10a. Ordinance Codification /Oat
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
' (612) 937-1900
' MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manages
FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Planner
DATE: March 10, 1988
' SUBJ: Ordinance Codification, Second and Final Reading
' BACKGROUND
The City Council approved the proposed ordinance codification for
first reading at the February 22, 1988, meeting. During Council
discussion, five issues were discussed as potential changes.
1 . The Council agreed to the various amendments to Section 7-16
regarding adoption of UBC Appendices and regarding remittance
of building permit fees. The attached ordinance reflects
these changes.
1 2 . The Council discussed proposed modification to the park dedi-
cation ordinance Section 14-31 through 14-37. The City
Attorney has responded to the Council ' s request for additional
information (Attachment #4) . Based on the attorney' s opi-
nion, the attached ordinance is recommended for adoption.
' 3 . The Council agreed to the codification of the Zoning
Ordinance as presented with special notation to errors on
page 1174 and 1270.
4 . The Council discussed the proposed revision to Section 18-57 .
The Council directed staff to come back with recommended
language. That language is as follows:
' Section 18-57 (n) - Public streets to be constructed in sub-
divisions located inside the Year 2000 Metropolitan Urban
' Service Area line as identified in the City' s Comprehensive
Plan shall be constructed to urban standards as determined 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 rural standard requirements
as prepared by the City Engineer ' s Office. The construction
of private streets are prohibited.
I
Mr. Don Ashworth I
March 10 , -1988
Page 2
Private drives which provide access to more than four lots in
the area outside of the Year 2000 Metropolitan Urban Service 1
Area may be allowed subject to the following conditions:
a. Reservation of a 60 foot easement; 1
b. The private drive shall be constructed to applicable city
standards when the drive provides access to 3 or 4 lots.
Private drives in these situations may contain a gravel
surface. Private drives to be shared by two lots do not
have to meet the above referenced city standards if
deemed appropriate by the city.
c. Subdivisions in excess of four lots shall be required to
construct a public street with a paved surface in
compliance with applicable city standards. Direct access
to a collector or arterial street shall not be permitted
when an internal public street is provided.
RECOMMENDATION ,
In order to consummate the adoption of the ordinance creating the
new codified ordinance as well as establishing new language for
certain sections of the new codified ordinance as described in
the above four points, three separate ordinances must be adopted.
Ordinance No. 83 : It is recommended that the City Council adopt '
Ordinance No. 83 as represented in Attachment #1.
Ordinance No. 84 : It is recommended that the City Council adopt
Ordinance No. 84 pertaining to various amendments to the
Chanhassen City Code.
Ordinance No. 85: It is recommended that the City Council adopt 1
Ordinance No. 85 pertaining to amending the Park and Recreation
Section.
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Ordinance No. 83
2 . Ordinance No. 84
3 . Ordinance No. 85
4 . Letter from Roger Knutson dated March 10, 1988 .
5 . Packet from February 22 , 1988 , meeting '
I
I
i
I
ORDINANCE NO. Pirt
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AND ENACTING A NEW CODE FOR THE
CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL
' OF CERTAIN ORDINANCES NOT INCLUDED THEREIN; PROVIDING A
PENALTY FOR THE VIOLATION THEREOF; PROVIDING FOR THE
MANNER OF AMENDING SUCH CODE ; AND PROVIDING WHEN SUCH
' CODE AND THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE .
THE CITY COUNCIL OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS :
' Section 1 . The Code entitled "Chanhassen City Code"
published by Municipal Code Corporation consisting of Chapter 1
' through 20 , each inclusive , is adopted.
' Section 2 . All ordinances of a general and permanent nature
enacted on or before June 18 , 1987 , and not included in the Code
or recognized and continued in force by reference therein are
repealed.
' Section 3 . The repeal provided for in section 2 hereof shall
' not be construed to revive any ordinance or part thereof that has
been repealed by a subsequent ordinance that is repealed by this
' ordinance .
Section 4 . Unless another penalty is expressly provided ,
every person convicted of a violation of any provision of the Code
or any ordinance , rule or regulation adopted or issued in
pursuance thereof , shall be a misdemeanor punishable to the
' maximum extent authorized in Minnesota statute section 412 . 231 .
Each act of violation and each day upon which any such violation
' shall occur shall constitute a separate offense. The penalty
provided by this section, unless another penalty is expressly
' provided shall apply to the amendment of any Code section whether
' or not such penalty is reenacted in the amendatory ordinance. In
addition to the penalty prescribed above , the city may pursue
1
417thrne9-A17-4-
other remedies such as abatement of nuisance , injuctive relief , '
and recovation of licenses or permits.
Section 5 . Additions or amendments to the Code , when passed
in the form as to indicate the intention of the city to make the
same a part of the Code , shall be deemed to be incorporated in the
Code , so that reference to the Code includes the additions and
amendments .
Section 6 . Ordinances adopted after June 18 , 1987 that amend
or refer to ordinances that have been codified in the Code , shall
be construed as if they amend or refer to like provisions of the
. Code . '
Section 7 . This ordinance shall become effective �(,t 7'V1
Stitt db .p kVi ca l • U
Passed by the city council of the City of Chanhassen ,
Minnesota, the day of
, Mayor
I
, City Manager
1
r
I
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
' ORDINANCE NO. 84
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CERTAIN SECTIONS
OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
' The City Council of Chanhassen ordains :
' Section 1 . Section 7-16 (d) ( 5 ) is hereby amended as
follows:
( 5) UBC Appendix, Chapter 35, 38, 55, and 70;
Section 2 . Section 7-18 (b) is amended as follows:
' (b) Upon return of a building permit to the city by the
holder thereof, with proof satisfactory to the Building Official
that no construction was undertaken pursuant hereto, he shall
' refund to the holder the building permit fee paid by him except
that twenty percent ( 20% ) of the fee paid or twenty-five dollars
( $25. 00 ) , whichever is greater shall be retained by the city. A
similar refund shall be made of any plan checking fee paid except
' that no refund shall be made if the city has caused the plans to
be checked.
Section 3 . Section 18-57 ( n) is amended as follows :
Section 18-57 (n) - Public streets to be constructed in sub- -
' divisions located inside the Year 2000 Metropolitan Urban
Service Area line as identified in the City' s Comprehensive
Plan shall be constructed to urban standards as determined 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 rural standard requirements
as prepared by the City Engineer' s Office. The construction
' of private streets are prohibited.
Private drives which provide access to more than four lots in
the area outside of the Year 2000 Metropolitan Urban Service
Area may be allowed subject to the following conditions:
' a . Reservation of a 60 foot easement;
b. The private drive shall be constructed to applicable city
' standards when the drive provides access to 3 or 4 lots.
Private drives in these situations may contain a gravel
surface. Private drives to be shared by two lots do not
have to meet the above referenced city standards if
' deemed appropriate by the city.
c. Subdivisions in excess of four lots shall be required to
' construct a public street with a paved surface in
compliance with applicable city standards . Direct access
to a collector or arterial street shall not be permitted
' when an internal public street is provided.
1
Section 4 . This ordinance shall become effective from and
after its passage and publication. '
Passed and adopted by the City Council this day of
1988 . '
Mayor '
Attest: '
City Manager
1
1 1
1
1
ORDINANCE NO. __
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
CONCERNING PARK LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS
The City Council of Chanhassen ordains as follows:
Section 1. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by deleting the
' following sections: 14-33, 14-34, 14-35, 14-36, 14-37, and 18-77B.
Section 2 . The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding the
' following sections:
Section 18-78. Park Land Dedication Requirements.
' (A) As a prerequisite to subdivision approval, subdividers shall
dedicate land for parks, playgrounds, public open spaces and trails
and/or shall make a cash contribution to the City's Park Fund as
' provided by this Section.
(B) Land to be dedicated shall be reasonably suitable for its intended
use and shall be at a location convenient to the people to be
' served. Factors used in evaluating the adequacy of proposed park
and recreation areas shall include size, shape, topography,
geology, hydrology, tree cover, access, and location.
' (C) The Park and Recreation Committee shall recommend to the City
Council the land dedication and cash contribution requirements for
' proposed subdivisions.
(D) Changes in density of plats shall be reviewed by the Park and
Recreation Committee for reconsideration of park dedication and
' cash contribution requirements.
(E) When a proposed park, playground, recreational area, school site or
' other public ground has been indicated in the City's official map
or comprehensive plan and is located in whole or in part within a
proposed plat, it shall be designated as such on the plat and shall
be dedicated to the appropriate governmental unit. If the
' subdivider elects not to dedicate an area in excess of the land
required hereunder for such proposed public site, the City may
consider acquiring the site through purchase or condemnation.
(F) Land area conveyed or dedicated to the City shall not be used in
calculating density requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance and
' shall be in addition to and not in lieu of open space requirements
for planned unit developments.
/1-7541(060-74
•
(G) Where private open space for park and recreation purposes is 1
provided in a proposed subdivision, such areas may be used for
credit, at the discretion of the City Council, against the
requirement of dedication for park and recreation purposes,
provided the City Council finds it is in the public interest to do
so.
(H) The City, upon consideration of the particular type of development, '
may require larger or lesser parcels of land to be dedicated if the
City determines that present or future residents would require
greater or lesser land for park and playground purposes.
(I) In residential plats one acre of land shall be conveyed to the City
as an outlot by warranty deed for every seventy-five (75) people
the platted land could house based upon the following population
calculations:
Single-family detached '
dwelling lots 3 . 0 persons
Two-family dwelling lots 6.0 persons ,
Apartments, townhouses, condo-
miniums and other dwelling units 1. 0 person per bedroom '
(J) In plats other than residential plats, a cash donation equal to ten
percent (10%) of the fair market value of the undeveloped property
shall be paid. '
(K) In lieu of a park land donation, the City may require an equivalent
cash donation based upon average undeveloped land value in the II City. The cash dedication requirement shall be established annually
by the City Council.
(L) In lieu of a trail land donation, the City may require the '
following cash donations for the multi-purpose pedestrian trail
system:
8
For each lot or dwelling unit $ 13 . 00
(M) The City may elect to receive a combination of cash, land, and
development of the land for park use. The fair market value of the
land the City wants and the value of the development of the land
shall be calculated. That amount shall be subtracted from the cash
contribution required by subsection K above. The remainder shall be II
the cash contribution requirement.
(N) "Fair market value" shall be determined as of the time of filing
the final plat in accordance with the following:
(1) The City and the developer may agree as to the fair market
value, or
-2-
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
-3-
•
1
LAW OFFICES
GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON ,
DAVID L.GRANNIS- 1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TELECOPIER:
DAVID L.GRANNIS,JR. - 1910-1980 POST OFFICE Box 57 (612)455-2359
VANCE B.GRANNIS 403 NORWEST BANK BUILDING DAVID L. HARMEYER Eulorr B. KNETSCH
VANCE B. GRANNIS,JR. 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE MICHAE
PATRICK A. FARRELL MICHAEL J. MAYER
DAVID L. GRANNIS, IiI SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 TIMOTHY J. BERG
ROGER N. KNUTSON TELEPHONE(612)455-1661
March 10, 1988
Ms. Barbara Dacy, City Planner
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Dear Barb:
Your letter of February 25, 1988, asked me to respond to
several questions.
la. "Average Underdeveloped Land Value" is not a direct
quote from the statute. Minn. Stat. § 462. 358, subd. 2(b) ,
provides that the City can require a subdivider to dedicate "a
reasonable portion" of a subdivision to the City for a park or an
equivalent amount in cash "based upon the fair market value of
the land no later than at the time of final approval. " I drafted
the ordinance so that the City could set a fixed fee every year
for every plat. The purpose in doing so was administrative
convenience.
lb. I have not received the revised language.
1c. One ordinance can include all the changes in the zoning
ordinance. Reference should be made to the new City Code
numbering. 1
2. Findings are enclosed.
3. Findings are enclosed. 1
4. Enclosed is the revised Agreement.
5a. The City Council can revoke the CUP for non-compliance.
Carlson would, however, have the right to continue his operation
as a non-conforming use. He could not, however, expand the
operation over what existed in 1972. If by reason of exterior
storage of junk and the like a nuisance exists or if he has
expanded his operation, we could prosecute him.
MAR 10 1988 '
CITY OF CHANHASS 1
Ms. Barbara Dacy
' March 9, 1988
Page Two
5c. The City could waive the fee, but I can think of no
1 good reason for doing so.
Ve ly yours,
' GRANNIS RANNIS, FARRE L
TSON, P.A.
BY:
,. ' v E
al r N. Kn 01."
RNK: srn
Enclosures
1
I
I
i
. / , ,
..- CITY OF ........._11
,, _ ,
,,,,,,L,.... CHANHASSEN
. I
, .
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
- At
(612) 937-1900
II
MEMORANDUM __._
II
TO Don Ashworth, City Manager _z'/ ---
FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Planner �I� II
DATE: February 18 , 1988
SUBJ: Proposed Ordinance Codification, First Reading II
BACKGROUND II 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
I
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 II 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.
II
ANALYSIS
The following discussion identifies remaining issues on a variety 1
of ordinance sections that the Council will need to evaluate
before adoption of the proposed ordinance for first reading. II 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
II
Council.
Issues i
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
II
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
II
advised that these code requirements are under state juris-
diction only. Finally, there is no UBC appendix Chapter 48 .
--7-----1
z( '
1
Mr. Don Ashworth
February 18 , 1988
Page 2
2 . Page 386 , Section 7-18 (b) . The oroposed section regarding
the remittance of building permit fees is in conflict with
the UBC. The proposed ordinance stipulates that 5% of the
fee paid or $25 may be retained by the city with the
remainder to be returned to the building permit applicant.
The UBC authorizes the refund of a maximum of 80% of the
building permit fees. The attorney has advised that the pro-
posed ordinance should be consistent with UBC requirements .
3 . Page 780 , Section 14-31 through 14-37, and 18-77 (b) . The
City Attorney has recommended a revision of certain sections
t of the article regarding neighborhood park acquisition and
improvement. Attachment #1 reflects the attorney' s recommen-
dation.
4 . Chapter 20 , Zoning Ordinance. The codifiers have rearranged the
organization of the Zoning Ordinance slightly in comparison to
' the orignally adopted Zoning Ordinance in February, 1987 . The
overlay districts such as the flood plain, shoreland, PUD and
wetland districts , have been placed prior to the listings of the
specific zoning districts. There were also some other minor
section rearrangements regarding the standards for conditional
uses in the Administration and Enforcement article; however, the
overall format of the Zoning Ordinance remains intact. There
were no language changes done by the codifiers .
Although the proposed Zoning Ordinance within the Code Book will
be slightly different than the newspaper versions that were
distributed in the South Shore Weekly News in February, 1987 ,
the City can reprint the newspaper into the modified format.
Further, because there have been a number of changes in the
' Zoning Ordinance since February of 1987, it would dictate a
revised printing anyway. The Planning Department has found that
the newspaper version has been very useful to give to the
' general public and developers .
During Planning Commission review, the following two items were
identified as errors :
a. Page 1174 , Section 20-257 ( 1) and (4 ) . These two items
duplicate one another.
b. Page 1270, Section 20-1306 . This section is out of place
and should be relocated to Section 20-1367 .
Planning Commission Action
The Planning Comission recommended approval of the codifica-
tion of Chapter 20 of the Zoning Ordinance as proposed in the
Chanhassen City Code with any corrections for typos , dupli-
cations, etc.
1
I
Mr. Don Ashworth
February 18, 1988
Page 3
5 . Page 1008 , Section 18-57 (n) . This section refers to regula- I
tions regarding private streets and private drives . The
Planning Commission reviewed this section on April 8 , 1987 ,
and May 6 , 1987. The proposed ordinance incorrectly included
only a portion of the Commission' s recommendation. The staff
memo dated April 30 , 1987 , contains the proposed language
considered by the Commission. The reference to the Zoning
Ordinance should be changed to: Section 20-906 . While it
appears that items 3 and 4 are referring to the same require-
ment, the difference between the two was to ensure that
direct access from single lots would not be allowed on
collectors and arterials but would be allowed if the sub-
division abuts a local street. Items 3 and 4 can be revised
to be more clear. I
In any case, (n) as written should be revised to reflect the
City Council recommendation. Staff recommends the City
Council adopt the Planning Commission recommendation with
revision of ( 3 ) and (4 ) to be 'presented at the next City
Council meeting.
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed 1
"Chanhassen City Code" as prepared by the Municipal Code
Corporation consisting of Chapters 1 through 20 including the
amendments noted in the staff memorandum dated February 18 , 1988 ,
with final language to be approved at the time of second and
final reading. (Attachment #3 reflects a sample ordinance pre-
pared by the Municipal Code Corporation for adoption by the City
of the new code. The City Attorney will review and prepare a
final ordinance for second and final reading at the March 14 ,
1988 , meeting. )
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Proposed recommendation for park acquisition sections.
2 . Letter from Municipal Code Corporation dated September 29, 1987 .
3 . Proposed ordinance regarding code adoption.
4 . Memo from Barbara Dacy dated April 30 , 1987 .
5 . Planning Commission minutes dated April 8 , 1987 .
6 . Planning Commission minutes dated May 6 , 1987.
I
11
4110delet aytptaApep 4
/6//24
7
' POST OFFICE BOX 2235
TALLAHASSEE,FLORIDA 32316
ROGER D.MERRIAM TELEPHONE(904)576-3171
Supervising Editor
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. Twenty-
five copies of the Code were bound in mechanical binders and the
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 ,
1
Ro r D. Merriam
RDM: dd
Enclosure
cc : Mr. Roger Knutson, City Attorney
OCT 0 5 1987
' Nation's Leading Law Publisher Specializing in Ordinance Codification
Serving over 1,800 local governments in 47 states CITY OF CHANHASSEN
4-1-411466(77*7--
CITY of
AF 1
, ,... 1
` 690 COULTER DRIVE •• P.O. BOX 147 •• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
` ,; (612) 937-1900
MEMORAN I`d M II
TO: Planning Commission 1
FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Planner
DATE: April 30, 1987 1
SUBJ: Private Drives
The Planning Commission directed staff to prepare language II
regarding the regulation of private drives in the rural area
prior to the language being included in the codification of the
II
city ordinances including the Subdivision Ordinance. The
following language was discussed with the City Attorney and is
proposed for final review by the Planning Commission. II
Section 6 . 2 (14) Private Streets are prohibited. Private
drives to provide access to no more than four lots in the
rural area as provided in Article VI , Section 7 of the Zoning
Ordinance may be allowed subject to the following conditions: II
1 ) Reservation of a 60 foot easement;
II
2 ) The private drive shall be constructed to applicable city
standards when the drive provides access to three or four
lots. Private driveways in these situations may contain 1
a gravel surface. Private drives to be shared by two
lots do not have to meet the above referenced city
standards if deemed appropriate by the city; 1
3 ) Subdivisions in excess of four lots shall be required to
construct a public street with a paved surface in
compliance with applicable city standards . 1
The Commission also requested staff to investigate possible
language for requiring that subdivisions in excess of four lots
II
be served by an internal street. If so desired, the Commission
could recommend the following to be added:
4 ) Subdivisions in excess of four lots deriving access from 1
a collector or arterial street shall be required to pro-
vide access from an internal street and not direct access
IIto the collector or arterial street.
Staff would also like to reiterate that the above regulations
only pertain to rural lot subdivisions. Private drives in the
II
urban service area should not be considered.
/ •I 4.
Planning Commission Meeting
Ilc.April 8, 1987 - Page 39
Dacy: Yes, but to notify every private landowner on every lake would be a
Inightmare.
Emmings: I guess the question is how interested are you in getting comments
' from people who are going to be directly affected.
Dacy: They will be here. I can assure you that they will be here.
1 Emmings: You put 18 townhouses directly in my line of sight across my lake
and I didn ' t know about it until it was all over .
IDacy: But I think the beachlot issue in Chanhassen has been going on for so
many years , it ' s tops .
'Emmings : But I don ' t trust people getting it by word of mouth.
Noziska: On this beachlot access, for urban and rural we're limiting it to
a maximum of 50 dwelling units having access?
1101sen: Just the rural. Urban still is the same conditions. 80% within
1, 000 feet or how ever many are in that subdividion.
INoziska: Shouldn' t we be doing the same rules for both?
Inrad : They are different areas .
Olsen : One is spread out . They are completely different lot sizes .
INoziska: So you ' re saying in an urban area, it ' s within a 1, 000 feet .
Conrad: The logic goes like this is you are trying to support it. Our
I current Ordinance says 1,000 feet contiguous or whatever. So far, using
that standard, the biggest beachlot group is like 44 so that's where the 50.
We said, the 1, 000 feet got us to a 44 type of limit so we rounded it off to
50.
1Noziska: So they are equal .
onrad: So there is some kind of logic. Not a whole lot but there is
omething that' s there.
Emmings: I take it too that you are going to get rid of that second
'sentence too.
'RURAL STREET STANDARDS . ■1
Dacy: We have really come full circle on this issue. The last time we
IF,
talked about it there were some good points made about looking at the length
f the cul-de-sac. Looking at the number of lots to be served. Looking at
ae amount of traffic to be used by private drives versus a standard public
1
,7 4t� #
11
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 I
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 .
‘bacy: 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 you
get comments from the Fire Department?
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
pour addresses off of Audubon and if you're just looking down the street,
_iey could drive right by and not realize the lots in the rear are off of
1
Planning Commission Meeting
ii7April 8, 1987 - Page 41
Audubon so we're looking more and more to naming these private drive with
'street names so it' s easy to identify.
Headla : Do the police have a comment on those?
'Dacy: Our Public Safety Director typically is acting on behalf of the
Sheriff ' s Department so through his office, yes we will get comments .
IlEmmings: We talked about requiring, like we did on that one project,
requiring a homeowners association, if they are going to have these roads
and that they be responsible for maintainenance of that, do we do that even
if there are only four?
Dacy: I would suggest it.
'Emmings : We should do it in every case?
Dacy: Yes .
IEmmings: What I was going to say, if you don't do it for 4, we should
certainly do it if we ever approve any over 4 because then if they don't
'maintain it, we can go in.
Dacy: Even if the association is responsible for nothing else than to make
jre and identifying who is responsible for maintenance and so on. Like
nat you're saying, a majority of the owners won't want to approve it in the
future and they would have the right to do that. That's what we're doing
with Bluff Creek Greens subdivision and it really is the City's only way to
rake sure that everything is done properly.
Erhart: The major reason I'm on this Planning Commission is my overall
Iconcern about maintaining the amenities of the south Chanhassen area. The
nice combination of agricultural yet realizing that this is valuable
property for people who want to live out there and allowing us to do some
subdivisions mixed in this agricultural property. The reason that I've been
'trying to find little devices to keep this consistency and beauty of a rural
subdivision just like you guys would require in the urban area, is that I
don't want south Chanhassen to end up like Prior Lake. Prior Lake has 10
I cre lots, some 5, some 20. There is no system. There are all kinds of
ravel private driveways. Some maintained, some not. It's just a hodge
podge mess and land values are just zero relative to currently where we are
here. My opinion is I think we ought to look at those areas where we are
etting subdivisions and look at them with the same critical eye that we
ave for the urban area and I think we ought to void these private drives as
much as practical. We've got a new Ordinance with good separations. We've
tot 1,250 feet on arterials. The only thing we missed there is a statement
f how far that driveway had to be from an intersection. Looking at this
Halla thing, you can have 1,250 feet separation in driveways but that
riveway could be 300 feet from TH 101 and CR 14 intersection. We ought to
onsider maybe adding that stipulation in here as well. In collectors we've
Jt 400 feet so if you're looking for a number to come up with, I think you
I
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 8 , 1987 - Page 42
47
look at one, the arterials, unless there is almost a hardship case, you
don't want to have any private drives coming out to arterials. If you can
avoid it for all practical means. Obviously there are going to be some
cases where for a buildable lot it's the only way to get there and he meets
the requirements and so forth but I think we can focus on the number on
collectors. We have 400 feet. Our minimum lot frontage now is 200 feet.
So if we have 400 feet along a collector and we want to break that into two
lots, each having 200, that gives us two lots. It's going to make sense to
have a common driveway for two lots and beyond that I think it ought to be
an exception. When you get up into three lots, I guess I would like to see
that we require a cul-de-sac although I guess I could be swung either way on
three. But I'll tell you, on four, I think it was a mistake to change it to II
four because four absolutely should have required a public street to access
four or five lots. Lastly, I think we ought to have a rule that says any
subdivision over three lots can not have private driveways on collectors or
arterials. Add that as part of the rules. Some guy comes in here with a
five lot subdivision, you have to come up with a plan that has a street that
serves all five of those lots. A case in sight there is the development of
Bluff Creek Greens where you've got every lot along the highway there. You
were all looking for a means to somehow, we all looked at it and said,
awful. We had no means of forcing these guys to do something different and
obviously they weren't about to show us any ideas either. Even Sever's
there, he had five lots along TH 101. We all looked at that and said, isn't
there some way we can do it better? We couldn't because we didn't have any
r )ols to force him to put in a street and he could have because I know
''outside this room they were talking to those people that had the land behind
them and had they had enough pressure , they could have worked a deal to get
more land. I think we ought to think about putting the tools in. I would
like to see it two lots. I think we have the argument that says two lots on
a private driveway is enough. Anything about that requires a street and we
can always make variances. Let's minimize them. The second thing is if we
make just any subdivision of three lots or if it's four lots, that no lots
can have private driveways on them. They should have an interior street
system. However you word it and then the other ones go back and look at the
driveway spacings from intersections and make that 400 feet for collectors
and 1,250 for arterials. Again, giving us more power in our tools to
regulate this .
Noziska : I wonder how that would apply to the area that I'm living in right
now. Would that mean that the streets would have to be city streets? We've
got a private road off of Bluff Creek Drive and actually Bluff Creek Drive
is just an absolutely disastrous road. We put 3 inches of asphalt down and
then two years later we put a sealcoat on it and that's been a good road.
As a matter of fact it's far beyond what Chahassen uses for their
residential streets . It seems to be working out fine.
Erhart: Maybe that's an alternative. You did that for a reason because you
had a problem right?
moziska: We did it for a reason, yes. For maintenance and we are ,
�Isponsible for the maintenance of this private drive. We had it in mind to
1 _
Planning Commission Meeting
IC April 8, 1987 - Page 43
do it basically as a homeowners association. We talked it up as people
II purchased lots and the only thing we were really waiting on was until the
base settled down so the gravel had been in there long enough so we had most
of the settling on the base. Once we did that we put the 3 inch of asphalt
on top of it. Last fall , we filled the cracks .
Erhart: Is there a possibility to create another class of road that would
Ifall somewhere between the gravel and private road?
Noziska: Require something other than just gravel on a private road .
IDacy: What we've done as a result of some of the most recent applications,
I showed the transparency last time, Tim you weren't at that meeting, but
the Engineer came up with a street section standard for a private drive.
IBasically, everything for a rural section roadway, 60 feet of right-of-way,
ditch section, 24 foot wide surface except that it's gravel and there is not
the bituminous add on. So far, we just had a standard urban section, rural
section and now we' ve come up with this section for a private drive.
Noziska: How wide is the road?
1 Dacy: 24 feet .
Noziska: I don't remember how wide ours is but I know it's not 24 feet. We
j lve 21 lots that we're servicing off of it and it's wide enough to get two
ars down and that's about it but even with 21 lots, it's rare that you meet
omebody.
IIErhart : To me it would seem to make sense that two lots share a driveway
and then maybe from 3 to 5 lots, maybe you have some kind of other asphalt
street but of a lower standard than of our current streets. Right now our
Icurrent public streets require how much asphalt?
Dacy: I think it was 2 inches .
Noziska : Maximum of 2 inches. It used to be an 1 1/2 and they were
breaking up all over town and it really got to be a problem for the City. I
think they went 2 inches .
'Dacy: Even with the section that we came up with on the private drive, your
2 inches of bituminous is closer to a standard rural section. Mike
I Klingelhutz called up and said this is still too expensive for me. He was
reconsidering even doing the subdivision because the gravel drive he felt
was too expensive. If you are that close, you might as well go in and do it
the right way and create a public street. The expense issue, you can argue
that both ways. Staff, we originally started out recommending everything
ith public street and either you do it the urban section or the rural
section but in the past, there has been approvals given for the private
rives and if that's what the Commission and Council want that's fine. It's
' ust that we wanted to reconfirm the commitment to what number of lots and a
pe of section that is required.
I
II
Planning Commission Meeting
April 8 , 1987 - Page 44
C
Erhart: All I know is I live on a graveled street and it's maintained by
the City. I'll tell you, you drop your jaw every 15 to 20 feet. They come
in and grade it once or twice a year .
Noziska: I don't know what the solution is to dictate city streets or if
there is going to be private roads , to dictate a proper cross section.
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 Ordinance we've got
allowing building on 2 1/2 acres, we' re almost bound to four. '
Conrad: But four in the future means what? When does the 1 and 10 go into
effect? '
Dacy: It's been in effect since February 19th. It's just that we've been
acting on all of these old applications.
Conrad: So in the future, and I couldn't quite understand what you were
saying, in the future it's still three. We can still subdivide into three
but there is a situation where it would be four . ,
Dacy: The Zoning Ordinance in the 1 per 10 says four and the Subdivision
f -dinance, which is a separate ordinance, still says three. We're codifying
ur Ordinances at this time so the whole purpose of this was to make those
consistent or to change them all together .
Noziska: The thing that I'm looking at with three is okay, so then you've ,
got three lots and you have another access adjacent so then you end up with
two accesses on a major road rather than one and I think you're better off
with one access when you split 10 acres into four parcels .
Erhart: Except we're proposing that any subdivision over three parcels
would require all of them front a public street so we couldn ' t do that.
And I would have stopped this thing tonight too.
Emmings: Tim's concerns are important ones but I don't agree with his
solution either because it seems to me, I can see the concerns about a hodge
podge of private driveways and obviously as we saw, it was a disaster but if
you had four people along the five lots and have their own private drives
and if it were well maintained. The maintenance seems to me to be kind of
the key to the thing and if it was built to a standard that we set. So if
it's built right and it's maintained, I don't see any problem. If we tell
them that they are going to have to have a homeowners association that's
responsible for maintaining it. If the City has to come in and do anything,
we ' re going to assess it to them. Then maybe we can get a grip on it.
Noziska: Tim, here's what I'm talking about. Here's 40 acres and here's 40
re and here's 4 lots and here's 4 lots. If, by doing what you're saying,
e we going to force this or wouldn't we be a hell of a lot better off
I
Planning Commission Meeting
k: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.
1 Erhart: I think we're controlling the issue of how many driveway access
more so by the regulations of distances between driveways .
INoziska: But you can meet that by doing this .
Erhart: Sure you can but I think what you're trying to avoid is, I just
Idon ' 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
I 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.
IDacy: 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
cur works and has some rationale to it. I think the standards for building
f 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 .
I 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?
Dacy: Sure .
I Erhart: So we're saying a shared driveway with two people, they essentially
create their own standard. If it goes three and four, then we have to have
some kind of standard .
)nrad: Yes .
I
I
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
_ affic to the downtown. Children can walk to the center and it supports
pie 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
( ►ere is a value for a recreation center. We need the rationale for helping
I
11
Planning Commission Meeting
kr: May 6, 1987 - Page 35
IHeadla : What rationale was used for the Arboretum?
Dacy: I am not aware of the background or history on that.
I 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 pitch in that corner that's not served. I think it could have
I 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.
IDacy: 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
Ito 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.
IDacy: I think the first step is, I'll provide you a copy of the Facility
Agreement and then arrange to meet with Met Council .
IAPPROVAL 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 .
I
it\PRIVATE DRIVES IN THE RURAL AREA.
I 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
I 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
Ilots 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
I 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
I 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.
I
I A---:it--ffllekrs-4-k
•
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1987 - Page 36
Dacy: Maybe change it something like access from individual lots shall not I
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 I
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
1
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.
I 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
I 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
I of it on their own.
Dacy: In your case thay may be true. Hesse Farm is doing a good job of it.
I 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.
INoziska : I know but that doesn' t mean it ' s right.
Dacy: I think it is right from an overall city policy. For safety, health
I 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
I 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.
IConrad: What if somebody like Howie's development came in and proposed that
Barbara?
IDacy: 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
I association document that we ' re going to maintain this to city standards.
Noziska: To exceed city standards .
IDacy: That is a private street .
Conrad: So under this ordinance, Howie's development could come in, tell me
I 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
Ithis section to allow a private street.
Noziska : With a variance.
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1987 - Page 38 '
C
1
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 '
1
1
L