad
I
MEMORANDUM fndorset er
IITO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Rele4
FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director Dee Subsi ed to Con ni: io
IIDATE: March 6, 1990 Pate Sv=_m nee to cc c3
3 -«tea
I SUBJ: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Dealing with Lot Frontage and
Access by Private Driveways - Final Reading and Approval
of Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes
IIOn February 26, 1990, the City Council reviewed the final reading
on the ordinance dealing with lot frontage and access by private
II driveways. First reading of the ordinance was approved on
February 12, 1990. The ordinance is designed to allow the
limited use of private driveways to serve lots where it is
11 inappropriate to consider constructing a public street. Design
standards and increased setback standards for these lots are pro-
vided. The ordinance also defines lot frontage requirements as
they are applied to lots fronting on cul-de-sacs or curvilinear
IIstreets.
A
At the February 26th meeting, several questions were raised per-
11 taining to the ordinance leading to the City Council 's action to
continue the item for further study. Section 1, (0) (1) contains
a statement that "the prevailing development pattern makes it
II infeasible or inappropriate to construct _ public street" .
Councilman Boyt asked that this language be refined to make it
clear that, among other things, if a private drive exists on a
neighboring property that it does not automatically entitle the
II adjoining property to have a private drive as well: Staff indi-
cated that by the "prevailing development pattern" we meant that
the layout of lots and placement of homes relative to public
II rights-of-way and wetlands makes it, inappropriate or infeasible
to construct a public street. We have added revised language to
the ordinance to clarify this point.
IIThe next item of concern came from Councilman Boyt who recom-
mended that public right-of-way be dedicated over the private
driveway to allow the construction of a public street at some
11 point in the future if it proves necessary. Staff raised con-
cerns with this proposal at the meeting and continues to believe
that it is inappropriate. Our reason being that if a public
11
II
Mr. Don Ashworth
March 6, 1990
Page 2
I/
street was thought to be feasible to service a subdivision, we
would not recommend approval of a private driveway. The only
time in which the private driveway ordinance is to be utilized
comes after a finding is made that the extension of the public
street system is not feasible to serve other parcels in the area,
improve access, or provide,' a street system consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. :Therefore, we are not recommending that any
changes be made with the language in this area. I
The final matter concerned the maintenance of private driveways
in good and plowed condition. The City Attorney was asked
to draft language that would obligate the owners to maintain and
plow the driveway. Such language has been prepared where the
owner is obligationed to plow the driveway within 24 hours of a
snowfall greater than 2 inches. If the driveway is not plowed
within 24 hours, the city may plow the driveway and assess the
cost back to the property owner. This language has been included
in the draft. I
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the foregoing, staff recommends that the City Council I
approve the final reading to the amendments for the zoning ordi-
nance dealing with neck/flag lots and lot frontage requirements
and approve the summary of this ordinance for publication pur- I
poses.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Revised ordinance and summary.
2. Staff report for February 26, 1990 packet.
I
I
I
i
I
11
I
II - CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
s AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 18-57 OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
ENTITLED STREETS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section 18-57 of the Chanhassen Subdivision
Ordinance entitled "Sreets" shall be amended as follows:
(n) Public streets to be constructed in subdivisions located
inside the year 2000 metropolitan 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 sub-
divisions located outside the year 2000 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.
(o) Up to four (4) lots may be served by a private driveway
if the City finds the following conditions to exist:
11 (1) The prevailing development pattern makes it
infeasible or inappropriate to construct a public
street. In making this determination the City may
consider the location of existing property lines
I/ and homes, local to 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.
( 3) The use of a private driveway will permit enhanced
protection of wetlands and mature trees.
If the use of private driveway is to be allowed, they
1 shall be subject to the following standards:
(1) Common sections of private driveways serving two
(2) or more homes must be built to a seven (7) ton
design, paved to a width of twenty (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. Plans for the driveway shall be submitted
to the city engineer. Upon completion of the
driveway, the applicant shall be required to submit
a set of "as-built" plans signed by a registered
civil engineer.
I
I
II
(2) Private driveways 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
driveway or otherwise blocking all or part of the
driveway shall be prohibited. If the -driveway is
not plowed within twenty-four (24) hours of a
snowfall greater than two (2) inches, the City may
plow the driveway and assess the cost back to the
property pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section
429.101, Subd. 1(c) .
(3) The driveway must be provided with drainage
improvements determined to be necessary by the city
engineer.
(4) Street addresses or city approved street name sign,
if required, must be posted at the point where
the private driveway intersects the public
right-of-way.
(5) The driveway shall be designed to minimize impacts
upon adjoining parcels. The city may require
revised alignments and landscaping to minimize
impact.
(6) The driveway 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 (30) ft. wide easement that is permanently
recorded over all benefitted and impacted parcels. I
(p) Private reserve strips controlling public access to
streets shall be prohibited. I
Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately
upon its passage and publication.
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this
day of , 1990.
ATTEST:
/1
Don Ashworth, City Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
I
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1990)
11
-2-
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
ICARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE
DEALING WITH NECK/FLAG LOTS AND ACCESS BY
PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS
The City Council of the City of Chanhassen Ordains as
follows:
Section 1. ' Section 20-1, Definitions, of the Chanhassen
City Code is amended to read:
Neck lot/flag lot means a lot that does not provide the full
required frontage on a public right-of-way but rather is served
by a narrow "neck" of land that extends to the street. To meet
the definition the neck must be at least 30 feet wide.
11 Section 2. Article XI, RR, Rural Residential District,
Section 20-595 shall be revised as follows:
Section 20-595. Lot Requirements and setbacks.
The following minimum requirements shall be observed an the
11 "RR" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and
modifications set forth in this chapter:
•
(1) The minimum lot area is two and one-half (2}) acres, sub-
ject to Section 20-906
(2) The minimum lot frontage is two hundred (200) feet, except
that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac "bubble" or along the
outside curve of a curvilinear street section shall be two
hundred (200) feet in width at the building setback line.
The location of these lots is conceptually illustrated
below. Lot width on neck or flag lots or lots accessed by
private driveways shall also have their lot width measured
at the building setback line.
(3) The minimum lot depth is two hundred (200) feet.
1 (4) The maximum lot coverage is twenty (20) percent.
(5) The setbacks are as follows:
a. For front yards, fifty (50) feet.
b. For rear yards, fifty (50) feet.
c. For side yards, ten (10) feet.
(6) The setbacks for lots served by private driveways and/or
flag and neck lots, are as follows:
a. For front yards, thirty (30) feet. The front yard
shall be the lot line nearest the public right-of-way
I
I
that provides access to the parcel. The rear lot line
is to be located opposite from the front lot line with
the remaining exposures treated as side lot lines. On
neck/flag lots the front yard setback shall be
measured at the point nearest the front lot line where II
the lot achieves a two hundred (200) foot width.
b. For rear yards, fifty (50) feet.
c. For side yards, fifty (50) feet.
(7) The maximum height is as follows:
a. For the. prigcipal structure, three (3) stories/forty
(40) feet.
b. For accessory structures, three (3) stories/forty (40) ft. I
(8) The minimum driveway separate is as follows:
a. If the driveway is on a collector street, four hundred I
(400) feet.
b. If the drivway is on an arterial street, one thousand
two hundred fifty (1,250) feet.
Section 3. Section 20-615 entitled Lot Requirements and
Setbacks shall be amended to read as follows: I
The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an
"RSF" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and
modifications set forth in this chapter:
(1) The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand (15,000 square
feet) . For neck or flag lots, the lot area requirements
`shall be met after the area contained within the "neck"
has been excluded from consideration.
(2) The minimum lot frontage is ninety (90) feet, except
that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac "bubble" or along the
outside curve of curvilinear street sections shall be
ninety (90) feet in width at the building setback line.
The location of this lot is conceptually illustrated below.
Lots Where Frontage Is I
Measured At Setback Line
r ",; Tiel;
• •
•
•
•
-2-
II (3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred twenty-five (125)
feet.
The location of these lots is conceptually illustrated below.
I Lot width on neck or flag lots and lots accessed by private
driveways shall be one hundred (100) feet as measured at the
front building setback line.
11 - (4) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved
surfaces is twenty-five (25) percent.
II (5) The setbacks are as follows:
(a) For front ,yards, thirty (30) feet.
II (b) For rear yards, thirty (30) feet.
(c) For side yards, ten (10) feet
II (6) The setbacks for lots served by private driveways and/or
flag and neck lots, are as follows:
a. For front yard, thirty (30) feet. The front yard
II shall be the lot line nearest the public right-of-way
that provides access to the parcel. The rear yard
lot line is to be located opposite from the front lot
I line with the remaining exposures treated as side lot
lines. On neck lots the front yard setback shall be
measured at the point nearest the front lot line
II where the lot achieves a one hundred (100) foot
-minimum width.
b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet.
II ' c. For side yards, twenty (20) feet.
I . Nock I Flag Lots
IIFron Lot Lin •
II i
s seem
1 1 1 1
II 1 1 1
•
100 Lot Width 1 i
J 1
I II I
1 ' 1
1 1 1
1. _ L........!_ -J
II
(7) The maximum height is as follows:
IIa. For the principal structure, (three (3)
stories/forty (40) feet.
11 -3-
II
b. For accessory structures, three (3) stories/forty - 1
(40) feet.
Section 4. This ordinance shall be effective immediately - I
upon its passage and publication.
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this
day of , 1990.
ATTEST: I
I
Don Ashworth, City Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1990) 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-4- 1
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE
ZONING ORDINANCE DEALING WITH NECK/FLAG LOTS AND LOT FRONTAGE
REQUIREMENTS AND CHAPTER 18, THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, DEALING
WITH STREETS
On , 1990, the City Council approved the final
reading of ordinance amendments pertaining to lots accessed by
private driveways and lot frontage requirements for lots on cul-
de-sacs and curvilinear streets. The amendments will allow the
1 platting of up to four lots accessed by a private driveway sub-
ject to meeting a series of findings. Construction standards for
these private driveways are established to insure that adequate
levels of access are provided. The amendments also allow for the
measurement of lot width at the building setback line for lots on
cul-de-sac bubbles and along the outside curve of curvilinear
streets.
1
Enforcement of this ordinance shall be subject to the provi-
sions of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. This ordinance
is in full force commencing on the date of publication of this
summary.
Don Ashworth
City Manager
(Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1990)
I
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 18-57 OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
ENTITLED STREETS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section 1;8-57 of the Chanhassen Subdivision
Ordinance entitled "Streets" shall be amended as follows:
(n) Public streets to be constructed in subdivisions located
inside the year 2000 metropolitan 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 sub-
divisions located outside the year 2000 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.
(o) Up to four (4) lots may be served by a private driveway
if the City finds the following conditions to exist:
(1) The prevailing development pattern makes it
infeasible or inappropriate to construct a public
street. Locations of existing homes, property
lines and potential future home sites may be
considered.
(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.
( 3) The use of a private driveway will permit enhanced
protection of wetlands and mature trees.
If the use of private driveway is to be allowed, they
shall be subject to the following standards: I
(1) Common sections of private driveways serving two
(2) or more homes must be built to a seven (7) ton
design, paved to a width of twenty (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. Plans for the driveway shall be submitted
to the city engineer. Upon completion of the
driveway, the applicant shall be required to submit
a set of "as-built" plans signed by a registered
civil engineer.
. 1
l
(2) Private driveways must be maintained in good
condition and plowed as needed. Covenants
concerning maintenance shall be filed against all
benefitting properties. Parking or otherwise
blocking all or part of the driveway shall be pro-
hibited.
( 3) The driveway must be provided with drainage
improvements determined to be necessary by the city
engineer.
( 4) Street:addresses or city approved street name sign,
if required, must be posted at the point where
the private driveway intersects the public
right-of-way.
( 5) The driveway shall be designed to minimize impacts
upon adjoining parcels. The city may require
revised alignments and landscaping to minimize
impact.
( 6) The driveway 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 ( 30) ft. wide easement that is permanently
recorded over all benefitted and impacted parcels.
(p) Private reserve strips controlling public access to
streets shall be prohibited.
Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately
upon its passage and publication.
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this
day of , 1990.
ATTEST:
I
Don Ashworth, City Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on 1990)
I
1
1 -2
I
. 11
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN I
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE I
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE
DEALING WITH NECK/FLAG LOTS AND ACCESS BY
PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS I
The City Council' of the City of Chanhassen Ordains as
follows:
Section 1. Section 20-1, Definitions, of the Chanhassen
City Code is amended to read:
Neck lot/flag lot means a lot that does not provide the full
required frontage on a public right-of-way but rather is served
by a narrow "neck" of land that extends to the street. To meet
the definition the neck must be at least 30 feet wide.
Section 2. Article XI, RR, Rural Residential District,
Section 20-595 shall be revised as follows:
Section 20-595. Lot Requirements and setbacks.
The following minimum requirements shall be observed an the I
"RR" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and
modifications set forth in this chapter: 1
(1) The minimum lot area is two and one-half (21) acres, sub-
ject to Section 20-906
(2) The minimum lot frontage is two hundred (200) feet, except
that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac "bubble" or along the
outside curve of a curvilinear street section shall be two
hundred (200) feet in width at the building setback line.
The location of these lots is conceptually illustrated
below. Lot width on neck or flag lots or lots accessed by
private driveways shall also have their lot width measured
at the building setback line.
(3) The minimum lot depth is two hundred (200) feet. I
(4) The maximum lot coverage is twenty (20) percent.
(5) The setbacks are as follows: 1
a. For front yards, fifty (50) feet.
b. For rear yards, fifty ( 50) feet.
I/
c. For side yards, ten (10) feet.
(6) The setbacks for lots served by private driveways and/or
flag and neck lots, are as follows:
a. For front yards, thirty ( 30) feet. The front yard
shall be the lot line nearest the public right-of-way
I
- that provides access to the parcel. The rear lot line
is to be located opposite from the front lot line with
the remaining exposures treated as side lot lines. On
neck/flag lots the front yard setback shall be
measured at the point nearest the front lot line where
the lot achieves a two hundred (200) foot width.
b. For rear yards, fifty (50) feet.
c. For side yards, fifty (50) feet.
11 (7) The maximum height is as follows:
a. For the= principal structure, three (3) stories/forty
( 40) feet.
b. For accessory structures, three (3) stories/forty (40) ft.
(8) The minimum driveway separate is as follows:
a. If the driveway is on a collector street, four hundred
( 400) feet.
b. If the drivway is on an arterial street, one thousand
two hundred fifty (1,250) feet.
Section 3. Section 20-615 entitled Lot Requirements and
Setbacks shall be amended to read as follows:
The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an
"RSF" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and
modifications set forth in this chapter:
(1) The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand (15,000 square
feet) . For neck or flag lots, the lot area requirements
shall be met after the area contained within the "neck"
has been excluded from consideration.
( 2) The minimum lot frontage is ninety (90) feet, except
that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac "bubble" or along the
outside curve of curvilinear street sections shall be
ninety (90) feet in width at the building setback line.
The location of this lot is conceptually illustrated below.
Lots Where Frontage Is
Measured At Setback Line
• • . •
•
I c
L
• i.. • •�
•t
-2-
(3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred twenty-five (125)
feet.
The location of these lots is conceptually illustrated below. ,
Lot width on neck or flag lots and lots accessed by private
driveways shall be one hundred (100) feet as measured at the
front building setback line. 1
- (4) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved
surfaces is twenty-five (25) percent. I
(5) The setbacks are as follows:
(a) For front yards, thirty (30) feet. I
(b) For rear yards, thirty (30) feet.
(c) For side yards, ten (10) feet
(6) The setbacks for lots served by private driveways and/or
flag and neck lots, are as follows:
a. For front yard, thirty (30) feet. The front yard i
shall be the lot line nearest the public right-of-way
that provides access to the parcel. The rear yard
lot line is to be located opposite from the front lot
line with the remaining exposures treated as side lot
lines. On neck lots the front yard setback shall be
measured at the point nearest the front lot line
where the lot achieves a one hundred (100) foot
-minimum width.
b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet. 1
c. For side yards, twenty (20) feet.
. Neck I Flag Lots
Fron Lot Lin • 1
(nut
• • i •
•
•
•
• 1 1 '
100 Lot Width
a.+.11411.
(7) The maximum height is as follows: I
a. For the principal structure, (three (3)
stories/forty (40) feet. i
-3-
I
b. For accessory structures, three ( 3) stories/forty
I ( 40) feet.
Section 4. This ordinance shall be effective immediately
upon its passage and publication.
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this -
day of , 1990.
ATTEST:
I
Don Ashworth, City Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
I
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1990)
I
I
I
11
I
1
I
I/
I
I
-4-
i
- !
ORDINANCE NO. 1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ,
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE
ZONING ORDINANCE DEALING WITH NECK/FLAG LOTS AND LOT FRONTAGE
REQUIREMENTS AND CHAPTER 18, THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, DEALING
WITH STREETS
On , 1990, the City PP Council approved the final
reading of ordinance amendments pertaining to lots accessed by
private driveways and lot frontage requirements for lots on cul-
de-sacs and curvilinear streets. The amendments will allow the
platting of up to four lots accessed by a private driveway sub-
ject to meeting a series of findings. Construction standards for
these private driveways are established to insure that adequate
levels of access are provided. The amendments also allow for the
measurement of lot width at the building setback line for lots on
cul-de-sac bubbles and along the outside curve of curvilinear
streets.
Enforcement of this ordinance shall be subject to the provi-
sions of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. This ordinance
is in full force commencing on the date of publication of this
summary. i
Don Ashworth
City Manager I
(Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1990) 1
I
I
11
I
I
I
Councilman Johnson: Absolutely.
IlL
Councilwaran Dimler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the amendment
to modify the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance to clarify lot depth requirements
as shown on Attachment #7 amending Section 20-263(13) (c) to read the planting
and maintenance of trees and shrubs; and to amend the last paragraph to read:
To the extent feasible, the City ray impose such conditions even after approval
of the beachlot. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
I ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT FOR RSF DISTRICT STANDARDS DEALING WITH LOT FRONTAGE
AND ACCESS BY PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS, FIRST READING.
Paul Krauss: Over the past 6 months the issue of accessing single family lots
by private driveway has been discussed on several occasions. This type of
access is currently not allowed or requires a variance on your part which has
been granted most recently, as I recall in the Vineland Forest subdivision.
When these things had cone up, staff has indicated a belief that this type of
lot may often represent the most sensitive way to develop an otherwise
acceptable residential parcel. In discussions with the Council, staff was
directed to propose an ordinance revision that would deal with this matter
directly. We've drafted such an ordinance and basically what it does is it
allows up to 4 lots to be accessed by a private driveway. However, since it's
our preference that lots be accessed by public right-of-way if possible, there's
' a series of standards proposed. First, there is criteria outlining when a
private drive would be considered. Basically they're findings. Findings that
the applicant would have to demonstrate to your satisfaction. Basically they
constitute a demonstration that the private drive option is the most
environmentally sensitive option in that it doesn't impact adjoining parcels or
minimizes impact on adjoining parcels. The ordinance then outlines very
stringent standards for the construction of private drives. The standards are
particularly stringent because we believe we have to maintain a legitimate
access both for the people that live there and for the City emergency vehicles.
Finally, recognizing that neck lots or flag lots or lots accessed by private
driveways oftentimes are different or are out of place in the neighborhood as it
develops, if you have homes lining a street, this is behind that, we wanted to
provide sage additional protection for the adjoining properties. So we've
proposed that the 90 foot lot width be increased to 100 feet and that the 10
foot sideyard setback be increased to 20 feet. We really want to avoid
impacting people's rear yard areas and we think that this goes a way to doing
that. The drafted ordinance would also seek to clarify lot frontage
requirements on lots fronting on cul-de-sacs and curvalinear streets. You may
recall this also came up during the Vineland Forest subdivision. The ordinance
right now allows you to measure lot frontage at the building setback line on
cul-de-sacs. It doesn't say where on cul-de-sacs. We're proposing that it be
changed so you measure it that way on cul-de-sac bubbles or an outside curves
along curvalinear streets where the same situation results. The Planning
Commission reviewed the draft in January and recommended several changes. Most
noteably they requested that similar standards be allowed in the rural
residential district. The City Attorney also requested some changes and both
his and the Planning Commission changes have been incorporated. The ordinance
was drafted in consultation with the fire chief and the fire marshal' and we
11 71
beleive responds to their needs and fire code requirements. It was also
reviewed by the Public Safety Commission earlier last week and they
recommended that it be approved. With that we're recommending that the li
first reading of the ordinance be approved.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay thank you. Any discussion? Not hearing any.
Councilman Boyt: I'd add one thing. Excuse me. That is that the-main body
of the lot should meet 15,000 square foot standard.
Councilman Johnson: Right. It's not included in the flag. 11
Councilman Boyt: That's right. i
Mayor Chmiel: Not including the flag.
Councilman Workman: This is the first reading? I
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Is there a motion?
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the first I
reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment for RSF District standards dealing
with lot frontage and access by private drives amended to read that the
main body of the lot, not including the neck, shall meet the 15,000 square II
foot minimum requirement. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
I
SET SPECIAL MEETING DATES: A. REFUNDING BONDS OF 1990/CITY AUDITORS/
I/
POSITION CLASSIFICIATION PLAN.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to set the date of
Tuesday, March 6, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. as the meeting date for the City
Auditors and Position Classification Plan and approved Resolution #90-18
calling for the sale of the 1990 Refunding Bonds. All voted in favor and 11
the motion carried.
B. BOARD OF REVIEW AND EQUALIZATION.
The City Council set the meeting date of Tuesday, May 15, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. II
for the Board of Review and Equalization.
COMMISSION INTERVIEW PROCESS, COUNCILWOMAN DIMLER. I
Councilwoman Dimler: That is a resolution to establish procedure for
filling commission vacancies. I don't know if you've all had a chance to II
read it but it deals with the commission never risking the lack of a
quorum. It also deal with the encumbants knowing that they're reappointed
prior to the expiration date. It deals with the new appointees having time I
to become acquainted with their responsibilities prior to taking office on
January 1st. And there are 5 recommendations then that the advertisement
announcing the commission vacancies be placed in the official newspaper
during the first week in October and shall be published 3 consecutive
weeks. Number two, that after the third publication, application process
shall remain open for another 2 weeks. Item 3, the commission members -
interviewing applicants at their regular scheduled meeting
- - 72 1
11
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES
FEBRUARY 8, 1990
PAGE 1
PRESENT: Bill Bernhjelm ABSENT: Wayne Wenzlaff
Bill Boyt
Craig Blechta
Barb Klick
STAFF PRESENT: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director
Dale Gregc3ry, Fire Chief
(Public Safety Commission applicants were interviewed from
6:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. )
' Co-Chairman Bernhjelm opened the meeting at 9:00 P.M.
Director Jim Chaffee discussed the memo from Planning Director
Paul Krauss regarding the proposed revisions to the zoning ordi-
nance dealing with neck/flag lots and lot frontage requirements.
Lengthy discussion followed among the commission members with
additional comments from Dale Gregory, Fire Chief, and Sgt. Bob
VanDenBroecke. Craig Blechta motioned, Bill Boyt seconded, to
accept staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission
11 A approve the proposed ordinance changes dealing with neck lots and
lots accessd by private drives. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Sgt. VanDenBroecke discussed the pin map of accident locations
and will bring additional traffic report information at the April
meeting.
Fire Chief Dale Gregory mentioned that the Fire Department ended
the year of 1989 with 370 calls, 10 less than 1988 with 380
' calls. There are currently 36 members of the Fire Department.
Discussion followed on the 18-40 year old age limit to join the
Department. The committee is leaving next Friday, 2/16, to
review the aerial ladder truck which will be delivered in 2-3
weeks. Bill Boyt suggested getting a name plate with all the
current members names on it and displaying it on the back of the
new aerial truck. Jim Chaffee mentioned the promotion of Mark
Littfin to Fire Marshal and Dale Gregory to Fire Chief for
another 2 year term.
Bill Boyt suggested getting a notice in the paper concerning the
water shortage and the need to establish an even/odd sprinkling
ban. He also suggested the need to notify homeowners/contractors
not to seed or sod this spring.
Jim Chaffee mentioned he received 2 applications for the Police
Study Committee.
Barb Klick motioned, Bill Bernhjelm seconded, to adjourn the
meeting at 9:40 P.M. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
I
/ ..'
v. CITY OF
1 ,
1....::.................,
. .2...,' ' CHANHASSEN . ,
•. „,. . , .," .
• , .. •
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I
_ (612)937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 Acton by Obi Administrator
✓ b
Bidorse� ....._d_001-
MEMORANDUM Modified_— I
Rejecte
TO: Don Ashworth,' City Manager Dot a'4
0/)}/ Date Submitted to Commission
FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director (/JY' _,
We Submitted to Council
DATE: February 5, 1990 eZ - /a• /rj I
SUBJ: Proposed Revisions to the Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances Dealing with Neck/Flag Lots and Lot Frontage
Requirements II
BACKGROUND I
During the review of several recent development proposals, staff
became aware of two related problems with the Zoning Ordinance.
The first deals with neck lots and ,lots accessed by private drive-
ways. The Subdivision Ordinance allows up to four lots to be
accessed by private drives [Section ,18-57(n) ] outside the MUSA
line subject to certain criteria, but does not provide similar
II
flexibility in serviced areas. The ordinance formerly allowed up
to three homes on private drives anywhere in the City, but this
was deleted several years ago. In any, case, the City continues
II
to receive requests for ,this type of development, most recently
with the Vineland Forest plat. The RSF district requires that
all lots must have a minimum lot frontage of 90 feet, thus II precluding the possibility of developing neck lots or lots served
by private driveway without the granting of variances. (A neck
or flag lot is a lot whose only street frontage is a narrow strip
of land leading up to the homesite. ` typically, the only purpose
II
of the neck is to accommodate the- riveway,, ,=rF-
Staff believes that there are valid reasons to consider
II
approval of neck lots and lots accessed by private drives. It is
occasionally inappropriate to force construction of a full stan-
dard public street. The use of private driveways can result in 11 decreased environmental impact due to their more flexible design.
In addition, the development pattern in an area may preclude the
option of constructing a public street since it may serve only
one or two lots. It may be economically unviable to build a
il
street or a street could impact lots located outside the plat (for
example if a road is run along rear property lines) . At the same
time, lots having little or no frontage on a public right-of-way
II
can provide high quality homesites that are accessed in a manner
that is sensitive to these limitations. The use of private drives
I
I
Mr. Don Ashworth
II February 5, 1990
Page 2
could also allow property owners to maximize the utilization
of their land. Consequently, we are proposing revised ordinance
language that would give the City discretion to allow neck lots
I and access by private drives. The ordinance is designed so that
the City may approve these situations, if certain criteria are
met, without resorting to the need to grant a variance. We
believe the continued reliance on variances to resolve these
situations as done in the past is inappropriate and would compro-
mise the City' s ability to exercise the high degree of control
' needed to regulate them. The ordinance lists the situations
where these alternatives may be appropriate, provides building
setback standards appropriate to these lots and provides design
standards to insure that the private driveway is constructed to
acceptable standards. The ordinance states that the City Council
may allow the use of private drives and/or neck lots when it
finds that the following conditions exist:
' 1. Due to topography and/or the surrounding development pat-
tern the City determines that it is not feasible to
construct a full width public street.
2. The use of a private drive results in enhanced environ-
mental protection for wetlands, tree cover and drainage
ways.
3. The City determines that a public street serving the
11 subject and adjacent properties will not be a viable
option in the future.
4. Use of a private drive minimizes inpact on adjacent par-
cels located outside the plat.
PRIVATE DRIVEWAY STANDARDS
Private driveways would be subject to high development standards.
The standards include, but are not limited to the following:
1. No more than 4 homes are to be accessed by a private
drive.
I 2. Private drives serving 2 or more homes must be built to a
minimum 7 ton design, be paved to a width of 20 feet,
utilize grades not exceeding 10% and provide a turnaround
11 area acceptable to the Fire Marshal.
3. Private drives must be maintained in good condition.
Covenants outlining responsibilities for joint main-
tenance must be filed with the benefitting properties.
4. The driveway must be provided with drainage improvements
determined to be necessary by the City Engineer.
5. Street addresses must be clearly posted where the drive-
way meets the public right-of-way.
Mr. Don Ashworth 1
February 5, 1990
Page 4 '
In the past, staff has frequently made a determination that the
cul-de-sac standard should be applied to curvilinear streets to
avoid variance situations. This procedure is legally
questionable but it has become normal operating procedure.
The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal at their January 1
17, 1990 meeting. They unanimously recommended adoption of the
ordinance with two minor 'changes. The most significant revision
discussed at that meeting was to add clarification that the drive-
way construction standards only apply to those sections of the
driveway which were used in common by two or more homes. At the
special Planning Commission meeting to discuss the Comprehensive
Plan, the Commissioners informed staff that they would prefer to
have similar standards as had been proposed in the RSF District
also apply to development in the Rural Residential District.
Staff saw no problem with this approach since the issues of
construction on curvilinear and cul-de-sac street sections and
dealing with neck lots and private driveways are similar. These
changes have been incorporated in the draft ordinance. I
Staff also discussed the matter with the City Attorney. He indi-
cated that several revisions should be incorporated to achieve
the desired purpose. The first was that a definition should be
provided for neck and flag lots. Staff could find no formal
definition in any planning texts for these lots, so one was
drafted. In addition, it was suggested that the manner in which
the determination is to be made as to which is the front lot line
on a neck or flag lot could be difficult to manage and that it
should be revised. The original proposal was for the City to
establish what the front lot line was at the time the plat was
filed. Staff had proposed this since it is often unclear as to
what is effectively the front lot line when there is no street
frontage. Based upon comments received from the City Attorney,
we have modified the ordinance so that the front lot line will
be the lot line nearest to the public right-of-way that provides
access to the parcel. Thus we believe the matter can be resolved ,
quite simply.
As a result of these discussions, staff reviewed the draft and
has proposed one additional change. We are proposing that the
lot width of neck or flags lots or lots accessed by private
driveways in the RSF District be increased from 90 feet to 100
feet minimum. We had already proposed that the side lot lines be
increased from 10 feet to 20 feet to minimize potential impacts
of rear yard development and now believe that the larger lot
width is required to insure that a sufficient buildable area
remains. This change has also been incorporated.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION I
Staff recommends that the City Council approve first reading for
the proposed ordinance amendments dealing with neck lots and lots
accessed by private drives.
I
! -
Mr. Don Ashworth
I - February 5, 1990
Page 5
NOTE: A copy of this ordinance has been submitted to the Public
Safety Commission for review and is scheduled for discussion .at
their February 8th meeting. This issue has been discussed by
them in the past and they have indicated a desire to have street
names posted for private drives. They may also wish to provide
added language to insure ,that the driveways are maintained in a
' passable condition. Any recommendations made by the Public
Safety Commission will be incorporated into the second reading of
the ordinance. Staff discussed the proposal with the Fire Chief
and Fire Marshal and they indicated support for the concept.
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITY OF CHANHASSEN - ,
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. ,
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 18-57 OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
ENTITLED STREETS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section 18-57 of the Chanhassen Subdivision ,
Ordinance entitled "Streets" shall be amended as follows:
(n) Public streets to be constructed in subdivisions located I
inside the year 2000 metropolitan 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 sub-
divisions located outside the year 2000 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.
P._:---L- �-- '
___ .___ __lute whic}l provide access to morc than four
_ - •
(1) Reservation of a sixty foot easement;
eab-le city standards when the drive provides access
to three (3) or four (4) lots. Private drivcs in
these situations may contain a gravel surface.
Private drives to be shared by two ( 2) lots do not
wed appropriate by the city. ,
(3) Subdivision in excess of four ( 4) lots shall be
dards. Direct access to a collector or arterial
strcet shall not be permittcd when an internal
(0) UP TO FOUR (4) LOTS MAY BE SERVED BY A PRIVATE DRIVEWAY
IF THE CITY FINDS THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS TO EXIST: I
(1) THE PREVAILING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN MAKES IT
INFEASIBLE OR INAPPROPRIATE TO CONSTRUCT A PUBLIC
STREET. LOCATIONS OF EXISTING HOMES, PROPERTY
LINES AND POTENTIAL FUTURE HOME SITES MAY BE
CONSIDERED. —'
I
I
( 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.
( 3) THE USE OF A PRIVATE DRIVEWAY WILL PERMIT ENHANCED
PROTECTION OF WETLANDS AND MATURE TREES.
IF THE USE OF PRIVATE DRIVEWAY IS TO BE ALLOWED, THEY
SHALL BE SUBJECT •TO THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS:
(1) COMMON SECTIONS OF PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS SERVING TWO
( 2) OR MORE HOMES MUST BE BUILT TO A SEVEN ( 7) TON
DESIGN, PAVED TO A WIDTH OF TWENTY ( 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. PLANS FOR THE DRIVEWAY SHALL BE SUBMITTED
TO THE CITY ENGINEER. UPON COMPLETION OF THE
DRIVEWAY, THE APPLICANT SHALL BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT
A SET OF "AS-BUILT" PLANS SIGNED BY A REGISTERED
ICIVIL ENGINEER.
( 2 ) PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS MUST BE MAINTAINED IN GOOD
CONDITION AND PLOWED AS NEEDED. COVENANTS
CONCERNING MAINTENANCE SHALL BE FILED AGAINST ALL
BENEFITTING PROPERTIES.
' ( 3) THE DRIVEWAY MUST BE PROVIDED WITH DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS DETERMINED TO BE NECESSARY BY THE CITY
ENGINEER.
' (4 ) STREET ADDRESSES MUST BE POSTED AT THE POINT WHERE
THE PRIVATE DRIVEWAY INTERSECTS THE PUBLIC
' RIGHT-OF-WAY.
( 5) THE DRIVEWAY SHALL BE DESIGNED TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS
UPON ADJOINING PARCELS. THE CITY MAY REQUIRE
REVISED ALIGNMENTS AND LANDSCAPING TO MINIMIZE
IMPACT.
(6) THE DRIVEWAY 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 ( 30) FT. WIDE EASEMENT THAT IS PERMANENTLY
RECORDED OVER ALL BENEFITTED AND IMPACTED PARCELS.
(p) Private reserve strips controlling public access to
11 streets shall be prohibited.
Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately
upon its passage and publication.
-2-
I
I
I
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this
day of , 1990.
ATTEST:
1
Don Ashworth, City Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
I
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1990)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-3-
I
ORDINANCE NO.
II CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE
' CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE
The City Council of the City of Chanhassen Ordains as
follows:
Section 1. . Section 20-1, Definitions, of the Chanhassen
' City Code is amended to read:
Neck lot/flag lot means a lot that does not provide the full
' required frontage on a public right-of-way but rather is served
by a narrow "neck" of land that extends to the street. To meet
the definition the neck must be at least 30 feet wide.
' Section 2. Article XI, RR, Rural Residential District,
Section 20-595 shall be revised as follows:
' Section 20-595. Lot Requirements and setbacks.
The following minimum requirements shall be observed an the
' "RR" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and
modifications set forth in this chapter:
' (1) The minimum lot area is two and one-half (2i ) acres, sub-
ject to Section 20-906
( 2) The minimum lot frontage is two hundred (200) feet, except
' that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac "bubble" or along the
outside curve of a curvilinear street section shall be two
hundred (200) feet in width at the building setback line.
The location of these lots is conceptually illustrated
below. Lot width on neck or flag lots or lots accessed by
private driveways shall also have their lot width measured
at the building setback line.
( 3) The minimum lot depth is two hundred (200) feet.
(4) The maximum lot coverage is twenty (20) percent.
( 5) The setbacks are as follows:
a. For front yards, fifty (50) feet.
b. For rear yards, fifty (50) feet.
c. For side yards, ten (10) feet.
(6) The setbacks for lots served by private driveways and/or
flag and neck lots, are as follows:
' a. For front yards, thirty (30) feet. The front yard
shall be the lot line nearest the public right-of-way
•
I
I
r
that provides access to the parcel. The rear lot line I
is to be located opposite from the front lot line with
the remaining exposures treated as side lot lines. On ,
neck/flag lots the front yard setback shall be
measured at the point nearest the front lot line where
the lot achieves a two hundred (200) foot width.
II
b. For rear yards, fifty (50) feet. .
c. For side yards, fifty (50) feet. •
(7) The maximum height is as follows: II
a. For the principal structure, three ( 3) stories/forty II( 40) feet.
b. For accessory structures, three ( 3) stories/forty (40)
feet.
(8) The minimum driveway separate is as follows: II
a. If the driveway is on a collector street, four hundred II
(400) feet.
b. If the drivway is on an arterial street, one thousand
two hundred fifty (1,250) feet.
II
Section 3. Section 20-615 entitled Lot Requirements and
Setbacks shall be amended to read as follows:
The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an II
"RSF" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and
modifications set forth in this chapter: I
(1) The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand (15,000 square
feet) .
(2) The minimum lot frontage is ninety (90) feet, except II
that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac "bubble" or along the
outside curve of curvilinear street sections shall be II ninety (90) feet in width at the building setback line.
The location of this lot is conceptually illustrated
below.
II
Lots Where Frontage Is
Measured At Setback Line
I
loo■••
•
s tom• + I I c
•so t
` • 1 I i
s' .... e :.%,%)
•
I
III
•- ( 3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred twenty-five (125)
feet.
11 THE LOCATION OF THESE LOTS IS CONCEPTUALLY ILLUSTRATED BELOW.
LOT WIDTH ON NECK OR FLAG LOTS AND LOTS ACCESSED BY PRIVATE
DRIVEWAYS SHALL BE ONE HUNDRED ( 100) FEET AS MEASURED AT THE
IIFRONT BUILDING SETBACK LINE.
( 4) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved
IIsurfaces is twenty-five (25) percent.
(5) The setbacks are as follows:
II (a) For front yards, thirty (30) feet.
(b) For rear yards, thirty (30) feet.
(c) For side yards, ten (10) feet
II (6) THE SETBACKS FOR LOTS SERVED BY PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS AND/OR
FLAG AND NECK LOTS, ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1 a. FOR FRONT YARD, THIRTY ( 30) FEET. THE FRONT YARD
SHALL BE THE LOT LINE NEAREST THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
THAT PROVIDES ACCESS TO THE PARCEL. THE REAR YARD
I LOT LINE IS TO BE LOCATED OPPOSITE FROM THE FRONT LOT
LINE WITH THE REMAINING EXPOSURES TREATED AS SIDE LOT
LINES. ON NECK LOTS THE FRONT YARD SETBACK SHALL BE
II MEASURED AT THE POINT NEAREST THE FRONT LOT LINE
WHERE THE LOT ACHIEVES A ONE HUNDRED ( 100) FOOT
MINIMUM WIDTH.
Ib. FOR REAR YARDS, THIRTY ( 30) FEET.
FOR SIDE YARDS, TWENTY ( 20) FEET.
Ic.
Neck / Flag Lots
IFron Lot Line
IStreet
I I 1 1l
•
100 Lot Width 1 1 I
1 1� 4t. 1 I
I I I
I I I
II ( 7) The maximum height is as follows:
a. For the principal structure, (three ( 3)
IIstories/forty ( 40) feet.
-3-
'1
II
b. For accessory structures, three ( 3) stories/forty ,
(40) feet.
Section 4. This ordinance shall be effective immediately I
upon its passage and publication.
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this
day of , 199p.
ATTEST: I
Don Ashworth, City Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor I
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1990) '
I
I
-4-
Planning Commission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 56
II (e) Standards of maintenance including mowing and trimming; painting and
upkeep of racks, docks and other equipment; disposal of trash and
debris;
(f) Increased width, depth or area requirements based upon the intensity
of the use proposed or the number of dwellings having rights of
' access.
To the extent feasible, the City may impose such conditions even after
approval of the beachlot if the City finds it necessary based upon
conflicts with the use of other property or failure to maintain property of
equipment.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
1 (Ladd Conrad left the meeting at this point and turned the Chair over to
Steve Emmings.)
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CITY CODE FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE
SUBDIVISION AND ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE RSF DISTRICT STANDARDS DEALING
WITH LOT FRONTAGE AND ACCESS BY PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS.
Public Present:
Name Address
Terry Forbord Lundgren Bros. , Vice President
Emmings: Has everybody read the material? Is there anything you want to
add to what you've already read?
Krauss: I'd be happy to respond to questions. I guess all I'd say is,
this is arising out of a need that's become apparent during the processing
' of our subdivisions and having worked on these things over the years, that
we just needed a method of legitimizing these things. The standards that
are being proposed are pretty tough. This does not provide an easy out for
II • somebody that wants to avoid a public street.
Emmings: Okay, this is a public hearing so we'll -open the public hearing.
' Is there anybody that's got comments?
Terry Forbord: Terry Forbord from Lundgren Bros.. Actually I support Mr.
Krauss' proposal. There certainly are, this does legitimize the need for
private driveways although I may at times think there's a need far greater
than Paul's at the time but it's a great concept because there are times,
just from an environmental standpoint, that it really doesn't make any
sense to put in a street. Oftentimes we get conditioned into thinking with
if we put in streets, that's a good thing to do. The bigger and the wider
and the longer and the more pavement and that's not always really what's in
II
f Planning Commission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 57
the best interest of the land, the City, the public. Remember somebody has
II
to pay for those streets and those get attached to the price of the homes
so sometimes putting in streets aren't the best thing to do and private
driveways, in the right situation, certainly are a good idea. Paul,
certainly pointed out a couple areas in the existing ordinance that really
didn't deal with this correctly and he's done a really good job in the way
he's presented this. I
&Timings: Do you have any coirments on the neck lots and flag lots?
Terry Forbord: No. I pretty much can support this and endorse this. I
There's a time, certain situations that may come up where you might have to
deal with it differently but there's a variance proceeding that one can go
through. I support this.
Batzli moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Emmings: Paul, this basically clears up things that we've been talking
about for a long time. This ordinance. Isn't that right?
Krauss: I hope so, yes.
Emmings: Okay, let's go around for comments. Annette?
Ellson: I like it. I think it answers what we've been trying to
accomplish and I am not about to try to make it better. I think it's
perfectly fine.
Batzli: My only question is, it seems to me that we had a situation not
really like this but kind of in what was Vineland? Now one of the concerns
there was that they were putting the road in the guy's backyard. We were
talking about a sideyard setback from the road that was proposed to go up
through the neck. How do you address something like that? It's really not
addressed in here necessarily other than you would allow a private drive if
there were fewer than what, 4 homes or whatever? '
Krauss: Yeah, but there is language and I doubt if I can find it but
there's language in here that allows you to set some sighting criteria for
a private drive recognizing that particular problem. It will also allow
you to impose some landscaping requirements if necessary to minimize impact
because these things do run near people's backyards. That is a problem
with them. But I think it does give you the flexibility to do that. It's II
number 5 on page 2 of the zoning ordinance amendment. The driveway shall
be designed to minimize impact• upon adjoining parcels. The City may
require revised alignments and landscaping to minimize impacts.
Batzli: Okay. So in Vineland they had more than the 4 parcels so this
wouldn't have helped that particular situation.
Krauss: Well the way Vineland ultimately shook out is that there was only
one home that became a neck lot access from Pleasant View.
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 58
II
Batzli: Yeah, but as originally proposed it would have served what, like
' 20 lots so they wouldn't have been able to do the private.
Krauss: No. We didn't support that concept from the start.
11 Batzli: Well it was a bag cui-de-sac. But assuming that that was the only
access into and out of there, you'd still have a problem in situations like
that where there was more than 4 homes. Still have a sideyard setback
' problem for certain neck, flag accesses so this as originally proposed by
the developer, this wouldn't have helped that particular homeowner.
' Krauss: No, and specifically it's intended not to. If you're platting
more than 4 lots, almost invariably, you can put a public street in.
There's really no reason not to.
Batzli: But that's the question. How intrusive can a developer be into an
existing homeowner's sideyard by serving, let's say it was 160 lots?
That's my problem with it and I don't know that this addresses it and I
don't think it's intended to.
Krauss: No, it isn't and that's a problem that occurs anytime you're
developing a new public street or private drive that's in proximity to
' somebody elses property line rather than being centered within a large
parcel. It's an issue that, typically you want to keep the roadway
centered so those who benefit are the ones who are impacted by it. That's
a rule of thumb and we do that with all public streets. This ordinance is
real specific. It's only dealing with those situations that for very
specific criteria we can't serve by public street. And yeah, that
' situation, that scenario may develop but unlike with public streets where
the design is basically handled in the subdivision process, this gives you
the authority to move the private driveway around. If you want to save
some trees on a property line, you can require that it be shifted. If
there isn't landscaping, you could require that it be installed so in some
respects you probably have better control over the private driveways under
this ordinance than you do with the public street.
' Batzli: But let's go back to Vineland for just one second and I agree with
what you just said but if they would have put a public street in there,
' wouldn't it have been reasonable to require them to not have it shifted all
the way over to the east on their property line so it was only 24 feet away
from this guy's house. Wouldn't it be better to be able to force them to
center it on their own neck portion even if it was a public street and not
' a private driveway? That's what we weren't able to do and he was trying to
put in the 3 houses on the west side and run the road tight along the
property line. That's what the adjancent property owner was objecting to.
We still have that problem.
Krauss: We still have that problem.
' Ellson: This won't be the one that's going to solve that.
11
Planning Commission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 59 II
Batzli: Yeah I know but I was hoping like maybe we were working on II
something to solve that problem too. But I like this. Don't get me wrong.
I was hoping that this was going to solve that. The other problem's still
in the mill I guess.
Emmings: We don't have it as a work item or anything.
Batzli: No, and I had it on 1Uy list. 1
Emmings: I agree. It's 'something that's always bugged me when I see them
put in a road and all of a sudden the person who had a yard now has
frontage on the sideyard.
Krauss: Well you know, if you reflect back for a moment to the first item I
we had tonight where we proposed that road dropping to the south. The
purchaser and the realtor suggested that we require, that we put that road
right up against a neighboring property. His proposal to us was that
rather than put this road over here, which impacts a new lot that comes
like this, he said why don't you just drop it down there. I said, well we
have a fundamental problem with that because that's making this person over
here a corner lot and. . .
&timings: Now other than jawboning, do you really have any way to prevent
him? I think there ought to be, even if it was.. . '
Batzli: But see at times you may want it there. That's the difficult
part.
Krauss: First of all , it can't be any closer than 30 feet or we're
violating our own standards. If we do that than we have to go through a
variance procedure. I
&timings: What can't be closer than 30 feet? A paved street?
Krauss: If we plat a new road less than 30 feet from somebody's house, 1
we're creating .a variance situation.
&tiings: House or lot? ,
Krauss: House.
Elison: But for now in this what do you think Brian?
Batzli: I like this. I've said that. We got off the track. That's all I II
have.
Ahrens: I'm not aware of the past problems with Vineland but I think that
this is well written. 11
Emmings: I agree. I only have a couple of things. I just don't know, I
circled two words as being, they're looking funny to me spelling wise.
Curvalinear on the first one. Maybe that's the way it's spelled. It just II
looks funny to me.
I
I
Manning commission meeting
IIJanuary 17, 1990 - Page 60
IIBatzli: I think there's an i in there.
Emmings: Instead of an a?
Batzli: Yeah.
Emmings: That's what I thought. But I didn't look it up so I don't know.
And then over on the other one, under Section 1, paragraph 1, it says
unfeasible and that's a funny word to me. I think it's either not feasible
or may be infeasible.
Krauss: Where are we now?
' Emmings: Unfeasible. I don't recall ever seeing it before. Again, you
could refer to your dictionary and see. Then the only substative comment
I've got is down under the second group of numbers in number 1, it says
' private driveways. The reason this is interesting to me, I live and you
should know, on a system of three houses are served by a private drive and
1
it's a very, very nice arrangement. It works real well. We share. We all
' hire one guy to plow and share the cost in a real reasonable way and it's
just very nice. I really kind of like it but here it says, if it serves
two or more homes, it has to be a 7 ton design paved to a width of 20 feet.
My two neighbors have an asphalt drive and I have just rocks because I like
' just rocks and it's not 20 feet wide. I'll bet it's 8 feet wide. •
Krauss: Well there's a real good reason for that and that's the Fire Code.
Emmings: Well okay.
' Ellson: And he's going to come after you as soon as this goes into law.
Emmings: What's the problem?
Krauss: What's the problem is we can't guarantee that we can get our fire
trucks down an 8 foot wide street or an 8 foot wide driveway.
Ellson: With gravel especially.
Krauss: We're not talking about serving one home where you can sort of
bull your way through if you need to. We're talking about serving 2 or
more which is a fairly significant amount of traffic. There's more of a
likelihood that you'll have an emergency situation. Fire code requires a
20 foot wide paved surface with a turn around area that they can maneuver
in. Now that turn around area is not a 60 foot diameter cul-de-sac but you
can flare out driveways and such to make it work.
Emmings: But just a minute now. You're talking about actually paving a 20
foot width. A standard driveway.
Krauss: For a single home, may be 10 feet.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 17, 1990 -_ Page 61 P 1
Emmings: I think that's awful unless you absolutely, fire trucks are not
20 feet wide. They may need some maneuvering.
Krauss: They're not 20 feet wide, no. They would fit in a 12 foot drive I
lane but they oftentimes have to maneuver around one another.
Elison: If a parked car is there or something. I
Krauss: If it's not plowed to it's full width.
Ehmings: What's a little odd to me here is that you've got, if I'm just
one house on a driveway, do I need to be 20 feet wide paved?
Elison: It says serving 2 or more. '
Batzli: Do you just require then that portion of the driveway that's
serving the common portion of the driveway? '
Krauss: That's correct. And if you have a driveway that serves two homes,
one behind the other, after you pass the first home, the driveway could
then flare down to 10 feet.
Emmings: Oh, alright.
Batzli: But this doesn't say that I don't think does it?
Emmings: See in my situation again, everybody comes in on the same long I
piece and then it all splits off. If it's only the common portion, I have
no problem with that.
Krauss: If you'd like to clarify that so that it is the common portion, I II
don't have a problem with that. That's what it's intended to mean.
Emmings: Okay. Then that makes a lot of sense to me. And I'm
grandfathered in.
Elison: You mean there's no way to go after him. '
Batzli: Do we need a motion or something?
Emmings: That'd be good. If no else has any other comments. We'll have all
motion.
Filson: I move that the Planning Commission approval proposed ordinance
changes on, I supposed I should give the Ordinance Number.
Emmings: Yes.
Ellson: Amending Section 20-615 as set out in the staff report and 18-57.
Enmings: Is there a second? '
Batzli: I'll second it for discussion purposes.
I
II ' Planning Commission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 62
II
E:rmings: Alright. Discuss.
' Batzli: Are you going to go with the amendment that the private driveways,
only those common portions.
' Ellson: Yeah, reword the section to be a little more clarification to
that.
' Batzli: Then I like it.
Ellson: I didn't think it needed an amendment to it. I figured he was
' just going to write it that way but you're right. We're going to get
legal.
Emmings: Okay. So you're amending your motion then. To allow the staff
to clarify that in that section they're talking about the common portion of
the driveway and may be certain other things like when one house is behind
the other. Again it will be past the first house or something like that.
That's what you're amending your motion to?
Ellson: That's exactly right.
Emmings: And you agree with that?
Batzli: Yes.
Ellson moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Col'-mission recommend
' approval of amending Section 20-615 and Section 18-57 as presented by the
staff with clarification in Section 18-57 on the common portion of the
private driveways must be paved to 20 feet in width. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE.
' Emmings: We have a report from the Planning Director on the City Council
meeting. Does anybody want to make any comments about that?
' Ellson: I was really surprised with that number 3 item.
Krauss: Everybody in the audience was real confused as was I and the City
' Attorney.
Ellson: What was the vote?
' Krauss: It was unanimous.
Emmings: Is it okay to change the second reading in midstream like that?
Krauss: Yes.
I
IC ITY O F P.C. DATE: March 7, 1990
llAI'TllA3SE ' C.C. DATE: March 26, 1990
IIA! CASE NO: 90-1 LUP
Prepared by: Krauss/v ol:
I STAFF REPORT
1
PROPOSAL: Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment to Include
1420 and 1430 Lake Lucy Road into the Metropolitan
Urban Service Area (MUSA)
I Z
a
V LOCATION:
I :3
IAPPLICANT:
1 /
PRESENT ZONING:
IACREAGE:
DENSITY:
1 ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N-
1 S-
E •
1 , ' W-
IW WATER AND SEWER:
PHYSICAL CHARAC. :
2000 LAND USE PLAN:
1
m.
. - 1
LUP Amending MUSA
March 7, 1990
II
Page 2
BACKGROUND
In January, staff became aware of a problem with an on-site sewer II
system at 1430 Lake Lucy Road. The Building Inspector informed
staff that the system was failing resulting in surface discharge
of waste. The Public Safety Department is now requiring that the
system be pumped as often as necessary. The owner was further
informed that city ordinances give a 60 day time period to allow II for the determination as to whether or not the system will be
repaired or replaced but that this time period may be extended by
the city if action is in progress.
The owner of the lot with the failing sewer system and an adja- II
cent property have petitioned the city to undertake a guide plan
amendment to expand the MUSA line to allow them to be served from
II
an in-place sanitary sewer located a short distance to the east.
Concurrently, they have requested that the city undertake a
feasibility study with the goal of extending sewer service to
their parcels. The sewer service is located a short distance to
the east of 1420 Lake Lucy Road. The failing system is at 1430
Lake Lucy Road. Services in Lake Lucy Road must be extended past
the home at 1420 to reach the home at 1430. City water service
II
is already in existence in the area.
Although we will not be certain until the feasibility study has II been completed, it appears that gravity sewer service can be
extended to serve both properties, by extending the dead end line
in Lake Lucy Road further to the west. Given the pre-existing
Inature of the failing sewer system at 1430 Lake Lucy Road, staff
is processing this as an emergency situation and am attempting to
handle this as expeditiously as possible.
ANALYSIS I
Over the years, the city has received a number of requests to II expand the MUSA line on an incremental basis with some of these
expansions taking place to provide emergency service for areas
experiencing failing on-site sewer such as currently being
requested. As the Planning Commission and City Council are
I
aware, the city is undertaking a program to completely redraft
our Comprehensive Plan with a goal to bringing significant addi-
tional acreage into the MUSA system. It is anticipated that this
I
process will result in a submittal of a plan to Metro Council
during this coming summer. While we have been working on the
plan, we have generally tried to discourage minor alterations to
Ithe MUSA line believing that it could more appropriately be
handled in comprehensive matter with the guide plan amendment.
However, in light of the emergency nature of this request, we are
waiving this policy in the interest of resolving this matter. In I
so doing, sewer service could be extended to the affected prop-
erty this summer. If the request to be handled with the compre-
hensive plan amendment, it is not likely that sewer service could II be provided until at least the summer of 1991.
II
I
LUP Amending MUSA
I March 7, 1990
Page 3
I In reviewing this matter, the option of replacing the on-site
sewer with a new on-site system was discussed between staff and
the owner. It was concluded that to replace the existing system
I with another on-site system, is a possibility but is not likely
to be cost effective. We state this since the site in question
is well within the area that the city will be bringing to the
Metro Council for inclusion into the MUSA line and in so doing,
I city sewer service is likely to be available in a short period of
time. If an existing on-site sewer system were to be replaced
with a new on-site system, the money would likely be wasted since
I we would ultimately require hook-up to the new city sanitary
system in a short period of time.
I In the past when similar requests have been made to the Metro
Council, they have often come back to the city and asked that a
similarly sized area be deleted from the MUSA to balance out the
city' s development potential. In staff' s opinion, this is a
I highly inappropriate policy to employ at this point for two
reasons. The first is that most of the land currently within the
MUSA system has either been developed or is committed to develop-
' ment and would be difficult to find 10 acres to pull out. The
second is, that as we eluded above, the city preparing a compre-
hensive guide plan update and we expect to have this neighborhood
I brought within the MUSA system in the short period of time in any
case.
RECOMMENDATION
IStaff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following
motion:
I "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Land Use Plan
Amendment Request #90-1 to include properties located at 1420 and
1430 Lake Lucy Road into the Metropolitan Urban Service Area and
I that the Metropolitan Urban Service Area line be amended to
include said parcels. "
IATTACHMENTS
1. Letter from Steve Kirchman, Building Official to the
I property owners.
2. Authorization forms signed by both property owners.
3 . Maps showing site area.
4 . Metro Council/Minor Guide Plan Amendment application form.
II
I
I
11
MB
I
' A t 1 I I B ! ! ! _ i C Li t t ! t-i lilt S t t f E : l f I I I F f t t ,"To . 4 A...-- .1M-1-‘"*5 -1*.FS 7 '0-1,111=.
Bitzfi
PV """Jr' , __......!f'—WMANINI 1111 71'
Pr ''..---“" i t••I i ' t 7.-_ _1.1 .:414„,-..i tN. 111,4 ---... I
... miclR..-Alk, , ---Y'llr i: --..,
momm.: r V".... la r /11111111144'lir s... .---1: s It. ‘•rge
_ r IN.\ 4., A le...,..11-. .,--.4 ..„.„,:i.: ___....
R
OEM
,.- -we a ads,— . • off= !.'
..•—rrA.' '
c*
1111 -
Ail- . ,
.:=116
a ` /p*r ■■
ra,0,11 ly ■ , ,:-:,
.--] •,° s __ - ( _ -....
vow .••• I A- 4!
III
� . ..i1111..- t
QTY OF !
CHAN ASSEN -F—__I '
SASE MAP y FSE .. _— we ..
one.
• ....--__I - _-yam PROPOSED_:—J lilt ~'...mg
.,..__. .mow ,Mm 'ti? 5
SITE bit � � . .
i ,■■••
! , T
NIVININD IV: .._i
CHAW SSO+c/c++eo.+s WM its "'
i • tak s • "ItiolAillifla.
0 .I.,- , _4
III
.0..n E ei ll f i I t I I ( 1 4 f
I
= -
II
I
LAKE
I =IR win limn„ CI L 1441 I 1411 il kM,..../d
In ilimumitziserArios
I ------ I m
ra...110 lim: mr, 5.— . ...1 mid
iii.11,.. a Mr am • Kw@ oil yr:6*A
rrri_o 444,1 AnagrA-11,-mally0 ."In '—41 *AMU
N 44‘44. 0 IP) , all ■ - ,.....„,., . I
I rr- kAls,,IN.Ir AwriviL vafinever Ir.illur 1 , •
r ,. LIIII
I E BiANI --1/1 aihrikmi .14 MI IWO
. 14 vim
z4.04r• 4to,i,..41 sep,
ON
_D=.__.• -4.1 ..,-$, iii
• 'r" La-0143Y. C I R 4.4:74 21/1 I I kit° a . I I I I
11- isrlOtt
ilkE)- IMIR Ullikittiladie
0 — tin
----, ucv LANV =4:1111111111111ME
=111111111111111111111111-
I ..j '
„
‘ % EltratEril
oc,
M
INITTI.
:--
Lill MS w
r... 1.-
1--- 1..._.. \ ,.. ....
im rims le IMO
"I F 1 r P I I 3:.atT. 1 I tr. 04.•
,---: \ f ' • Olin k`cAt 111 ST
1-,) Ell 440now am- 1.a - ill■
_ .. , __ ,I;,,,,,.11■art■I<LLI __ ___,, ""-qk
-. ---- . ?‘
I _ I AKF LUCY
I
I PROPOSED SITE
. M
Ii....••=1 """" MUSA . 0
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
P 1
-A
LflCTION NIA _ ,: :
- EXISTING UTILITIES
I
3 -•"; a%Will llt �'� �� t:TF Iq.9909 "i 3 CT,NO.aa° TT
,101IK.I.01YMIT• Il -Ii.r 14. ,! 2 •� °
V!..44 i • 1. . 1 i.
AWIIION �1 aelES' %N V. ! .:I TT c
Ix .,1 00010492° ° / ` $.'
/ 71""'" ..
j M! `. TTY \CLI�7 L`/ •• Lf'110.1 • �' o
Y I Cl
PHE -ANT 3 tip seem ,y • ••, �pK _ Q 2
' + ILL - min, ~S� �.7 �= •
" am r.
--
LOUTL01 i pONALD Y l>ELKE O 7S
4
.;1 1 s S �. SS
1 1 2 Sg f
a I 1 Sr;
uill Mill 1 y
C $1 7 WILLIS E. CARSON s hoe el Vint A
lK 64,P 198
a
S2.— .,T.' r..' COk 2
1 Ot 141,1?291 !7 2
1 :'•::":":ti'v IAL 2 ATE SANK
:':'.:: cTr • 10101 '
. I 4 :.i:::..iiiMeiniirtiftt:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::. 1 . . ..21,..m.7.F.Trzlfr__01.' - - ...,..
s4-
i
J :tip•:;• •• • • •: ' :• •ti• •:::': } : {�::: :: ; ' My
. JOSEPH E GLACCUM 11:4..,?grOgir,;;:
�-- — it� CY --ROAD- - —— _-—-
-0- HYDRANT
_---
• WQTERMAIN
o _ SANITARY AsEwER PROPOSED MUSA '
X 1ALVES EXPANSION •
I
0 UFT STATION .
i .
• STORM SEWER MANHOLE
i --e /STORM SEWER (WITH OUTLETS) - -/r 7- _le4 I
_ ® - CATCH BASIN _ - • • �
•
ow o+sm.aa°ampsl» MUSA LINE
1
I
WI
I .
I INFORMATION SUBMISSION FOR
MINOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS •
I This summary worksheet must be filled out and submitted to the Metropolitan Council with a
copy of each proposed minor comprehensive plan amendment. Minor amendments include, but
are not limited to:
1. Changes to the future land use plan where the affected area is small or where the
proposed future land use will result in minor changes in metropolitan service demand.
I2. Changes (land trades or additions) in the urban service area involving less than 40 acres.
3. Minor changes to plan goals and policies that do not change the overall thrust of the
Icomprehensive plan.
Please be as specific as possible; attach additional explanatory materials if necessary. If a staff
I report was prepared for the Planning Commission or City Council, please attach it as well.
Communities submitting regular plan amendments may wish to enter this form or a reasonable
facsimile into their word processing menu for ease in preparation of the form.
I
I Send plan amendments to: John Rutford, Referrals Coordinator
Metropolitan Council, Mears Park Centre
230 E. Fifth St. , St. Paul, MN 55101-1634
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
IA. Sponsoring governmental unit City of Chanhassen
Name of local contact person Paul Krauss, AICP, Director of Planning
I
Address 690 Coulter Drive, Chanhassen, MN 55317
Telephone 937-1900
Name of Preparer (if different from contact person)
IDate of Preparation February 27, 1990
I B. Name of Amendment Harvey/O'Brien Request
Description/Summa Bring two parcels totaling 10 acres into MUSA
syste i to respon to emergency need to replace a failing on-site
Isewer system.
tC. Please attach the following:
IiFive copies of the proposed amendment.
.
2. A city-wide map showing the location of the proposed change.
3. The current plan map(s), indicating area(s) affected by amendment.
4. The proposed plan map(s), indicating area(s) affected by amendment.
i
I
UM
D. What is the official local status of the proposed amendment? (Check one or
more as appropriate.) I
Acted upon by planning commission (if applicable) on
X Approved by governing body, contingent upon Metropolitan Council review,
Considered, but not approved by governing body on
Other
E. Indicate what adjacent local governmental units and other jurisdictions (school
districts, watershed districts, etc.) affected by the change have been sent copies of
the plan amendment, if any, and the date(s) copies were sent to them.
None
II. LAND USE ,
A. Describe the following, as.appropriate:
1. Size of affected area in acres 10.08
2. Existing land use(s) rural residential
3. Proposed land use(s)urban residential
4. Number and type of residential dwelling units involved
two single family homes
5. Proposed density 1.7 units/acre
6. Proposed square footage of commercial, industrial or public buildings
.III. METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE '
A. Population, Household and Employment Forecasts
Will the proposed amendment affect the city's population, household or
employment forecasts for 2000, or any additional local staging contained in the
original plan? '
X No/Not Applicable
Yes. Describe effect. I
I
ii
B. Changes to Urban Service Area Boundary
Will the proposed amendment require a change to the boundary of the
community's urban service area?
No/Not applicable.
X Yes. Under L C., a map should be attached to show the proposed change.
C. Changes to Timing and Staging of Urban Service Area
' Will the proposed amendment require a change to the timing and staging of
development within the urban service area?
' No/Not Applicable.
X Yes. Under L C., a map should be attached to show the proposed change.
' D. Wastewater Treatment
1. Will the proposed amendment result in a change in the projected sewer
flows for the community?
' X No/Not Applicable.
Yes. Indicate the expected change.
' Total Year 2000/2010 flow for community
based on existing plan N/A million gallons/day
Total 2000/2010 flow for community
' based on plan amendment N/A million gallons/day
2. If your community discharges to more than one metropolitan interceptor,
indicate which interceptor will be affected by the amendment.
Shorewood Interceptor
3. Will flows be diverted from one interceptor service area to another?
' X No/Not applicable.
Yes. Indicate the change and volumes (mgd.) involved
' E. Transportation
1. Will the proposed amendment result in an increase in trip generation for
' the affected area?
X No/Not applicable.
Yes. Describe effect.
iii
MB
1•
2. Does the proposed amendment contain any changes to the fitnctional
classification of roadways? I
X No.
Yes. Describe which roadways ,
F. Aviation
1
Will the proposed amendment affect the function of a metropolitan airport or
the compatibility of land uses with aircraft noise? ,
X No/Not applicable.
Yes. Describe effect. '
G. Recreation Open Space
1. Will the proposed amendment have an impact on existing or future
federal, state or regional recreational facilities?
X No/Not Applicable.
Yes. Describe effect.
H. Housing ,
Will the proposed amendment affect the community's ability or intent to achieve
the long-term goals for low- and moderate-income and modest-cost housing
opportunities contained in the existing plan?
x No/Not Applicable. ,
Yes. Describe effect.
Water Resources
Does the plan amendment affect a wetland? If yes, explain and show location on a
map.
Yes.
No.
Will the wetland be protected? I
Yes. Describe how.
No. Describe why not.
iv
i
. .
Will the plan amendment result in runoff which affects the quality of any surface
water body? If yes, identify which ones.
Yes.
_y No.
Will the water body be protected?
' Yes. Describe how.
No. Explain why not.
' IV. IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
A. Official Controls
1 Will the proposed amendment require a change to zoning, subdivision, on-site
sewer ordinances or other official controls?
X No/Not Applicable.
' Yes. Describe effect.
1
1
1
1
•
AUTHORIZATION FORM
11
We, the undersigned, being fee owners of the following
described property in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, do
hereby petition and request the City Council of the City of ,
Chanhassen to initiate a public improvement project for the
extension of sanitary sewer to service our property. We ,
understand that the extension of sanitary sewer cannot be done
without the consent of the Metropolitan Council to extend the
Metropolitan Urban Service Area to encompass our property. We ,
request the City to process the necessary minor Guide Plan
Amendment to accomplish this. '
It is further understood that the costs associated with '
preparation and processing of the Guide Plan Amendment and the
respective costs for the public improvement project are our ,
responsibility. As such, the undersigned waives any and all
procedural and substantive objections to the special assessments
incurred as a part of this project including, but not limited to, I
public hearings, notices and the like, and any claims if the
special assessments exceed the benefit to the subject property. ,
The undersigned waives any appeal rights otherwise available
pursuant to Minnesota Statute 429.81.
It is understood that the extension of sanitary sewer service
to our property cannot be accomplished without the approval of
the Guide Plan Amendment.
11
I
_, -rwP_ 1 U RA 143 —�3 5, 17 At re S
r
-E e Gl ` O Y p 116 Pa Au g c �3 y C3 Ic t s in/ S'Wy a l=�viv�
fi / // Legal ,pescription Ii
i
/ 4713 L/i-Ke e- i.et e Rot xe e I.S';tr kil 2-53 3/
Iroperty Address
I DATE• - �`
a?07 `70 By: Lrf ? 4..`.,(-
By: k)41 4-0,z4 el
II
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
I
COUNTY OF L59eve )2 ) ss.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
I - '2^i° day of
[z•/_/efAt,,,7z.:// , 19% , by
ff L ,q/vra /J7,9 Y ✓
` ELAINE J. ROE3ER
[ N01At!Y PUBLIC-MINNESOTA , Notary Pub is
,;a; ..a'
I .Q....74-+
r,,,;c• CARVER COUNTY '
My Co,:mission Expires SEPT. 1,1,,1 '
II
r
II
II DRAFTED BY:
City of Chanhassen
II 690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
II ( 612) 937-1900
. -2-