5 Non-Conforming Lots of Record
o Cily Center Drive, POBox 147 FROM:
~hanhfJSJen, Minnesota 55317
Phone 612.937.1900 DATE:
General FIlX 612.937.5739
:ngineeringFIlX612.937.9152 SUBJ:
ublic Saftly FIlX 612.934.2524
ì#b www.ci.chanh(iJsen.mn.us
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
~
-
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Scott Botcher, City Manager
Sharmin AI-Jaff, Senior Planner
June 30, 2000
Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Sec. 20-906. Alternate lot size
requirements in A-2 and RR Residential Zoning Districts
SUMMARY
Staff recently discovered a problem relating to Nonconforming Lots of Record.
The problem deals with lots that do not meet 75 percent of the area or width
requirements of the current district standards. The second problem deals with
contiguous nonconforming lots under single-ownership. The problem was created
when the city amended the Alternate lot size requirements in the A-2 and RR
Residential Zoning Districts to prevent the spread of unsewered subdivision at 2 Y:,
acres and allow lots as small as 15,000 square feet, as long as they maintain the I
unit per 10 acre density. At that time, we inadvertently deleted a section of the
ordinance that would acknowledge existing lots of record in the rural areas. Staff
is proposing to add back the language that was deleted to recognize existing lots
of record.
BACKGROUND
This issue came to light when a potential buyer was interested in purchasing 3
contiguous lots located on Lakota Lane. The background on these lots is as
follows:
.
In 1984, the City Council approved a metes and bounds subdivision to allow 9.34
acres to be divided into three lots (the ordinance permitted a density of I unit per
2.5 acres). In 1987, the ordinances changed to permit a density of I unit per 10
acres in areas outside the Municipal Urban Service Area (which is where the
parcels are located). The subdivision was recorded with Carver County
Recorder's Office in 1992.
On April 28,2000, when staff met with the potential buyer for the three lots, we
explained that the ordinances governing nonconforming lots of record treat these
three lots as one. In the table below, you will fmd a comparison between
ordinance requirements and the parcels used as an example.
, City of Chanhasstn. A ¡¡rowinK community with clean lakes, quality schools, a channinr downtown, thrivinr businesses. aud beautifùl parks. A reeat &lace to live. work. and &la.
Planning Comnûssion
June 20, 2000
Page 2
Ordinance
Parcels 1, 2, abd 3
Located on Lakota Lane
3+ acres with a Density of
I Unitl3+ Acres
Lot Area
2.5 Acres with a
Density of lUnitllO Acres
In,this example, the total area offue 3 contiguous parcels is 9.34 acres. The zoning ordinance
permits the construction of a single-family home on parcels that meet 75% of the minimum area
requirements without applying for a variance, Sec. 20-73(b).
The owner of these parcels wishes to sell the parcels as three separatè buildable parcels. The
owner in this case has the following options:
I. Consider the 3 parcels as one undivided parcel and sell them as such. Only one
house will be permitted on the site.
2. Prepare a sketch plan, showing how this: site could be developed in the future at an
urban density (1.2-4 units per net acre), when sewer and water is available, and
market the property asa future investment.
3. Apply for a lot area variance. The Planning Comnûssion and City Council would
make the final decision on the variance. There are no guarantees that it will be
approved. . ' .
4. The City amends the zoning ordinance to acknowledge lots of record.
Further research indicated that this problem exists throughout the city with each subdivision that
was submitted prior to January 15,1987, and received preliminary plat appro\(al by July I, 1987.
Every time a buildi,ng permit is submitted for a lot within the A-2 or RR districts that has a
density ofless than I unit per 7Y:, acres (75% of the required area), staffmust reject the permit
and process a variance appli~aûon. There is no doubt in our mind that that was never the
intention of the ordinance. We believe that it w,as intended to encourage the elimination of
nonconforming lots that cannot accommodate a buildable area such as those located within the
Carver Beach subdivision. .At the same time, under the pîírpose section of the ordinance, it
clearly states, "To recognize the existence of uses, lots. and structures which were lawful when
established. but which no longer meet all ordinance reauirements:"
.
ANALYSIS
The ordinance defines a nonconforming lot as "A lot that does not comply with the requirements
of this chaptér but which did comply with applicable ordinance requirements at the time the lot
was created."
Planning Commission
June 20, 2000
Page 3
The purpose of the nonconforming uses division of the ordinance is defined as follows:
Sec. 20-71. Purpose.
The purpose of this division is:
(I) To recognize the existence of uses, lots, and structures which were lawful when
established, but which no longer meet all ordinance requirements;
(2) To prevent the enlargement, expansion, intensification, or extension of any nonconforming
use, building, or structure;
(b) To encourage the elimination of nonconforming uses, lots, and structures or reduce their
impact on adjacent properties.
Prior to January 15, 1987, the city accepted applications for properties located outside the
Municipal Urban Service Area (MUSA) to allow parcels ofland to be subdivided into 2Y:, acre
lots (See attachment #5 Section 7. RURAL LOT BUILDING ELIGIBILITIES, Paragraphs 2, 3,
and 10). This ordinance acknowledged existing lots of record that maintain the I unit per2Y:,
acres density as buildable lots.
The current ordinance requires a density of I unit per 10 acres (Section 20-906). This ordinance
amendment took place on October II, 1993. The sections exempting lots of record was omitted
inadvertently.
We expect all lots that were approved under the 1987 rule to be legal nonconforming lots that are
buildable. Section 20-73 of the zoning ordinance, which deals with nonconforming lots of
record, does not exempt these lots ITom meeting today's standards. Portions of the ordinance that
impact these lots will be underlined.
a.
No variance shall be required to reconstruct a detached single-family dwelling located on a
nonconforming lot of record or which is a nonconforming use if it is destroyed by natural
disaster so long as the replacement dwelling has a footprint which is no larger than that of
the destroyed Structure and is substantially the same size in building height and floor area as
the destroyed structure. Reconstruction shall Commence within two (2) years of the date of
the destruction of the original building and reasonable progress shall be made in completing
the project. A building permit shall be obtained prior to construction of the new dwelling
and the new Structure shall be constructed in compliance with all other city codes and
regulations.
.
Sec. 20-73. Nonconforming lots of record.
b,
No variance shall be required to construct a detached single-family dwelling on a
nonconforming lot provided that it ITonts on a public street or approved private street and
provided that the width and area measurements are at least seventy-five (75) percent of the
Planning Commission
June 20, 2000
Page 4
minimum reauirements of this chapter.
c.
Except as otherwise specifically provided for detached single-family dwellings, there shall
be no expansion, intensification, replacement, or structural changes of a structure on a
nonconforming lot.
d.
If two (2) or more contiguous lots are in single ownership and if all or part of the lots do not
meet the width and area reauirements of this chapter for lots in the district. the contiguous'
lots shall be considered to be an undivided parcel for the purPose of this chapter. If part of
the parcel is sold. the sale shall constitute a self-created hardship under the variance
provisions of this chapter.
To remedy this situation, staff is recommending the language that exempted these lots of record
be added back.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
On June 20, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved this amendment unanimously.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staffrecommends the City Council approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20-906.
Alternate lot size requirements in A-2 and RR Residential Zoning Districts by adding the
following language:
(8) Existing parcels of record established prior to the effective date of this zoning ordinance
shall be deemed as buildable lots. This provision also applies to those lots affected by
item 10 of this section.
.
(9) All lots shall have the minimum frontage on a public road as regulated in sections 20-575
and 20-595. To reduce the number of driveways on collectors and arterials, up to two (2)
parcels will be allowed to be accessed by a private easement.
(10) Applications for subdivision in the rural service area as identified in the comprehensive
plan to contain a development density of on unit per 2Y. acres that were accepted until
4:30 p.m. on January 15,1987, provided the following information was submitted to the
Plarming Department:
a. Completion of the Application for Subdivision.
b. Submission of the public hearing list of surrounding property owners.
c. Submission of a boundary survey with the proposed lot pattern.
d. Submission of required application fees.
Planning Commission
June 20, 2000
Page 5
Further, these applications should have also submit additional data required for
preliminary plat approval in a manner which would have achieved preliminary plan
approval by July I, 1987 unless the City Council deemed to table final action on the
application afterJuly I, 1987.
ATTACHMENTS
I. Sec. 20-73. Nonconforming Lots of Record.
2. Sec. 20-575. A-2 Lot requirements and setbacks.
3. Sec. 20-595. RR Lot requirements and setbacks.
4. Sec. 20-906. Alternate lot size requirements in A-2 and RR Residential Zoning Districts.
5. Section 7. Rural Lot Building Eligibilities prior to 1987.
6. Letter ITom Ms. Mildred Happe, owner of the lots on Lakota Lane.
7. Planning Commission minutes dated June 10,2000.
g:\plan\sa\non-conforming lots of record. doc
AHOvcÁMeJ#
§ 20-60
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
Sec. 20.60. Denial.
Variances may be deemed by the board of adjustments and appeals and the council, and
such denial shall constitute a finding and determination that the conditions required for
approval do not exist.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. m, § 1(3-1-4(6)), 12-15·86)
Sees. 2().61-2G-70. Reserved.
*"
DMSION 4. NONCONFORMING USES·
Sec. 2G-71. Purpose.
The purpose of this division is:
(1) To recognize the existence of uses, lots, and structures which were lawful when
established, but which no longer meet all ordinance requirements;
(2) To prevent the enlargement, expansion, intensification, or extension of any noncon·
forming use, building, or structure;
(3) To encourage the elimination of nonconforming uses, lots, and structures or reduce
their impact on adjacent properties.
lOrd. No. 165, § 2, 2-10·92)
Sec. 20-72. Nonconforming uses and structures.
(a) There shall be no expansion, intensification, replacement, structural change, or relo·
cation of any nonconforming use or nonconforming structure except to lessen or eliminate the
. '
nonconfornuty.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, any detached single-family
dwelling that is on a nonconforming lot or that is a nonconforming use or structure may be
altered, or expanded provided, however, that the nonconformity may not be increased. If a
setback of a dwelling is nonconforming, no additions may be added to the nonconforming side
of the building unless the addition meets setback requirements.
(c) No nonconforming use shall be resumed if normal operation of the use has been
discontinued for a period of twelve (12) or more months. Time shall be calculated as beginning
on the day following the last day in which the use was in normal operation and shall run
continuously thereafter. Following the expiration of twelve (12) months, only land uses which
are permitted by this ordinance shall be allowed to be established.
.
.Editor's note-Section 2 ofOrd. No. 165, adopted Feb. 10, 1992, amended Div. 4 in its
entirety to read as set out in §§ 20·71-20·73. Prior to amendment, Div. 4 contained §§
20.71-20-78, which pertained to similar subject matter and derived from Ord. No. 80, Art. Ill,
§ 5, adopted Dec. 15, 1986; and Ord. No. 163, § 1, adopted Feb. 24, 1992.
Supp. No.4
1164
ZONING
§ 20-73
"
(d) Full use of a nonconforming land use shall not be resumed if the amount of land or
floor area dedicated to the use is lessened or if the intensity of the use is in any manner
diminished for a period of twelve (12) or more months. Time shall be calculated as beginning
on the day following the last day in which the nonconforming land use was in full operation
and shall run continuously thereafter: Following the expiration of twelve (12) months, the
nonconforming land use may be used only in the manner or to the extent used during the
preceding twelve (12) months. For the purposes of this section, intensity of use shall be mea-
sured by hours of operation, traffic, noise, exterior storage, signs, odors, number of employees,
\ and other factors deemed relevant by the city.
(e) Maintenance and repair of nonconforming structures is permitted. Removal or destruc-
tion of a nonconforming structure to the extent of more than fifty (50) percent of its estimated
value, excluding land value and as determined by the city, shall terminate the right to con.
tinue the nonconforming structure. X .
(I) Notwithstanding the prohibitions contain.ed in the forgoing pàragraphs of this section,
if approved by the city council a nonconforming land use may be changed to another noncon-
forming land use of less intensity if it is in the public interest. In all instances the applicant
has the burden of proof regarding the relative intensities of uses.
(g) _If a nonconforming land use is superseded or replaced by a permitted use, the non-
conforming status of the premises and any rights which arise under the provisions of this
section shall terminate.
(Ord. No. 165, § 2, 2.10-92)
Sec. 20-73. Nonconforming lots of record.
(a) No variance shall be required to reconstruct a detached single-family dwelling located
on a nonconforming lot of record or which is a nonconforming use if it is destroyed by natural
disaster so long as the replacement dwelling has a footprint which is no larger than that of the
destroyed structure and is substantially the same size in building height and floor area as the
destroyed structure. Reconstruction shall commence within two (2) years of the date of the
destruction of the original building and reasonable progress shall be made in completing the
project. A building permit shall be obtained prior to construction of the new dwelling and the
new structure shall be constructed in compliance with all other city codes and regulations.
* (b) No variance shall be required to construct a detached single-family dwelling on a
nonconforming lot provided that it fronts on a public street or approved private street and
provided that the width and area measurements are at lest seventy-five (75) percent of the
minimum requirements of this chapter.
(c) Except as otherwise specifically provided for detached single-family dwellings, there
shall be no expansion, intensification, replacement, or structural changes of a structure on a
nonconforming lot.
~ (d) If two (2) or more contiguous lots are in single ownership and if all or part of the lots
do not meet the width and area requirements of this chapter for lots in the district, the
Supp. No.4
1165
.
.
§ 20-73
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
contiguous lots shsll be considered to be an undivided parcel for the purpose of this chapter.
If part of the parcel is sold, the aale shall constitute a self-created hardship under the variance
provisions of this chapter.
(Ord. No. 165, § 2, 2·10-92)
Sees. 20.74-20·90. Reserved.
DIVISION 5. BUILDING PERMITS, CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY, ETC.
Sec. 20-91. BuUding permits.
(a) No person shall erect, construct, alter, enlarge, repair, move or remove, any building
or structure or part thereof without first securing a building permit.
(b) An application for a building permit shall be made to the city on a form furnished by
the city. All building permit applications shall be accompanied by a site plan drawn to scale
showing the dimensions of the lot to be built upon and the size and location of any existing
structures and the building to be erected, off·street parking and loading facilities and such
other information as may be deemed necessary by the city to determine compliance with this
chapter and other land use ordinances. No building permit shall be issued for activity in
conflict with the provisions of this chapter. The city shall issue a building permit only after
determining that the application and plans comply with the provisions of this chapter, the
uniform building code as adopted and amended by the city and other applicable laws and
ordinances.
(c) If the work described in any building permit is not begun within ninety (90) days or
substantially completed within one (1) year following the date of the issuance thereof, said
permit may become void at the discretion of the zoning administrator upon submission of
documented evidence. Written notice thereof shall be transmitted by the city to permit holder,
stating that activity authorized by the expired permit shall cease unless and until a new
building permit has been obtained.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 4(3·1-4), 12·15·86)
Cross reference-Technical codes, § 7·16 et seq.
.
Sec. 20-92. Certificates of occupancy.
(a) In accordance with the Uniform Building Code as adopted and amended by the city, a
certificate of occupancy shall be obtained before:
(1) Any nonagricultural building, except an accessory building, hereafter erected or
structurally alt,ered is occupied or used; and
(2) The use of any existing nonagricultural building, except an accessory building, is
changed.
(b) Application for a certificate of occupancy shall be made to the city as part of the
application for a building permit. A certificate of occupancy shall be issued by the city
Supp. No.4
1166
tK
fiffacJwne4 #2
ZONING
§ 20-576
(10) Reserved.
(11) Churches.
(12) Recreational beachlots.
(13) Group homes for seven (7) to sixteen (16) persons.
(14) Golf courses.
(15) 'lbwers as regulated by article XXX of this chapter.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V; § 3(5-3-4),12-15-86; Ord. No. 80-E, § I, 11-16-87; Ord. No. 96, § I, 9-26-88;
Ord. No. 103, § I, 5-22-89; Ord. No. 120, § 4(2), 2-12-90; Ord. No. 240, § 16, 7-24-95; Ord. No.
259, § 8, 11-12-96)
State law reference-Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595.
Sec. 20-575. Lot requirements and setbacks.
The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "A-2" District subject to
additional requirements, exceptions, and modifications set forth in this chapter:
0) The minimum lot area is two and one-half (2'12) acres, subject to section 20-906.
(2) The minimum lot frontage is two hundred (200) feet, except that the minimum lot
frontage of lots fronting on a cul-de-sac shall be at least two hundred (200) feet at the
building setback line.
(3) The minimum lot depth is two hundred (200) feet, except that lots fronting on a
cul·de-sac shall be at least two hundred (200) feet at the building setback line.
(4) The maximum lot covera~e is twenty (20) percent.
(5) The minimum setbacks arè as follows:
·a. For front yards, fifty (50) feet.
b. For rear yards, fifty (50) feet.
c. For side yards, ten (0) feet.
(6) 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) feet.
(7) The minimum driveway separation is as follows:
a. If the driveway is on a collector street, four hundred (400) feet.
b. If the driveway is on an arterial street, one thousand two hundred fifty (1,250)
feet.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 3(5-3·5).12-15-86; Ord. No. 170, § 1, 7-23-92; Ord. No. 194, § 1, 10-11-93)
.
Sec. 20·576. Interim uses.
The following are interim uses in the "A-2" District:
0) Reserved.
Supp. No.9
1207
~HachM~#.3
ZONING
§ 20-595
(4) Tennis court.
(5) Signs.
(6) Home occupation.
(7) One (1) dock.
(8) Roadside stand.
(9) Private kennel.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V. § 4(5-4-3), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20·594. Conditional uses.
The following are conditional uses in an "RR" District:
(1) Churches.
(2) Private stables.
(3) Public buildings.
(4) Recreational beach lots.
(5) Towers as regulated by article XXX of this chapter.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 4(5-4-4), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 120, § 4(3), 2-12-90; Ord. No. 259, § 10,
11-12-96)
State law reference-Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595.
"* Sec. 20-595. Lot requirements and setbacks.
The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RR" District subject to
additiònal requirements set forth in this chapter:
(1) The minimum lot area is two and one-half (2)/2) acres, subject to section 20-906.
(2) The minimum lot frontage is two hundred (200) feet, except that the minimum lot
frontage oflots fronting on a cul-de-sac shall be at least two hundred (200) feet at the
building setback line.
(3) The minimum lot depth is two hundred (200) feet, except that lots fronting on a
cul-de-sac shall be at least two hundred (200) feet at the building setback line.
(4) The maximum lot coverage is twenty (20) percent.
(5) The minimum 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 maximum height is as follows:
a. For the principal structure, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet.
Supp. No.9
1209
.
§ 20-595
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
b. For accessory structures, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet.
(7) The minimum driveway separation is as follows:
a. If the driveway is on a collector street, four hundred (400) feet.
b. If the driveway is on an arterial street, one thousand two hundred fifty 0,250)
feet.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 4(5-4-5), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 127, § 2, 3-26-90; Ord. No. 170, § 2, 6-8-92;
Ord. No. 194, § 2, 10-11-93)
Sec. 20·596. Interim uses.
The following are interim uses in the "RR" District:
0) Commercial kennels and stables.
(Ord. No. 120, § 3, 2-12-90)
Editor's note-Inasmuch as there exists a § 20-595, the provisions added by § 3 ofOrd. No.
120 as § 20-595 have been redesignated as § 20-596.
Sees. 20-597-20-610. Reserved.
ARTICLE XII. "RSF" SINGLE.FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Sec. 20·611. Intent.
The intent of the "RSF" District is to provide for single-family residential subdivisions.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-1), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-612. Permitted uses.
The following uses are permitted in an "RSF" District:
(1) Single-family dwellings.
(2) Public and private open space.
(3) State-licensed day care centar for twelve (2) or fewer children.
(4) State-licensed group home serving six (6) or fewer persons.
(5) Utility services.
(6) Temporary real estate office and model home.
(7) Antennas as regulated by article XXX of this chapter.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-2), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 259, § 11, 11-12-96)
Sec. 20-613. Permitted accessory uses.
The following are permitted accessory uses in an "RSF" District:
(1) Garage.
Supp. No.9
1210
)
.
.
-tY
1l1to.Ö\~e;f #= ~
ZONING
§ 20-907
(5) Meet the requirements of the Uniform Building Code as adopted and amended by the
city or the applicable manufactured housing code.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 6, 12-15-86; Ord. No. 240, § 22, 7-24-95)
Cross reference-Technical codes, § 7-16 et seq.
Sec. 20.906. Alternate lot size requirements in A·2 and RR Residential Zoning
Districts.
Minimum lot size requirements in the A-2 and RR Residential Zoning Districts located
outside of the Metropolitan Council's Urban Service Area shall be regulated by article IX and
article X of this chapter, respectively, or in the alternative may be fifteen thousand (15,000)
square feet if the following conditions are met:
(1) A one-unit per ten-acre density is maintained.
(2) All lots must have soil and water conditions which permit a well.
(3) All lots must have conditions which will permit two (2) on-site sewer systems installed
in conformance with chapter 19, article IV.
(4) The one-unit per ten-acre density applies to contiguous property under single owner-
ship. Acreage under single ownership, which is not contiguous, cannot be combined for
increased densitylbuilding eligibility on one of the parcels. Transfer of development
rights from one parcel of land to another is not allowed, except as permitted in
paragraph (7) below.
(5) Once a building eligibility has been used for a property, a development contract must
be recorded with the county establishing the number of building eligibilities remaining
or documenting that no building eligibility remains. Transfer of development rights
from one (l) parcel ofland to another is not allowed.
(6) .Each site must have an area which can support two (2) septic system sites, on a slope
ofless than twenty-five (25) percent.
(7) Parcels which do not have public street frontage and are landlocked may transfer
building eligibilities to an adjacent parcel which does have public street frontage and
meets other provisions of this section.
(Ord. No. 80,Art. VI, § 7,12-15-86; Ord. No. 170, § 3, 6-8-92; Ord. No. 194, § 3,10-11-93; Ord.
No. 240, § 23, 7-24-95)
.
.
Sec. 20-907. Height regulations.
(a) Where the average slope of a lot is greater than one (l) foot rise or fall in seven (7) feet
of horizontal distance from the established street elevation at the property line, one (I) story
in addition to the number permitted in the district in which the lot is situated shall be
permitted on the downhill side of any building.
(b) The height limitations stipulated elsewhere in this chapter shall not apply to the
following:
(1) Barns, silos or other farm buildings or structures on farms; church spires, belfries,
cupolas and domes, monuments, water towers, fire and hose towers, observation
Supp. No.9
1232.9
1. A one unit per ten acre density is maintained using the
¡ fOllowing gUidelines:
r
0 - 19.99 acres equals 1 single family unit
.
20 - 29.99 acres equals 2 single family units
30 - 39.99 acres equals 3 single family units, etc.
--
6-6-2
At~w¡aJ/Þ5
Conform to the fOllowing standards for living areas:
1. One story rambler design~960 square feet.
6-6-3
2. Split level design-1,050 square feet.
3. Split foyer and two story design-600 square feet on the
first floor plus a two car garage must be attached to
the single family structure.
Have an earth covered, composition, shingled or tiled roof
or other. materials approved by the State Uniform BUilding
Code.
6-6-4
Receive a building permit. The application for a building
permit in addition to other information required shall
indicate the height, size, design and the appearance of all
elevations of the proposed building and a description of
the construction materials proposed to be used.
6-6-5
Meet the requirements of the State Uniform Building Code or
the applicable manufactured hoUsing code.
SECTION 7. RURAL LOT BUILDING ELIGIBILITIES
6-7-1
All lots located outside of the Metropolitan Council's
Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary shall be created
in conformance to the requirements of Article 5, Section 3
or Section 4.
6-7-2
A new single family building may be established or a lot
containing an existing single family dwelling may be
subdivided only if the following provisions are met:
--) 2. Existing parcels of record established prior to the
effective date of this Zoning Ordinance shall be deemed
as buildable lots. This provision also applies to those
lots affected by item 10 of this Section.
3. All lots shall have the minimum frontage on a pUblic
road as regulated in Article 5, Section 3, 5-3-5 and
Section 4, 5-4-5. To reduce the number of driveways on
collectors and arterials, up to two parcels will be
allowed to be accessed by a private easement.
4. All lots must have soil and water conditions which
permit a well.
-90-
5. All lots must have conditions which will permit two
on-site sewer systems installed in conformance with th
Chanhassen Ordinance No. 10-B.
6. The one unit per 10 acre density applies to contiguous
property under single ownership. Acreage under single
ownership, which is not contiguous, cannot be combined
for increased density/building eligibility on one of
the parcels. Transfer of development rights from one
parcel of land to another is not allowed, except as
permitted in Section 9 below.
7. Once a building eligibility has been used for a
property, a development contract must be recorded with
the County establishing the number of building
eligibilities remaining or documenting that no bui1dinç
eligibility remains. Transfer of development rights
from one parcel of land to another is not allowed.
8. Each site must have at least one acre of area which car
support two septic system sites, a building pad and
well with a slope of 25% or less.
9. Parcels which do not have public street frontage and
are landlocked may transfer building eligibilities to
an adjacent parcel which does have public street
frontage and meets other provisions of this section.
10. Applications for subdivisions in the rural service area
as identified in the Comprehensive Plan to contain a
development density of one unit per 2 1/2 acres will be
accepted until 4:30 p.m. on January 15, 1987, if the
following information is submitted to the Planning
Department:
1. Completion of the Application for Subdivision.
2. Submission of the public hearing list of .
surrounding property owners.
3. Submission of a boundary survey with the proposed
lot pattern.
4. Submission of required application fees.
Further, these applications must also submit additional
data required for preliminary plat approval in a manner
which will achieve preliminary plat approval by July 1,
1987 unless the City Council deems to table final
action on the application after July lr 1987.
SECTION 8. HOME OCCUPATIONS
A home occupation may be established and conducted only in
accordance with the following requirements:
-91-
SUBJECT: XXX LAKOTA LANE
Comments seller wanted to have presented before Chanhassen
meetings.
d Ø-~I 4~J J~~ ~ rl'te~
0r7cJ! tZ ~7 ~ ~7:J 077 ~_r' t; "; i(-/{J' t4¿.~,-,
1ff ~ -A~ fdA-:r;f ~ 4--nJ ~<:j- ð( ~ t~dCl :i01J M:¡/
t~~ ~<:~IL--~_ '7ie .¿-:J- ¡"" """l ~'llA.~c¿ ttd,,~ .J2--t4c-7 þ.(q,
-L I, ,f~ " Þ,
fld...M..u (t:Wv.'¿;:47J<_·Ü7¡ cLt'-1/'J]'¿c(U-<,_1.<<r7 L4.- !/ (~<v->.,_ ¿L~<_
~:. ,:J t¿~ (~/4i- &1 ~ rL.0;':7'
"j f]v"'/,'-"--. ;}¿.fj':J ""V' Í-f"'-777 cG2.rtv;;y .5 äl?) t~ 1:.J.!ki?>¡ f.k~
jZLdf ~c:4y ;20 1;?Ua4JÚ"'?.I'-~L <££vlL /fi.ô,qq ,
7J~7?i.fi.-d <-Þ" 'ft?' (f~ ~. J C¿" 7 Yff- d /w... / c<... {p aé/z..c
tc r1:! tUl.µ---·d ~
. . t:(,¿ t~-J¡{[¿í'~~cL-_ CL:nhk.:c{,.ud .,d~~~ ,¿Jpr!d;; -t ~t.;:
tI,,¿l/V 11¿:A'~, :elJúf (¡/f ~-é.¿J þ4 tLt'-.<L -cr:n <.-1" C!.d"",~
61 Îliu-d - ì k lLu-.:/' ~ !'Lð-uJ. '. . ; .
AflJi1fJ~ h<j6 4 LIJ)~¿ f&f ~-d'ú.¡f~~L4K--v)Jd _
~ /7Á.4J tu'1/e-Iu.~~ 7~~ iL4¿ cfu~J c2.-nd /vj;:7ct£Mj
V/V Of1Jl f ¡Q96\. 71~ (.úU¿J7/?-Lk. J(~ (¡7Þ A-71r4'
IJ}~ ti ~ I~~y
d ~?d¿ -A~!f -f¡, rÝ~ 7Yl~æJ <~{¿_
~"Cn,e-_,/.2nn~,J ~:6~. 'L4-J ·
,~J~(L~-rrl;~~'~:t' ~ ~~ ~ '7l7~
imfwø
1!1I
"~ ~ /Jú-~ ~ ð'/æ«.J ITJdJ'-~ ¡fi¡r Wd/ ;"þ>77<'
";Ill æJi/;..üI Ik~
Planning Commission Minutes
June 20, 2000
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 20-906 REGARDING NON-CONFORMING
LOTS OF RECORD.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Vicki Weber
Representing Mr. Happe
Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: And with that, any questions of staff?
Kind: Yes Mr. Chainnan. Shannin, I'm assuming that the reason that the ordinance stated that these
three lots are to be considered as one was for purpose 2(b), which is to encourage the elimination of non-
confonning uses, lots and structures. Or reduce their impact on adjacent properties. Is that the reason
why that was in there in the first place?
AI-Jaff: That's correct.
Aanenson: And that still applies.
Kind: It still applies to Lot F that were subdivided when?
AI-Jaff: We haven't pennitted any subdivisions.
Kind: Since 1987.
AI-Jaff: No.
Kind: So why, so this wouldn't apply to anything? There's no show 3 adjacent lots.
.
Aanenson: We found some that it does apply to. That's why we're trying to fix the problem. This was
put in place because we had a situation where, especially for the Halla subdivision, we allowed them to
go less than 2 Y, acres because we said in time, if sewer's extended, they may want to further subdivide.
So we felt like all those lots that were in the 1987 had been built on. Well we found in this very southern
area of the city there are existing lots that are under common ownership that the only hope they have is
the 1 per 10. That's the only thing they don't meet and that was a requirement based on the Lake Ann
Interceptor Agreement for those sprawling large lot developments. So there are lots of record that have
that in place. The problem is if it's one owner or family or something they can't subdivide them. Or sell
them as individual lots. And that was never the intent. When Paul Krauss, the fonner planning director
was here, it was his belief that those lots had probably all been built on. But we found some that hadn't
been.
Kind: And they're after 1987?
Planning Commission Minutes
June 20, 2000
Aanenson: They were platted in 1987 but they're all under one ownership. That's the penalty. If you
have them all in one person's name, even though there's three separate PID's, because they're in one
person's name, that's the penalty. And we believe that was onerous and that's why we're saying we
should put that back in because we found some that that circumstance happens.
Kind: I think I get it.
Peterson: Other questions of staff?
Sacchet: Yeah, Mr. Chair. I have a question. The condition number 10. Couldn't that be simplified a
little bit? It says applications for subdivision in the rural service area as identified in the comprehensive
plan contain a development density of 1 unit per 2 \>2 acres were accepted until January 15'h.
Aanenson: That's the magic date of the Lake Ann Interceptor Agreement. That's the critical one we
needed in that we didn't have in.
Sacchet: If all required information was submitted to the planning department. We don't need to list
them because they were required then. It's not like somebody come and still apply for that.
AI-Jaff: The only reason we left them in there was to give it something to go back to. This way we can
pull out the application... and say okay. Did they meet this and did they meet that?
Sacchet: So there's a purpose to actually...okay. That was my question. Thanks for answering it.
Peterson: Okay, anything else? A motion and a second for public hearing please.
Kind moved, Burton seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commissioners, please come forward
and state your name and address please.
Vicki Weber: Hi. I'm Vicki Weber and I'm with Coldwell-Banker Burnet and I am representing Mr. and
Mrs. Happe here tonight. They have moved to... To put the human part of this topic, can I put... This
property they had subdivided back in '84. They lived down the street... purchased this property and
decided that for future investment they would divide the property. They divided the 9.34 acres into 3
separate lots and that's what these are right here and... Whatthey want to do is a nest egg for the future.
They had then platted. They had it recorded. Mr. Happe's going into a nursing home and I think you
probably got the letter that she wrote a very emotional letter and we're not here to be emotional but, he is
94 and she's 88. And now we put the house on the market...for $455,000. It was appraised in January
for 440. Something like that. It's about $130-$140,000 each parcel. They're being taxed separately on
separate PID's. They have been I think since '92. So what's happening here is people are interested...
they want part of it. They don't want the whole 10 acres. The developers that want the 10 acres want to
know if they can develop it and they can't develop it. I've been getting calls every day and I said, I have
to go to the Planning Commission. I have to give the whole story explaining yes, it was divided but now
it may not be divided so we're got to go back to the city and talk to them about it. Well, will you call me
back. So what the situation is with this, ifit can't be divided, it's really tough luck for Mr. and Mrs.
Happe. In 10-15 years when we get water and sewer on that street, you can divide it into townhomes
2
Planning Commission Minutes
June 20, 2000
probably and it would sell for a great deal of money. So what's happened here is they're kind of out of
luck because they're running out of time. And you know you had mentioned Mr. Chair, you had said
somehow be creative and add an ordinance. It's kind ofwhat's happened for these people. They did it
with good faith they got it divided and now they may not be able to divide it.. . and someone's going to
come in and catch them at a disadvantage and they're going to buy it from them at less money. Turn
around and it will be okay again or they'll sit on it for 10 years and make a lot of money. They just want
you to give them what they expected to get out of this property.
Peterson: Okay, thank you.
Aanenson: And again I just want to clarify the glitch is the fact that it's all under Mr. Happe's name.
They are taxed three separate lots and that's how we caught it and the ordinance says ifit's under one,
now you have to meet the new rules and that wasn't our intent. And obviously that got left out. The
penalty, ifhe would have put it in the name of some other heirs or something we wouldn't be here asking
for the amendment but it's in his name.
Peterson: So noted. Anyone else in the public hearing?
Kind moved, Burton seconded to close the public bearing. The public bearing was closed.
Peterson: Any thoughts?
Kind: Quick question for staff. This site is guided for?
Aanenson: Low density.
Kind: Thank you. Not townhomes.
Aanenson: Those are on the bluff. They probably couldn't be further subdivided eitber. We did check
that with the home location and make sure...
Kind: Okay with tbat I'll make my comments Mr. Chair. I don't think the landowner should be
penalized because he maintained ownership of the three, or they maintained ownership of the three
parcels. If they had just gifted them to their children this wouldn't be, we wouldn't be here today. They
shouldn't be penalized for that. I support staff's recommendation. Ah, but I do have a question about it.
Vii, Kate? Would you object to changing the language to number 10 to be more past tense? It bugs me
that we're passing something that says that application will be accepted until 4:30 p.m. on January IS,
1987.
~,
Aanenson: That were accepted?
Kind: Yeah. So I'll propose doing it more past tense for a motion.
Sacchet: It really doesn't do us any good any more...is exact enough.
Peterson: Any other comments? I'll entertain a motion.
3
Planning Commission Minutes
June 20, 2000
Kind: Mr. Chair, I move the staff, or the Planning Commission recommends approval of zoning
ordinance amendment to Section 20-906, Alternate Lot Size requirements in A-2 and RR Residential
Zoning Districts by adding the language that appears below in points 8, 9 and 10. And I would like to
change the language on number 10 to be applications for subdivision in the rural service area as
identified in the comprehensive plan to contain a development density of one unit per 2 Y:z acres were
accepted on January 15, 1987, with the following. Provided the following infonnation was submitted to
the planning department.
Peterson: Any second?
Burton: Second.
Peterson: Any further discussion?
Sacchet: [still have an editing question. That were accepted until January] 5th or by January 15th.
Kind: Oh before. On or before.
Sacchet: On or before? Okay.
Kind: Good point. I suppose we have to be picky about this.
Sacchet: Might as well be specific.
Peterson: Okay, so moved and seconded. It's been discussed.
Kind moved, Burton seconded tbat tbe Planning Commission recommends approval of Zoning
Ordinance Amendment to Section 20-906. Alternate lot size requirements in A-2 and RR,
Residential Zoning Districts by adding tbe language tbat appears in bold:
(8) Existing parcels of record established prior to the effective date of this zoning ordinance
shalJ be deemed buildable lots. This provision also applies to those lots affected by item 10 .;:;
of this section.
(9) All lots shall have the minimum frontage on a public road as regulated in Section 20-575
and 20-595. To reduce the number of driveways on collectors and arterials, up to two (2)
parcels will be allowed to be accessed by a private easement.
(10) Applications for subdivision in the rural service area as identified in the comprehensive
plan to contain a development density of one unit per 2 Y:z acres were accepted on or before
January 15,1987, provided the following infonnation was submitted to the Planning
Department:
a. Completion of the Application for Subdivision.
b. Submission of the public hearing list of surrounding property owners.
c. Submission of a boundary survey with the proposed lot pattern.
4
Planning Commission Minutes
June 20, 2000
d. Submission of required application fees.
Further, these applications must also submit addition data required for preliminary plat approval in a
manner which will achieve preliminary plan approval by July I, 1987 unless the City Council deems to
table final action on the application after July I, 1987.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Peterson: Does this go onto the Council or is this it?
Aanenson: Yes. It's a code amendment.
Peterson: Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE ARTICLE XXV. SECTION 20-1176.
LANDSCAPING AND TREE REMOVAL TO CHANGE BUFFER YARD REOUIREMENTS
FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Questions of staff?
Sacchet: Yes Mr. Chair. This term landscape density transfer. Is that what we're expressing in the last
paragraph there? It talks about landscape density transfer in the middle paragraph and it says that it
needs to be defined. Did we define that?
Aanenson: Oh! I guess that was one that we felt if you wanted to add some further language on that,
then we would put something in there. So I thank you for pointing that out. That was a question you
had. We didn't have a good response. I don't know, did you have some language?
Kind: It was I think Alison that brought up the density transfer concept for landscaping and I noticed that
you left it off of your recommendations because it might be difficult to quantify.
"
Aanenson: Right. Right. That was Jill's recommendation. Unless you felt strongly about it, she felt that
that might be hard to administer and quantify, correct.
Kind: I tend to agree.
Burton: It does seem tough.
Kind: I thought it was kind of a clever idea but.
Aanenson: We're managing a lot of individual lots.
Kind: Well it sort of defeats the purpose that we need a buffer for that parcel. If it's adequate buffer for
that parcel, with the number of trees, then maybe we should look at our buffer ordinance.
5