Loading...
1979 Memos re Legislation proposedt 3q RUSSEL! H, LA'igON CFAIG M. XEIT: HARVEY E. !tKAA'I MARX C. M.CULIOU6H I I-lneox & Mnnrz ATTORN EYS At LAW 19OO FIF9T NATIONAL BANX 6UILOIXG MTNNEAPOLtS, MTNNESOTA 5s4O2 l4ay 4, L979 IELEFHONE lGr:a) t36-e9e3 Donald W. Ashworth Chanhassen City Manager Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 5 53l- 7 Re Proposed Legislation revis ing state subdivision statutes Dear Don: on Friday, May 4, 1979, I attended the morning meeting of the Senate's local government committee. At this meeting, the Senators received public corunent concerning the proposed revision of the Statets Subdivision Act and an abolition of the exemption from 1ocal subdivision regulations now enjoyed by five-acre lots. The bill under consideration was Senator Schmitz rs Senate File 1322i which is the companion bill to the House bill described in my April 20, 1979 Ietter. Testimony against the Schmitz bill was offered by representatives of the County Recorderrs Association, the County Attorneyrs Association, a private attorney practicing in the area of real estate 1aw, and a representative of Title Insurance Company of Minnesota. Again, the testimony against the bill focused on the high cost to the consumer of regulatory activ j.ty. Testimony in behalf of the bill was received from representatives of the t4etropolitan Council , the League of Minnesota Cities, the City of Ramsey, and from myself on behalf of the City of Chanhassen. The thrust of my testimony was substantially the same as the testimony which I offered to the House committee on April 3-8, 1979. The bill was received more favorably in the local government committee than it had been received in the House. While it is unlikely that Senator Schmitz's bill will be adopted this session, there is a strong possibility that an amendment woul-d be passed this session which would have the sole effect of increasing the five-acre exemption to a twenty- acre exemption. I indicated to Senator Schmitz after the hearing that a stopgap measure j-ncreasinq the subdivision exemption to the tvrenty- acre 1eve1 would be preferable to no final action on the bill during this session. Ver C y truly yours, - - n -/ 'VA 7tl'ta:{ IG M.'MERTZ )rrDd fr$; 0 Ln3, ?) !t ,l or{ CMI\I: rne Assistant Chanhassen City Attorney ?41 8L( April 20, 1979 blPl ?l FUSSELL H. IAFSON CFIAIG M, MERTZ H^6IVEY E, SXAAR MARK C. MCCULLOUGH (612) !35-eS66 Donald W. Ashworth Chanhassen City Manager Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re Proposed legislation revis ing State subdivision sLatutes Dear Don: On Wednesday, April L8, L979, I attended the evening meeting of the House of Representatives I Metro Subcommittee on Housing, Local and Urban Affairs. At this meeti-ng, the legislators received public comment concerning a proposed revision of the Staters SubdivisionAct and an abolition of the exempti.on from local subdivision regul-a- tj-ons now enjoyed by five-acre l-ots. Testimony against the proposed revision was offered by representatives of the Minneapolis Home Builders' Association, the County Recordersl Associatj-on, ti-ie Title Insurance Company of Minnesota, and a private attorney practicing in the area of real estate 1aw. The testimony agaj-nst the bj-I1 focused upon the high cost to the consumer of regulatory activity, the exhorbitant park land charges a1legedly established by certain municipalities, municipal foot-dragging in theplat approval process, and on the $1,000 penalty which the new 1aw would authorj.ze in the case of persons who would sub<iivide lands in violati.on of loca1 subdivision ordinances. Testimony in behalf of the bil-I was received from representatives of the City of Ham Lake, the League of Minnesota Cities, and the Cj-ty of BrookLyn Park, and from myself on behalf of the City of Chanhassen. The thrust of the testimony offered by the representatives of theother two municipalities and from the representative of the League was that the Legislature has directed that the various cities engagein extensive long-range planning activitiesi however, the five-acrelot exemption l-ras the effect of <ienying the cities the necessarytools to regulate and direct the residential development of rural areas. Since the representatives of Brooklyn Park, ilam Lake, and the League had a<lequatety and accurately described the general policy considera- tions which justify a termination of the five-acre lot exemption, my remarks focused on the specifics of the bill. My testimony on behalf of the Cj-ty of Chanhassen is summarized as follows: \gIIL + AP8 t979 L.r'neox & Mrnrz ATTORNEYS AT LAW I9OO FIRST NATIONA! ElANX EUILOING M lN N EAPOLtS, MTNNESOTA 5s4O2 Donald W. Ashworth -2- 1. The bill recognizes for the first tion of agricultural land and open space is subdivision ordinances, and Chanhassen seesof the bilI. 4/20/79 tirne that the preserva- a valid goal of localthis as a positive feature 2. The City of Chanhassen believes that it should have theauthority tc ioentify zones in the City which would be available for development and zones j.n the City which \^rould not be available for residential development j.n the foreseeable future; and present legis- ]ation does not give the City the requisite authority to accomplish thi-s. 3. The City of Chanhassen endorses the termination of the sub- division regulation exemption currently enjoyed by five-acre lots. 4. The City of chanhassen favors the provision of the bill which would authorize building noratoriums prohibiting development within only a portion of the nunicipality, as opposed to the total municipa- lity. 5. The City of Chanhassen opposes the provision of the bill wilich states that such building moratorj-um ordinances can be adopted for only a one-year period, as opposed to a series of shorter Periods, which in the aggregate would equal a one-year moratoriura. 6. The City of Chanhassen supports wirich would authorize different types of different areas of the municipality. the orovision of the bill- subdivision regulations for 7. Chanhassen endorses the provision of permit municipalities to totally prohibit any in portions of a municipality. the bill which would subdivision act j-vity 8. I pointed out that the bill provides that plat approval may be conditioned upon the construction of sewers, streets, public utili- ties anci other improvementsi however, the bill would not authorize a rnunicipality to condition plat approval upon the construction of storm water retention areas. Chanhassen believes that j-t is appropriate for muDicipalities to require the construction of such storm water faciLities. 9. Chanhassen supports the provisions of the bilL which speci- fically authorize a municipality to reguire the developer to enter into a developraent contract. Under present 1aw, there is serious doubt as to \^/hedrer a municipality may require such a contract if the proposed plat is zoned resj-dential (as opposed to planned unit development) , and if the developer is requesting no variances. l-0. The present statute authorj-zes a municipality to require park- land dedications in the case of commercial,/i.nclus trial plats, as sre1l as resioential p1ats. The bill deletes tl:e reference to commercial/ inciustrial properties. chanhassen is opposed to this change if this is intencled to exempt commerc ial/industrial properties from park charges. Donald W. Ashworth -3-4/2c/7e il. Present larr, permits a nrunicipality to require subdividersto pay a cash park charge to the municipality and requires themunicipal-ity to place such park charge monies in a special fund which can be used only for the purpose of acquiring nevr parkland or deveJ.oping existing parkland. ?he bill deletes any reference tousing such monj.es for the development of existing parkland. Chanhassen opposes this change if it is intended to prohibit the useof such rnoney for development purposes. 12, Chanhassen supports the provision of the bill which speci-fically authorizes the municipalities to require developers to pay thecosts of review and investj.gation of platting applications. Currentlaw is silent on this matter. Chanhassen believes that the proposed change would give the City the lega1 authority to collect delinquent developer accounts. 13. The bill provides that subdivision applicati,ons are automatj-calJ-y approved upon the 120th day following the filing oftne subciivision application if the municipality fails to disapprovethe application within that period of time. I argued that if such aprovision were to be contained within the bi1l, the l20-day perioo should begin to run upon the date of the filing of the preliminaryplat, rather than the date of fi1ing of the sketch plarr. L4. I'he current statute provides that persons who subdivide landsin violation of 1ocal subdivision ordinances may be fined up to $100per deed recorcied. The proposed bill would j.ncrease the fine to$1,C00. Chanhassen believes that the existing fine is so smail- that itconstitutes no disincentive to the violation of local ordinances. 15. The proposed bill would prohibit developers from sellinglots in proposeC subdivisions prior to preliminary pl-at approval . Chanhassen believes that this prohibition should be re-worded toprovide that no such sales can be made pri-or to final plat approval . It is my impression that the testimony in favor of the bill was recej.ved with a great deal of skepticism. Several of the legislators colEnented that things had been for twenty years, and theycouldnrt understand why there was suddenly a problem which demandedaction clur ing this session of the Legislature, Several of the legisiators questioned the representatives of the threemunicipalities, including myself, concerning the circumstances under wirj-ch formal plats were required and the cj-rcumstances under whichbuilding permits would be issued for unsewered 1ots. I believe thatby these questions, several of the legislators hoped to establish that LocaL subdivj-sion controls are largely adopted for the purpose ofharrassing farmers ciesirous of funding their retirement by a residen-tial devel-opment of their farms, and for the purpose of unjustlyenriching the surveying industry. y truly yours,v9{/l(-.--a-7?'hIG M.'}4EEITZCRA AssCIVIM: mep istant Chanhassen CitY Attorney .{ ? *L.r,nsox & Mr:nrz ATTORNEYS AT LAW reoo rtaSy N^TtONAL E^NX 6UtLOTNG M rN N EAPOLT S, MTNNESOTA ss402cR^lo r., MfFrz }tARV'Y E,3'(A^R ria Rx c. i.cuILovGx (6ra) !!3-eBcE April 13 , L97 9 Dear Council }lembers: l4r. Waibel asked that I mail the attached materials directly toail Council members. Under current statute, the subdivision ofIand into lots of five acres or larger is exempt from municipalsubdivision control . The bilI coming before RepresentativeSchreiber's conunittee on April 18, 1979, would permit local reviewof such subdivision. The planning staff of the City believes thatall residential subdivision should be subject to Iocal review. t"1r. Waibel, be)-ieving that the City should 9o on record in supportof ending the blqnket exemption for five. acre lots, has asked me toprepare the enclosed resolution for piossible delivery to Rep.Schreiber on Wednesday. Very truly yours, ...,,,,7A -2?.| CRAIG M. tlERtZAssistant Chanhassen City Attorney CMM:mep EncI. A^S',*' S/z/zf 4L 'IUS9ELL A. IArrsON crl,lr6 M. lraFtz XARVTY E. gX^AR xaFrx c. racculLouclr Rep. BiII 393 State St. PauI , S chre iber Office Building MN Lr.nsox & Irlrrnrz ATTORNEYS AT LAW r0oo 7tr3r NAtToNAL 6anx 6urLorN6 MtNNEAPOLtS, MtNNESOTA 554O2 April 17 , 1979 (612) 336-9S63 Dear Rep. Schreiber: This office represents the City of Chanhassen. Enclosed you wilt f irrda copy of Chanhassen City Council Resolution No- 7926 relating to arepeal of M.S. 5462.358, Subd. 4, clause 4. This statute has theeffect of exempting large lots (five acres .and larger) from local sub-divisi.on control . The present l-aw has the effect of der:ying outerring suburbs the necessary tools to preserve agriculturaL and other open lands, and to coordinate residential- development activities withcapital facilities planning for such things as road systems, pubtic ser^rer systems, public water systems, and fire protection systems- I.Ie understand that a repeal of the five-acre exemption is included in House File 1352, which will be coming before the Metro Subcommitteeon Housing, Local and Urban Affairs. While the City has not had theopportunity to review House File 1352 in depth, you are urged to repealthe subdivision regulation exemption now enjoyed by five-acre lots. Very truly yours, CRAIG M. MERTZAssistant Chanhassen City Attorney Ci4iY : mep EncI. Dick NowI in , Staff Counsel 300 Metro Square Building St. Paul , I,lN 55I0L Sen. Robert J. Schmi.tz 328 State CapitolSt. Paul , r4N 55I55 Rep. K.J. McDonald 323 State Office Building St. PauI , I,lN 55]55 Donald W- Ashworth Chanhassen City Manager APR I979 REGEruED VILLAGS "'CHANHAISEN, + l,ezcF s> dt MINN. R0BI.) J. SC Mll 7. Sen!tor 36rh Disr.ict Jordtn. M inncsora 55.152 Office: 328 Srarc Caoitol St. Paul. M irirrcsora 55155(6t2) 296-7 t57 April 19, l-97 9 Mr. Craig !1. MertzAssistant Chanhassen City AttorneyLarson & Mertz, Attorneys at La$, 1900 First National- Bank BIdg.I4inneapolis, I'linnesota 55402 Dear Mr. Mertz: Thank you for your letter andResolution No. 7926, relating #1322 is the companion bill inauthor - so you can see that Iwhich you have mentioned. the enclosed Chanhassen City Councilto House File 1352. Senate Filethe Senate, of which I am the am aware of the existing problems Senate State of Minnesota Due to the heavy calendar in the Senate, it is unl-ikely thatbiLl wiLl be passed during this session. However, beciuse ofimportance, a committee will be formed during the interim todiscuss and review the entire issue. Hopefuil"y, we will seepass next year. thisits ir In the meantime, if you have additional informationwould be beneficial, don't hesitate to contact me. that you feel Sincerely r i i'46bert RJS/ch State Senator 36th District ('ONtIt|1..Ilal:S . Vicc ('hirirnrirn. l.oe l (irrrcrrrrrrcrrt (icncr;rl l.cgislutiorr . [:lcctiLrrr: Irirlrspr)tlilli(rn . APR 1979 RECTVEDy[.]{oBC +