Loading...
6a. Ordinance Codification, Review & Approve CITY OF \I ,Ps CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • OHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM T0: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Planner �A'. �+J?"`}`� ' �JQ''' ' ''� DATE: February 18 , 1988v- SUBJ: Proposed Ordinance Codification, First Reading BACKGROUND Several weeks ago the proposed codified ordinances were distri- buted to City Council members . It will be necessary for you to bring your code books to the meeting on Monday night. As the Council is aware, the City commissioned the Municipal Code Corporation to review all of the city codes and review conflicts between articles and state and federal laws. At the conclusion of that review and in conjunction with the City Attorney' s review, all of the city ordinances have been codified and orga- nized into one book so that there are no duplications from one ordinance to another ordinance. ANALYSIS The following discussion identifies remaining issues on a variety of ordinance sections that the Council will need to evaluate before adoption of the proposed ordinance for first reading. Included in that review is the codification of Chapter 20 , the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission acted on this item at the February 3 , 1988 , meeting. The Zoning Ordinance discussion is listed as part of the various items to be decided by the Council. Issues 1 . Page 386 , Section 7-16 (d) (5 ) . This section refers to UBC appendix, Chapters 12 , 48 and 49 . The City Attorney has advised that Chapter 12 and Chapter 49 are not permitted by the UBC to be adopted by municipalities . Chapter 12 refers to one and two family dwelling codes and Chapter 49 refers to regulations for pre-manufactured patio covers. The attorney advised that these code requirements are under state juris- diction only. Finally, there is no UBC appendix Chapter 48 . I (2) The fair market value may be based upon a current appraisal submitted to the City by the subdivider at the subdivider's expense. (3) If the City disputes such appraisal the City may, at the subdivider's expense, obtain an appraisal of the property by a qualified real estate appraiser, which appraisal shall be conclusive evidence of the fair market value of the land. (0) Planned developments with mixed land uses shall make cash and/or land contributions in accordance with this Section based upon the percentage of land devoted to the various uses. (P) Park and trail cash contributions are to be calculated at the time building permits are issued and shall be paid when the permit is issued by the person requesting the permit. (Q) The cash contributions for parks and trails shall be deposited in either the City's Park and Recreation Development Fund or Multi- purpose Pedestrian Trail Fund and shall be used only for park acquisition or development and trail acquisition or development. (R) If a subdivider is unwilling or unable to make a commitment to the City as to the type of building that will be constructed on lots in the proposed plat, then the land and cash contribution requirement will be a reasonable amount as determined by the City Council. (S) Wetlands, ponding areas, and drainage ways accepted by the City shall not be considered in the park land and/or cash contribution to the City. Section 3 . This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED by the City Council of Chanhassen this day of , 1988. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Don Ashworth, City Manager I I -3- • I Cohfa&e.:el,alat‘ . / /q-4•74, _2774- POST OFFICE BOX 2235 TALLAHASSEE,FLORIDA 32316 ROGER D MERRIAM Supervising Editor TELEPHONE(904)576-3171 September 29 , 1987 Mr . Donald Ashworth City Manager City Hall Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: Chanhassen Code - Dear Mr. Ashworth: I am pleased to advise that 50 copies of the Code were shipped to you on September 25 , 1987 , via United Parcel Service. Twe five copies of the Code were bound in mechanical binders andnthe remaining copies were punched and wrapped for eventual binding. Enclosed is a suggested ordinance to be used to adopt the Code . Once the Code is adopted , a copy of the ordinance should be sent to us for inclusion in a supplement . We will also need a copy of each ordinance that has been adopted since June 18 , 1987 . This material should be sent to Robert Laslie , who is our Vice President for Supplements and who will work with you to make sure that Supplements are published on whatever schedule you desire . It is my suggestion that you send everything in for the first Supplement as soon as possible , so that the Code can be brought up-to-date without delay. I appreciate the help and assistance you and the other officials of the city gave to me during the codification process . Sincerely yours , 00.!P Ro: - r D. Merriam RDM: dd Enclosure cc : Mr. Roger Knutson, City Attorney RECZ;V ZD Nation's Leading Law Publisher Specializing in Ordinance Codification OCT 5 1987 Serving over 1,800 local governments in 47 states CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7'1-TNY VAC=v *il'' Planning Commission Meeting April 8 , 1987 - Page 40 street and I guess the earlier issue tonight kind of points out most of the cons of a private drive situation. The Halla subdivision that we talked about. However, the direction that I got from the Commission was for Staff to come back and give us a number that we can stick by in the future as to when to cut something off between a private drive and requiring it for a public street. In my analysis i kind of go through the thought process that Staff went through, the City Engineer and in talking to other communities. Establishing a length in the rural area proved to be more difficult because, as Mr. Segal pointed out, you have different sized parcels. Different sized rural lots may be 10, 15 to 20 acres that you would have to have a 1,500 foot private drive. So what we ended up looking at was the amount of use. Typically, a single family home generates 10 trips per day according to the Institute of Traffic Engineers. It comes down to picking a number of lots. Clearly on one hand, 3 or 4 looking at a use standpoint onto the road surface and so on, is not as significant as 10, 12 or 15 so where do you come down to a point that one is better than the other. I guess what I'm saying is that just like trying to establish a setback or a lot area requirement, you try to establish some type of intent statement. You want to minimize the number of lots onto a private drive. Currently we are allowing four and Staff has come back and we're recommending that again, that you maintain that four and not extend it to five or six. Emmings : I thought it was three . We were talking about three tonight . r �acy: Yes, in the Subdivision Ordinance it is three. During the 1 per 10 discussion, there is a statement that will allow up to two landlocked parcels to be serviced by the private drive so you could have up to four but that was under the new restrictions of the 1 per 10 so in the Halla case that didn't apply. You will be getting requests at the next meeting. They have a private drive serving four lots and then they have another two 2 1/2 acre lots and another divided lot and another private drive so again, it comes down to where do you draw the line because you will always have requests for 5 or 6. If you grant a variance for 6 then the next guy in the door will, say I want 7. These are hard decisions for the Commission and Councils to make but again, we just came full circle and said, Staff can't recommend that you go anything beyond four . Headla: Do you ask the Fire Department for their input before it comes to us? Dacy: Yes . Headla: For instance, if somebody wants to extend it beyond four, do o get comments from the Fire Department? y you Dacy: Yes. We get comments on all issues that affect the Fire Department. Typically, the Fire Department doesn't prefer private drives from an addressing problem because for example, if this is Audubon Road, you'll have -Four addresses off of Audubon and if you're just looking down the street, Aey could drive right by and not realize the lots in the rear are off of s E Planning Commission Meeting 1April 8, 1987 - Page 41 Audubon so we're looking more and more to naming these privat e drive with street names so it 's easy to identify. IHeadla : Do the police have a comment on those? Dacy: Our Public Safety Director Sheriff 's Department so through hisyofficey is acting on behalf of the Iyes we will get comments . Emmings: We talked about requiring, requiring a homeowners assocationiflthewe did on that one Iand that they be responsible for maintainenance of project, going to have these roads if there are only four? do we do that even Dacy: I would suggest it. Emmings : We should do it in every case? Dacy: Yes . Emmin Emmings. What I was nl gO1ng to say, if you don't do it for 4 Icertainly it if we ever approve any over 4 because then if they don' it, we can go in. Y don't Dacy: Even if the association is responsible for nothing else �n'moire and identifying who is responsible for maintenance an at you're saying, g e than to make future and they in and so °n• Like Y g a majority of the owners won't want to approve Tutu Bland ekwouldnhavebt eisigntand ddo tha l t w it in the That's what we're doing "make sure that everything is done properly, really is the City's only way to I niceErhart: The major reason I'm on this Planning Commission is m concern about maintaining the amenities of the south Chanhassen area. combination of agricultural yet my overall property for Y t realizing that this is valuabl The subdivisions people who want to live out there and allowing mixed in this agricultural propert s us to do some —trying to find little devices to keep y• The reason _subdivision ason that I've been just like you u P require consistency and beauty of a rural don't want south Chanhassen to end up require in the urban area, is that I acre lots, some 5, some P like Prior Lake. Prior Lake has acavel private driveways.20. There is no system. There are all kinds of 0 gravel ve mess and land wa are maintained, some not. It's here. opinion just zero relative to currently where ho wee hre. My Opini on is I and we ought to look at those areas whee are ere getting e for the subdivisions s nand them with the same critical eye at we much fo practical. I think we ought to void these that We We've got a new Ordinance with good separations.rives as of how far that driveway had to be from an intersection. We've got 1,250 feet on arterials. The only thing we missed there is a statement Halla thing, you can have 1,250 feet separation in driveways driveway Looking at this y could be 300 feet from TH 101 and CR 14 intersection. ^onsider maybe adding that stipulation in here as well. but that _ �t 400 feet so if ec ought to you're looking for a number to come up In collectors we've P with, I think you Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 44 Erhart: All I know is I live on a 1 the City. I'll tell you, you drop graveled street and it's maintained by ice a p Your jaw every 15 to 20 feet. year. They come in and grade it once or t Noziska: I don't know what the solution is to dictate city streets there is going to be private roads, to dictate a proper cross section. if I Erhart: The first issue is how many lots can share a driveway. Isn't that the main top issue that you ' re looking for an answer. Noziska: I think four is appropriate. With the goofy allowing building on 2 1/2 acres, we 're almost bound to four. - we've got Conrad : But four in the future means what? When does the I effect? e 1 and lfd go into Dacy: It's been in effect since February 19th. It's just that ' I we ve been acting on all of these old applications. Conrad: So in the future, and I couldn't II saying, in the future it's still three, quite understand what w can but there is a situation where it would beefour .still subdivide into three Dacy: The Zoning Ordinance in the 1 , -dinance, which is a separate ordinance, still says three. Subdivision dify Jur Ordinances at this time so the whole consistent or to change them all togetherpurpose of this was oemake those I Noziska: The thing that I'm looking jot three lots and you have another access tadjacent so then wo accesses on a major okay, so then you've I ma or road rather than one and I think you end up with pith one access when you split 10 acres into four you're better off parcels. I :r hart: Except we're proposing that an ould require all of them front a Y subdivision over three nd I wed eave so public street so we couldn ' t parcels Aped this thing tonight too. do that . mmings: Tim's concerns are important ones but I olution either because it seems to me, I don't agree with his odge of private driveways and obvious' ' can see the concerns about a bodge ?u had four people along the five lots and have their own I y as we saw, it was a disaster but if id if it were well maintained. The maintenance seems to me to be ,e key to the thing and if it was built to a private drives le built right and and standard that we set. if I gem that they are going toaintained, I don't see any So if g g have to have a Y problem. If we tell -sponsible for maintaining homeowners association that's ' re going to assess it g it. If the City has to come in and do anything, to them. Then maybe We can ziska: Tim, here's what I'm talking about. get a grip on it. , res and here's 4 lots and here's Here s 40 acres and here's e we going to force this or wouldn't twe be a helldofnbetter Y 'a lot re sa in40 9. Y off Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 45 allowing this? My contention is we' re better off to allow these 2 1/2 acre lots then to be somehow gelled together if people are going to do that than to say, and believe me they will find anyway to take any advantage of this as they can possible do so. We may have maybe a cluster of three here or maybe have two here and two here, who knows. But whatever the situation, we're going to end with more rather than less as far as intrusions on our road system. That's where you guys came up with the four. Erhart: I think we're controlling the issue of how many driveway access more so by the regulations of distances between driveways . Noziska: But you can meet that by doing this . Erhart: Sure you can but I think what you're trying to avoid is, I just don ' t think we want to have four or five people sharing a single driveway. Noziska : I think that in our infinite wisdom we have said that as long as you don't exceed 1 and 10, that means you can take a 40 and split it into four. That's where these gals came up with this method and I think it makes more sense to do something like this than it does to do something like that. Dacy: I would like to have a decision as to the number . Conrad: I guess Howie's argument is kind of persuasive for me. I think ' hur works and has some rationale to it. I think the standards for building i private drives have to be in place but I don't how those are addressed. Steve's idea on the homeowners association, I think is a good one and if that applies to this four, I think that's real smart. I think that makes a lot of sense. So those are the three things that I see. The four, the standards and the homeowners association . Emmings: I agree with you. That gives us a number that we can rationally justify. It gives us the standards that the road has to be built to and it gives us a way to enforce maintenance . What more do we need . Erhart: If we do that, is there any interest in taking subdivisions of five or more lots and require them to all have internal streets? Conrad: I assume that would happen with what we just said . Emmings : They can ' t have a private drive so what can they have? Conrad : Can you come back with a draft for us to see? Jacy: Sure . Erhart: So we're saying a shared driveway with two people, they essentially =reate their own standard. If it goes three and four, then we have to have ome kind of standard . )nrad : Yes . M . Planning Commission Meeting April 8 , 1987 - Page 46 Noziska : What do we have for a standard on private drives? Dacy: It' s everything for a rural section except the bituminous . Erhart: If two lots came up here and they wanted to share a driveway, they have to meet that standard right now? Dacy: Just for two lots , we haven' t been enforcing it. Erhart: That's what I'm saying. For one and two we haven't been enforcing it but for three and four we are and for five we will create a public street. COMMUNITY CENTER TASK FORCE MEETING REPORT, DAVID HEADLA. Headla: I went to the meeting that turned out to be over at the Dinner Theater. Apparently there are 15 people on the Commission for this and from what I can tell , 14 of them are in this immediate area. One is from out west and nothing from down by Bluff Creek. People seems to be quite enthusiastic about it. They've done a lot of work on it. They've thought a lot about it. They are thinking about, currently we own a building, they are thinking about using that for racquetball courts and some swimming and hockey. The rationale for having it there is it supposedly will bring f :affic to the downtown. Children can walk to the center and it supports \iie hockey association . Now I've got negative comments. Bringing traffic to downtown doesn't help us. Children don't use a rec center. You don't want a youngster in there unsupervised. Racquetball courts they don't use and you've got to supervise them for swimming. On the Hockey Association, west of TH 41 they are all Shorewood and Minnetonka hockey. I don't think the people that are on that committee are that sensitive to what's happening all over Chanhassen. They are very tuned to this area. They are with the flow right here but they forget that there is all this whole area. There is no room for softball. I think I probably use recreational centers more than anybody else on the community and the two that they had to compare, I 'm very familiar with Eden Prairie and New Ulm. Softball fields are extremely popular. You go in the summertime through Eden Prairie and they are heavily used by the population. They did an analysis on putting in a swimming pool. They talked to Eden Prairie and talked to New Ulm. If you look at New Ulm , there isn't any swimming pools there. They put one in and it's used a lot. People are very happy with it and why wouldn't they be. That's all they have. In Eden Prairie, we didn't have swimming pools around Eden Prairie. The school uses it, the community uses it. We didn't have the fitness centers around. If we put one here, what do we got? We've got Eden Prairie, the Minnetonka high schools and we've got a fitness center up on TH 4. We've got a lot of pools around here already and if we don' t put in a major pool there, it won't have any traffic at all but the point I was trying to make, the analysis for putting in a swimming pool , I talked to the lady on how did she determine to recommend the swimming pool. There wasn't set format. It just kind of associated pools in the whole area. I think Mere is a value for a recreation center. We need the rationale for helping Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 1987 - Page 35 Headla : What rationale was used for the Arboretum? Dacy: I am not aware of the background or history on that. Dan Herbst : Is there some technical way we can run an 8 inch line and not call it an extension of the MUSA line? When you look at the whole lake, the only little nitch in that corner that's not served. I think it could have been in the MUSA if it wasn't put into the parks commission because the Lake Ann Interceptor that's going through now would have included Ches Mar and Kerber Farm. Dacy: We're not allowed to hook up to that until after the year 2000 or until our urban service area is full. If we were allowed to hook up to the Lake Ann Interceptor today it would require major trunk line extension down to that area and then you ' re talking area assessments . Dan Herbst : Could we try that? I don ' t know what the first step would be. Dacy: I think the first step is, I'll provide you a copy of the Facility Agreement and then arrange to meet with Met Council . APPROVAL OF MINUTES Emmings moved, Siegel seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning - Commission meeting dated April 22, 1987. All voted in favor except Noziska and Wildermuth who abstained and motion carried . -C-*:, PRIVATE DRIVES IN THE RURAL AREA. Barbara Dacy: This is just a follow-up on our last discussion on this. I went back to the Minutes and basically took the Commission's word for word comments and incorporated it into some language to include in the Subdivision Ordinance so Section 6.2 (14) , that first sentence that now exists in the Ordinance, private streets are prohibited. Then after that I'm proposing the following three items and then the fourth item as well. (1) Reservation of a 60 foot easement. (2) discusses that three or four lots may be served by the driveway but has to meet our standards for a gravel surface. However, if only two lots are sharing the driveway they may not have to meet those standards. (3) All subdivisions in excess of four lots must require to construct a public street with a paved surface. (4) came from Mr. Erhart was that subdivisions in excess of four lots deriving access from a collector or arterial street shall be required to provide access from an internal street and not direct access to the collector or arterial street. When I read that over again and I could almost end the sentence after "internal street . " The last phrase probably isn ' t necessary. Emmings: I think it makes it real clear. I thought. You know exactly what you ' re saying when you say it that way. 71k7tMeiv-W __... Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 1987 - Page 36 Dacy: Maybe change it something like access from individual lots shall not be approved onto collectors or arterials. I think also that we have that somewhere else in the Ordinance. It just legitimizes and makes consistent things that we are doing on a policy basis now. Noziska : So then you' re going to grandfather Hesse Farm in? Dacy: Yes. Noziska : We' re not going to have to give you our street? Dacy: No. Unless you want us to take your street. Noziska : No . We will take care of it ourselves . Emmings: We did talk about the possibilty of riparian homeowners associations and so forth didn ' t we? Dacy: Yes, I talked to the City Attorney about that and he said whether you call it a homeowners association or a group of property owners all agreeing on a document to maintain it, he said it isn't necessary to have a specific ordinance section and requirement for it. All the lot owners are going to have to agree to that in writing , that we could get it as part of plat approval . He didn' t see it necessary to include it in the Ordinance. Conrad : Because it ' s going to happen anyway? Dacy: His main concern was calling it a homeowners association. A homeowners association just creates By-Laws and it's not a condominium association where you have State Statutes that require all this. You could have a group of property owners signing a maintenance agreement instead of calling it the Whitetail Ridge Homeowners Association. Conrad : So you will do that as a matter of . . . Emmings: A condition on plat approval or something like that? Olsen: It's already a condition that not necessarily a homeowners association but that it would be maintained by a designated group. Dacy: Unless we had a number 5 that said a private drive shall be maintained . . . Noziska: I don't know what business we have getting into prohibiting private streets when the private street I'm familiar with is a good one and the road that Chanhassen is supposed to maintain is a lousy one. What I'm saying is are we going at this in the right direction or is there some other way we can establish some standard for construction and maintenance that if a group such as the dudes that are going to live on this road here that we talked about today, those fellows aren't going to stand for a street like Bluff Creek Drive. They're going to go more like the one that we have Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 1987 - Page 37 C on Hesse Farm Road . Emmings : I think the problem is you ' re the exception more than the rule. Noziska: Let's go for the exception a little bit more. I drive around Chanhassen and in the springtime, a good share of your tarred roads not only have 1 1/2 inch of matte on them, these garbage trucks are popping holes in them all the time so they're destroyed. There are patches on top of patches in several of these intersections. What I'm saying is, why would Chanhassen as a City want to take on a road, insist that a road be a public road when the private people would go ahead and build one that's better and take care of it on their own. Dacy: In your case thay may be true. Hesse Farm is doing a good job of it. I wouldn't argue with that. Where private streets are prohibited, that's a standard condition that I can pull from any subdivision ordinance in the metropolitan area and the nation. Noziska : I know but that doesn' t mean it' s right . Dacy: I think it is right from an overall city policy. For safety, health and maintenance and so on, all streets should be public roads because some associations like Hesse Farm are not that successful in keeping up maintenance and so on in keeping it up to spec. Gary and I went out to a private drive situation on Lotus Lake. They have arranged for four different snow plowing companies to come in and plow. During an emergency if there is a fire and the one guy didn't show up to plow the remaining part of the road, how are we going to get access to it? That's just ridiculous. In that case there's got to be public street access to it. I understand your concern but on a policy wide, city wide basis, we just can't encourage it. Conrad: What if somebody like Howie's development came in and proposed that Barbara? Dacy: Bluff Creek Greens. That's a private street. We had a list of conditions that it had to meet specifications and had to submit a homeowners association document that we ' re going to maintain this to city standards . Noziska: To exceed city standards. Dacy: That is a private street . Conrad: So under this ordinance, Howie's development could come in, tell me if he would have the right to apply for a private street and if we were satisified . Dacy: The Bluff Creek Green thing is that you were granting a variance to this section to allow a private street. Noziska : With a variance. Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 1987 - Page 38 ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL MEETING FOR TH 212 PUBLIC HEARING. The Planning Commission set the date of June 3, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. as the public hearing date for the special meeting on TH 212. Emmings moved, Siegel seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10: 30 p.m. . Submitted by Barbara Dacy City Planner Prepared by Nann Opheim