Loading...
1a. Zoning Amendment Private Driveways /ot- r CITY 0 F -.._ .. CHANHASSEN .. , . 1 .. • , ..,, . .} 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 fib° �' administrator Bidarse ✓ W I MEMORANDUM tiodiffcs Retecte Det_.a:.1I-1D TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Date Submitted to Commission FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director 0- Date Sub 2d to Co;;rcii DATE: February 20, 1990 2-2.6-10 ISUBJ: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Dealing with Lot Frontage and Access by Private Driveways, Final Reading; and Approval Iof Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes II On February 12, 1990, the City Council reviewed and approved the first reading of an ordinance pertaining to ordinance require- ments for neck and flag lots and lot frontage requirements. The ordinance is designed to allow the limited use of private drive- , ways to serve lots where it is inappropriate to consider constructing a public street. The ordinance provides increased setback and lot area requirements for these lots in recognition I of their location relative to existing lots and home sites. The ordinance also provides well-defined standards for the construc- tion of private driveways. The second aspect of the ordinance II amendments deals with lot frontage requirement standards as they are applied to lots fronted on cul-de-sacs or curvilinear streets. II During the review of this ordinance by the City Council, staff was directed to add a requirement that will have the affect of excluding consideration of the lot area contained in the neck or I flag portion of the lot from consideration in meeting lot area standards . This change has been made in the final draft. An ordinance summary is attached for your review and approval. II The ordinance summary is used to facilitate public notice while minimizing printing costs. IIStaff Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve the second reading II of amendments to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances dealing with neck/flag lots and lot frontage requirements and further approve the summary of this ordinance. 1 II CITY OF CHANHASSEN IICARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. IAN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 18-57 OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE ENTITLED STREETS ITHE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 18-57 of the Chanhassen Subdivision 1 Ordinance entitled "Streets" shall be amended as follows: ( n) Public streets to be constructed in subdivisions located inside the year 2000 metropolitan service area line, as II identified in the city comprehensive plan shall be constructed to urban standards as prepared by the city engineer ' s office. Streets to be constructed in sub- ' divisions located outside the year 2000 metropolitan urban service area shall conform to the rural standard requirements as prepared by the city engineer' s office. IThe construction of private streets are prohibited. (o) Up to four ( 4 ) lots may be served by a private driveway if the City finds the following conditions to exist: II ( 1) The prevailing development pattern makes it infeasible or inappropriate to construct a public II street. Locations of existing homes, property lines and potential future home sites may be considered. I ( 2) After reviewing the surrounding area it is concluded that an extension of the public street system is not required to serve other parcels in I the area, improve access, or to provide a street system consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. II ( 3) The use of a private driveway will permit enhanced protection of wetlands and mature trees. II If the use of private driveway is to be allowed, they shall be subject to the following standards: ( 1) Common sections of private driveways serving two I ( 2) or more homes must be built to a seven ( 7) ton design, paved to a width of twenty ( 20) feet, utilize a maximum grade of 10%, and provide I a turnaround area acceptable to the fire marshal based upon guidelines provided by applicable fire codes. Plans for the driveway shall be submitted to the city engineer. Upon completion of the II driveway, the applicant shall be required to submit a set of "as-built" plans signed by a registered civil engineer. I II s f (2) Private driveways must be maintained in good condition and plowed as needed. Covenants concerning maintenance shall be filed against all benefitting properties. Parking or otherwise blocking all or part of the driveway shall be pro- hibited. I ( 3) The driveway must be provided with drainage improvements determined to be necessary by the city engineer. ( 4) Street addresses or city approved street name sign, if required, must be posted at the point where the private driveway intersects the public right-of-way. ( 5) The driveway shall be designed to minimize impacts upon adjoining parcels. The city may require revised alignments and landscaping to minimize impact. (6) The driveway must be located within a strip of property at least thirty ( 30) feet wide extending out to the public right-of-way or covered by a thirty ( 30) ft. wide easement that is permanently recorded over all benefitted and impacted parcels. 1 (p) Private reserve strips controlling public access to streets shall be prohibited. I Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this day of , 1990. 1 ATTEST: I Don Ashworth, City Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1990) r -2- 1 1 I , , ORDINANCE NO. rCITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE DEALING WITH NECK/FLAG LOTS AND ACCESS BY IPRIVATE DRIVEWAYS The City Council of the City of Chanhassen Ordains as Ifollows : Section 1. Section 20-1, Definitions, of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read: INeck lot/flag lot means a lot that does not provide the full required frontage on a public right-of-way but rather is served I by a narrow "neck" of land that extends to the street. To meet the definition the neck must be at least 30 feet wide. I Section 2 . Article XI, RR, Rural Residential District, Section 20-595 shall be revised as follows: Section 20-595. Lot Requirements and setbacks. IThe following minimum requirements shall be observed an the "RR" District subject to additional requirements , exceptions and Imodifications set forth in this chapter: ( 1) The minimum lot area is two and one-half ( 2i) acres, sub- ject to Section 20-906 , ( 2) The minimum lot frontage is two hundred ( 200) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac "bubble" or along the I outside curve of a curvilinear street section shall be two hundred ( 200) feet in width at the building setback line. The location of these lots is conceptually illustrated I below. Lot width on neck or flag lots or lots accessed by private driveways shall also have their lot width measured at the building setback line. I ( 3) The minimum lot depth is two hundred ( 200) feet. ( 4) The maximum lot coverage is twenty ( 20) percent. II ( 5) The setbacks are as follows: II a. For front yards, fifty ( 50) feet b. For rear yards, fifty ( 50) feet c. For side yards, ten (10) feet I ( 6) The setbacks for lots served by private driveways and/or flag and neck lots, are as follows: I a. For front yards, thirty ( 30) feet. The front yard shall be the lot line nearest the public right-of-way II that provides access to the parcel. The rear lot line is to be located opposite from the front lot line with the remaining exposures treated as side lot lines. On neck/flag lots the front yard setback shall be measured at the point nearest the front lot line where the lot achieves a two hundred (200) foot width. ' b. For rear yards, fifty ( 50) feet. c. For side yards, fifty ( 50) feet. (7) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, three ( 3) stories/forty ( 40) feet. b. For accessory structures, three (3) stories/forty (40) ft. (8) The minimum driveway separate is as follows: ' a. If the driveway is on a collector street, four hundred ( 400) feet. b. If the drivway is on an arterial street, one thousand two hundred fifty (1,250) feet. Section 3. Section 20-615 entitled Lot Requirements and ' Setbacks shall be amended to read as follows: The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an ' "RSF" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter: (1) The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand (15,000 square feet) . For neck or flag lots, the lot area requirements shall be met after the area contained within the "neck" has been excluded from consideration. ( 2) The minimum lot frontage is ninety (90) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac "bubble" or along the outside curve of curvilinear street sections shall be ninety (90) feet in width at the building setback line. The location of this lot is conceptually illustrated below. ' Lots Where Frontage Is Measured At Setback Line • • ;��;ses • L • -2- 1 ( 3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred twenty-five (125) feet. II The location of these lots is conceptually illustrated below. Lot width on neck or flag lots and lots accessed by private driveways shall be one hundred (100) feet as measured at the Ifront building setback line. - ( 4) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is twenty-five (25) percent. II (5) The setbacks are as follows: I (a) For front yards, thirty (30) feet. ( b) For rear yards, thirty (30) feet. ( c) For side yards, ten (10) feet I ( 6) The setbacks for lots served by private driveways and/or flag and neck lots, are as follows: I a. For front yard, thirty (30) feet. The front yard shall be the lot line nearest the public right-of-way that provides access to the parcel. The rear yard I lot line is to be located opposite from the front lot line with the remaining exposures treated as side lot lines. On neck lots the front yard setback shall be II measured at the point nearest the front lot line where the lot achieves a one hundred (100) foot -minimum width. IIb. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet. c. For side yards, twenty (20) feet. II Neck I Flag Lots rFton Lot Lin • II a 1 t : i , : 1 ' ; 100 Lot Width i i I '_'_♦1 1 i as Mall t i 1 1 IL _ L..�. EMiMMO J II ( 7) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, (three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. II -3- II II b. For accessory structures, three ( 3) stories/forty ( 40) feet. Section 4. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this day of , 1990. 1 ATTEST: 1 1 Don Ashworth, City Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor 1 (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1990) i 1 i 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 -4- II IIORDINANCE NO. I CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA II AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE DEALING WITH NECK/FLAG LOTS AND LOT FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS AND CHAPTER 18, THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, DEALING WITH STREETS I On , 1990, the City Council approved the final I reading of ordinance amendments pertaining to lots accessed by private driveways and lot frontage requirements for lots on cul- de-sacs and curvilinear streets. The amendments will allow the platting of up to four lots accessed by a private driveway sub- ' ject to meeting a series of findings. Construction standards for these private driveways are established to insure that adequate levels of access are provided. The amendments also allow for the I measurement of lot width at the building setback line for lots on cul-de-sac bubbles and along the outside curve of curvilinear streets . IEnforcement of this ordinance shall be subject to the provi- sions of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. This ordinance is in full force commencing on the date of publication of this 1 summary. I Don Ashworth City Manager I (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1990) I I II I II II City Council Meeting - February-12,-1990 - 1 if Councilman Johnson: Absolutely. i Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the amendment 11 to modify the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance to clarify lot depth requirements as shown on Attachment 17 amending Section 20-263(13) (c) to read the planting and maintenance of trees and shrubs; and to amend the last paragraph to read: To the extent feasible, the City may impose such conditions even after approval ' of the beachlot. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT FOR RSF DISTRICT STANDARDS DEALING WITH LOT FRONTAGE I AND ACCESS BY PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS, FIRST READING. Paul Krauss: Over the past 6 months the issue of accessing single family lots II by private driveway has been discussed on several occasions. This type of access is currently not allowed or requires a variance on your part which has been granted most recently, as I recall in the Vineland Forest subdivision. II When these things had care up, staff has indicated a belief that this type of lot may often represent the most sensitive way to develop an otherwise acceptable residential parcel. In discussions with the Council, staff was 11 directed to propose an ordinance revision that would deal with this matter directly. We've drafted such an ordinance and basically what it does is it allows up to 4 lots to be accessed by a private driveway. However, since it's our preference that lots be accessed by public right-of-way if possible, there's I t a series of standards proposed. First, there is criteria outlining when a private drive would be considered. Basically they're findings. Findings that the applicant would have to demonstrate to your satisfaction. Basically they II constitute a demonstration that the private drive option is the most environmentally sensitive option in that it doesn't impact adjoining parcels or minimizes impact on adjoining parcels. The ordinance then outlines very stringent standards for the construction of private drives. The standards are I particularly stringent because we believe we have to maintain a legitimate access both for the people that live there and for the City emergency vehicles. Finally, recognizing that neck lots or flag lots or lots accessed by private II driveways oftentimes are different or are out of place in the neighborhood as it develops, if you have hares lining a street, this is behind that, we wanted to provide safe additional protection for the adjoining properties. So we've II proposed that the 90 foot lot width be increased to 100 feet and that the 10 foot sideyard setback be increased to 20 feet. We really want to avoid impacting people's rear yard areas and we think that this goes a way to doing II that. The drafted ordinance would also seek to clarify lot frontage requirements on lots fronting on cul-de-sacs and curvalineax streets. You may recall this also came up during the Vineland Forest subdivision. The ordinance right now allows you to measure lot frontage at the building setback line on II cul-de-sacs. It doesn't say where on cul-de-sacs. We're proposing that it be changed so you measure it that way on cul-de-sac bubbles or an outside curves along curvalinear streets where the same situation results. The Planning II Commission reviewed the draft in January and recommended several changes. Most noteably they requested that similar standards be allowed in the rural residential district. The City Attorney also requested sane changes and both II his and the Planning Commission changes have been incorporated. The ordinance was drafted in consultation with the fire chief and the fire marshall and we 71 1 1 u ty council Meeting reDruary Il, 1990 beleive responds to their needs and fire code requirements. It was also reviewed by the Public Safety Commission earlier last week and they 11 recommended that it be approved. With that we're recommending that the first reading of the ordinance be approved. Mayor Chmiel: Okay thank you. Any discussion? Not hearing any. Councilman Boyt: I'd add one thing. Excuse me. That is that the main body of the lot should meet 15,000 square foot standard. ICouncilman Johnson: Right. It's not included in the flag. ICouncilman Boyt: That's right. Mayor Chmiel : Not including the flag. IICouncilman Workman: This is the first reading? Mayor Chmiel : Yes. Is there a motion? IICouncilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the first reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment for RSF District standards dealing IIwith lot frontage and access by private drives amended to read that the main body of the lot, not including the neck, shall meet the 15,000 square foot minimum requirement. All voted in favor and the motion carried. II SET SPECIAL MEETING DATES: A. REFUNDING BONDS OF 1990/CITY AUDITORS/ POSITION CLASSIFICIATION PLAN. I Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to set the date of Tuesday, March 6, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. as the meeting date for the City Auditors and Position Classification Plan and approved Resolution #90-18 IIcalling for the sale of the 1990 Refunding Bonds. All voted in favor and the motion carried. B. BOARD OF REVIEW AND EQUALIZATION. The City Council set the meeting date of Tuesday, May 15, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. for the Board of Review and Equalization. IICOMMISSION INTERVIEW PROCESS, COUNCILWOMAN DIMLER. ICouncilwoman Dimler: That is a resolution to establish procedure for filling commission vacancies. I don't know if you've all had a chance to read it but it deals with the commission never risking the lack of a quorum. It also deal with the encumbants knowing that they're reappointed prior to the expiration date. It deals with the new appointees having time to become acquainted with their responsibilities prior to taking office on January 1st. And there are 5 recommendations then that the advertisement ' announcing the commission vacancies be placed in the official newspaper during the first week in October and shall be published 3 consecutive weeks. Number two, that after the third publication, application process shall remain open for another 2 weeks. Item 3, the commission members interviewing applicants at their regular scheduled meeting 72 1 I PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 8, 1990 I PAGE 1 PRESENT: Bill Bernhjelm ABSENT: Wayne Wenzlaff Bill Boyt Craig Blechta Barb Klick STAFF PRESENT: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director Dale Gregory, Fire Chief (Public Safety Commission applicants were interviewed from 6 :00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. ) ' Co-Chairman Bernhjelm opened the meeting at 9:00 P.M. Director Jim Chaffee discussed the memo from Planning Director ' Paul Krauss regarding the proposed revisions to the zoning ordi- nance dealing with neck/flag lots and lot frontage requirements. Lengthy discussion followed among the commission members with additional comments from Dale Gregory, Fire Chief, and Sgt. Bob VanDenBroecke. Craig Blechta motioned, Bill Boyt seconded, to accept staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission approve the proposed ordinance changes dealing with neck lots and lots accessd by private drives. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Sgt. VanDenBroecke discussed the pin map of accident locations , and will bring additional traffic report information at the April meeting. ' Fire Chief Dale Gregory mentioned that the Fire Department ended the year of 1989 with 370 calls, 10 less than 1988 with 380 calls. There are currently 36 members of the Fire Department. Discussion followed on the 18-40 year old age limit to join the Department. The committee is leaving next Friday, 2/16, to review the aerial ladder truck which will be delivered in 2-3 weeks. Bill Boyt suggested getting a name plate with all the current members names on it and displaying it on the back of the new aerial truck. Jim Chaffee mentioned the promotion of Mark Littfin to Fire Marshal and Dale Gregory to Fire Chief for another 2 year term. Bill Boyt suggested getting a notice in the paper concerning the ' water shortage and the need to establish an even/odd sprinkling ban. He also suggested the need to notify homeowners/contractors not to seed or sod this spring. ' Jim Chaffee mentioned he received 2 applications for the Police Study Committee. I Barb Klick motioned, Bill Bernhjelm seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 P.M. All voted in favor and the motion carried. I CI r .. , 4. , ji ., .-- , : ,, , CHANHASSEN r 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 I�ctbn by tY Administrator Ehdorsei ✓ aJ MEMORANDUM filod'Aed-- ReJectert r TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager e �-° Date Subrn teed to Ce r.m.:sioi FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director (] D` — ' m,;ed to t,c rnci) DATE: February 5, 1990 Dete Sub001 • /o'er• ' J 11 SUBJ: Proposed Revisions to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances Dealing with Neck/Flag Lots and Lot Frontage Requirements IIBACKGROUND I During the review of several recent development proposals, staff became aware of two related problems with the Zoning Ordinance. The first deals with neck lots and lots accessed by private drive- , ways. The Subdivision Ordinance allows up to four lots to be accessed by private drives [Section 18-57(n) ] outside the MUSA line subject to certain criteria, but does not provide similar II flexibility in serviced areas. The ordinance formerly allowed up to three homes on private drives anywhere in the City, but this was deleted several years ago. In any case, the City continues to receive requests for this type of development, most recently I with the Vineland Forest plat. The RSF district requires that all lots must have a minimum lot frontage of 90 feet, thus precluding the possibility of developing neck lots or lots served I by private driveway without the granting of variances. (A neck or flag lot is a lot whose only street frontage is a narrow strip of land leading up to the homesite. Typically, the only purpose of the neck is to accommodate the driveway. ) IStaff believes that there are valid reasons to consider approval of neck lots and lots accessed by private drives. It is I occasionally inappropriate to force construction of a full stan- dard public street. The use of private driveways can result in decreased environmental impact due to their more flexible design. II In addition, the development pattern in an area may preclude the option of constructing a public street since it may serve only one or two lots . It may be economically unviable to build a street or a street could impact lots located outside the plat (for II example if a road is run along rear property lines) . At the same time, lots having little or no frontage on a public right-of-way can provide high quality homesites that are accessed in a manner Ithat is sensitive to these limitations. The use of private drives II I/ Mr. Don Ashworth February 5, 1990 Page 2 could also allow property owners to maximize the utilization ' of their land. Consequently, we are proposing revised ordinance language that would give the City discretion to allow neck lots and access by private drives. The ordinance is designed so that the City may approve these situations, if certain criteria are met, without resorting to the need to grant a variance. We believe the continued reliance on variances to resolve these situations as done in the past is inappropriate and would compro- mise the City' s ability to exercise the high degree of control needed to regulate them. The ordinance lists the situations where these alternatives may be appropriate, provides building setback standards appropriate to these lots and provides design standards to insure that the private driveway is constructed to acceptable standards . The ordinance states that the City Council may allow the use of private drives and/or neck lots when it finds that the following conditions exist: 1 . Due to topography and/or the surrounding development pat- I tern the City determines that it is not feasible to construct a full width public street. , 2 . The use of a private drive results in enhanced environ- mental protection for wetlands, tree cover and drainage ways. I 3. The City determines that a public street serving the subject and adjacent properties will not be a viable option in the future. 4. Use of a private drive minimizes inpact on adjacent par- cels located outside the plat. PRIVATE DRIVEWAY STANDARDS Private driveways would be subject to high development standards. ' The standards include, but are not limited to the following: 1. No more than 4 homes are to be accessed by a private ' drive. 2 . Private drives serving 2 or more homes must be built to a minimum 7 ton design, be paved to a width of 20 feet, utilize grades not exceeding 10% and provide a turnaround area acceptable to the Fire Marshal. ' 3 . Private drives must be maintained in good condition. Covenants outlining responsibilities for joint main- tenance must be filed with the benefitting properties. 4. The driveway must be provided with drainage improvements determined to be necessary by the City Engineer. ' 5. Street addresses must be clearly posted where the drive- way meets the public right-of-way. I I . . Mr. Don Ashworth February 5, 1990 Page 4 ' In the past, staff has frequently made a determination that the cul-de-sac standard should be applied to curvilinear streets to avoid variance situations. This procedure is legally questionable but it has become normal operating procedure. The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal at their January 17, 1990 meeting. They unanimously recommended adoption of the ordinance with two minor changes. The most significant revision discussed at that meeting was to add clarification that the drive- way construction standards only apply to those sections of the driveway which were used in common by two or more homes. At the special Planning Commission meeting to discuss the Comprehensive Plan, the Commissioners informed staff that they would prefer to have similar standards as had been proposed in the RSF District also apply to development in the Rural Residential District. Staff saw no problem with this approach since the issues of construction on curvilinear and cul-de-sac street sections and dealing with neck lots and private driveways are similar. These changes have been incorporated in the draft ordinance. Staff also discussed the matter with the City Attorney. He indi- cated that several revisions should be incorporated to achieve the desired purpose. The first was that a definition should be provided for neck and flag lots. Staff could find no formal definition in any planning texts for these lots, so one was drafted. In addition, it was suggested that the manner in which the determination is to be made as to which is the front lot line on a neck or flag lot could be difficult to manage and that it should be revised. The original proposal was for the City to establish what the front lot line was at the time the plat was ' filed. Staff had proposed this since it is often unclear as to what is effectively the front lot line when there is no street frontage. Based upon comments received from the City Attorney, we have modified the ordinance so that the front lot line will be the lot line nearest to the public right-of-way that provides access to the parcel. Thus we believe the matter can be resolved quite simply. As a result of these discussions, staff reviewed the draft and has proposed one additional change. We are proposing that the lot width of neck or flags lots or lots accessed by private driveways in the RSF District be increased from 90 feet to 100 feet minimum. We had already proposed that the side lot lines be ' increased from 10 feet to 20 feet to minimize potential impacts of rear yard development and now believe that the larger lot width is required to insure that a sufficient buildable area remains. This change has also been incorporated. STAFF RECOMMENDATION ' Staff recommends that the City Council approve first reading for the proposed ordinance amendments dealing with neck lots and lots accessed by private drives . I I/ Mr. Don Ashworth II February 5, 1990 Page 5 1 NOTE: A copy of this ordinance has been submitted to the Public Safety Commission for review and is scheduled for discussion at their February 8th meeting. This issue has been discussed by II them in the past and they have indicated a desire to have street names posted for private drives. They may also wish to provide added language to insure that the driveways are maintained in a II passable condition. Any recommendations made by the Public Safety Commission will be incorporated into the second reading of the ordinance. Staff discussed the proposal with the Fire Chief II and Fire Marshal and they indicated support for the concept. II I II II II II II II II II I II 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 18-57 OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE ENTITLED STREETS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 18-57 of the Chanhassen Subdivision Ordinance entitled "Streets" shall be amended as follows : ( n) Public streets to be constructed in subdivisions located inside the year 2000 metropolitan service area line, as identified in the city comprehensive plan shall be - constructed to urban standards as prepared by the city engineer' s office. Streets to be constructed in sub- divisions located outside the year 2000 metropolitan 1 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. Te' . .following conditions; (1) Reservation of a sixty foot easement; I ( 2) The private drive shall be constructed to appli to three ( 3) or four ( 4) lots. Private drives in ' these situations may contain a gravel surface. Private drivcs to be shared by two ( 2) lot3 do not ' deemed appropriate by the city. I . Tequired to construct a public street with a paved dards. Direct access ccess to a collector or arterial ' public street is providcd. (0) UP TO FOUR ( 4 ) LOTS MAY BE SERVED BY A PRIVATE DRIVEWAY IF THE CITY FINDS THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS TO EXIST: ( 1) THE PREVAILING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN MAKES IT ' INFEASIBLE OR INAPPROPRIATE TO CONSTRUCT A PUBLIC STREET. LOCATIONS OF EXISTING HOMES, PROPERTY LINES AND POTENTIAL FUTURE HOME SITES MAY BE CONSIDERED. I/ ( 2) AFTER REVIEWING THE SURROUNDING AREA IT IS CONCLUDED THAT AN EXTENSION OF THE PUBLIC STREET SYSTEM IS NOT REQUIRED TO SERVE OTHER PARCELS IN THE AREA, IMPROVE ACCESS, OR TO PROVIDE A STREET SYSTEM CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. ( 3) THE USE OF A PRIVATE DRIVEWAY WILL PERMIT ENHANCED PROTECTION OF WETLANDS AND MATURE TREES. IF THE USE OF PRIVATE DRIVEWAY IS TO BE ALLOWED, THEY 1 SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS: ( 1) COMMON SECTIONS OF PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS SERVING TWO 1 ( 2 ) OR MORE HOMES MUST BE BUILT TO A SEVEN ( 7) TON DESIGN, PAVED TO A WIDTH OF TWENTY ( 20) FEET, UTILIZE A MAXIMUM GRADE OF 10%, AND PROVIDE A TURNAROUND AREA ACCEPTABLE TO THE FIRE MARSHAL BASED UPON GUIDELINES PROVIDED BY APPLICABLE FIRE CODES. PLANS FOR THE DRIVEWAY SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY ENGINEER. UPON COMPLETION OF THE DRIVEWAY, THE APPLICANT SHALL BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A SET OF "AS-BUILT" PLANS SIGNED BY A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER. ' (2 ) PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS MUST BE MAINTAINED IN GOOD CONDITION AND PLOWED AS NEEDED. COVENANTS CONCERNING MAINTENANCE SHALL BE FILED AGAINST ALL BENEFITTING PROPERTIES. ( 3) THE DRIVEWAY MUST BE PROVIDED WITH DRAINAGE , IMPROVEMENTS DETERMINED TO BE NECESSARY BY THE CITY ENGINEER. ( 4 ) STREET ADDRESSES MUST BE POSTED AT THE POINT WHERE THE PRIVATE DRIVEWAY INTERSECTS THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. ' ( 5) THE DRIVEWAY SHALL BE DESIGNED TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS UPON ADJOINING PARCELS. THE CITY MAY REQUIRE REVISED ALIGNMENTS AND LANDSCAPING TO MINIMIZE IMPACT. ( 6 ) THE DRIVEWAY MUST BE LOCATED WITHIN A STRIP OF PROPERTY AT LEAST THIRTY ( 30) FEET WIDE EXTENDING OUT TO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OR COVERED BY A THIRTY ( 30) FT. WIDE EASEMENT THAT IS PERMANENTLY RECORDED OVER ALL BENEFITTED AND IMPACTED PARCELS. (p) Private reserve strips controlling public access to streets shall be prohibited. 1 Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. , -2- Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this IIday of , 1990. IATTEST: II Don Ashworth, City Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor II II (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1990) 1 II II II I II II II II II r t -3- II ORDINANCE NO. I/ CITY OF CHANHASSEN II CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE I CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE The City Council of the City of Chanhassen Ordains as I follows : Section 1. Section 20-1, Definitions, of the Chanhassen I City Code is amended to read: Neck lot/flag lot means a lot that does not provide the full II required frontage on a public right-of-way but rather is served by a narrow "neck" of land that extends to the street. To meet the definition the neck must be at least 30 feet wide. Section 2. Article XI, RR, Rural Residential District, II Section 20-595 shall be revised as follows: Section 20-595. Lot Requirements and setbacks. 11 The following minimum requirements shall be observed an the "RR" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter: (1) The minimum lot area is two and one-half ( 2i) acres, sub- ject to Section 20-906 ( 2) The minimum lot frontage is two hundred ( 200) feet, except II that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac "bubble" or along the outside curve of a curvilinear street section shall be two hundred ( 200) feet in width at the building setback line. II The location of these lots is conceptually illustrated below. Lot width on neck or flag lots or lots accessed by private driveways shall also have their lot width measured at the building setback line. II ( 3) The minimum lot depth is two hundred ( 200) feet. ( 4) The maximum lot coverage is twenty ( 20) percent. 1 ( 5) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, fifty (50) feet. II b. For rear yards, fifty ( 50) feet. c. For side yards, ten (10) feet. I ( 6) The setbacks for lots served by private driveways and/or flag and neck lots, are as follows: II a. For front yards, thirty ( 30) feet. The front yard shall be the lot line nearest the public right-of-way I II ( III that provides access to the parcel. The rear lot line is to be located opposite from the front lot line with II the remaining exposures treated as side lot lines. On neck/flag lots the front yard setback shall be measured at the point nearest the front lot line where the lot achieves a two hundred ( 200) foot width. I b. For rear yards, fifty ( 50) feet. c . For side yards, fifty (50) feet. II ( 7) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, three ( 3) stories/forty I ( 40) feet. b. For accessory structures, three ( 3) stories/forty (40) feet. I ( 8) The minimum driveway separate is as follows: I a. If the driveway is on a collector street, four hundred ( 400) feet. b. If the drivway is on an arterial street, one thousand 11 two hundred fifty (1,250) feet. Section 3. Section 20-615 entitled Lot Requirements and Setbacks shall be amended to read as follows: IIThe following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" District subject to additional requirements , exceptions and IImodifications set forth in this chapter: (1) The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand (15, 000 square ' feet) . ( 2 ) The minimum lot frontage is ninety (90) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac "bubble" or along the I outside curve of curvilinear street sections shall be ninety ( 90) feet in width at the building setback line. The location of this lot is conceptually illustrated I below. Lots Where Frontage Is I Measured At Setback Line 1 k1 � 1*."'"4•■•••4 L \ • ♦ 1 . t C;7 III 8 • I _• `` .:411... J _• I • / I I/ ( 3 ) The minimum lot depth is one hundred twent -five (125) P Y feet. THE LOCATION OF THESE LOTS IS CONCEPTUALLY ILLUSTRATED BELOW. LOT WIDTH ON NECK OR FLAG LOTS AND LOTS ACCESSED BY PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS SHALL BE ONE HUNDRED ( 100) FEET AS MEASURED AT THE FRONT BUILDING SETBACK LINE. ( 4 ) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is twenty-five ( 25) percent. ( 5) The setbacks are as follows: (a) For front yards, thirty ( 30) feet. 11 (b) For rear yards, thirty (30) feet. (c) For side yards, ten (10) feet ( 6) THE SETBACKS FOR LOTS SERVED BY PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS AND/OR FLAG AND NECK LOTS, ARE AS FOLLOWS: a. FOR FRONT YARD, THIRTY ( 30) FEET. THE FRONT YARD SHALL BE THE LOT LINE NEAREST THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT PROVIDES ACCESS TO THE PARCEL. THE REAR YARD LOT LINE IS TO BE LOCATED OPPOSITE FROM THE FRONT LOT II LINE WITH THE REMAINING EXPOSURES TREATED AS SIDE LOT LINES. ON NECK LOTS THE FRONT YARD SETBACK SHALL BE MEASURED AT THE POINT NEAREST THE FRONT LOT LINE WHERE THE LOT ACHIEVES A ONE HUNDRED ( 100) FOOT MINIMUM WIDTH. b. FOR REAR YARDS, THIRTY ( 30) FEET. c. FOR SIDE YARDS, TWENTY ( 20) FEET. , Neck / Flag Lots I From Lot Line .t...t I I I 100 Lot Width I i I 1 Lot Width I 1 1 I I , ( 7 ) The maximum height is as follows : ' a. For the principal structure, ( three ( 3 ) stories/forty ( 40) feet. I -3- 11 b. For accessory structures, three ( 3 ) stories/forty ( 40) feet. ' Section 4. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this day of , 1990. ' ATTEST: 1 Don Ashworth, City Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1990) I I I I 11 I I 11 -4- Planning Commission Meeting I/ January 17, 1990 - Page 56 r (e) Standards of maintenance including mowing and trimming; painting and upkeep of racks, docks and other equipment; disposal of trash and debris; (f) Increased width, depth or area requirements based upon the intensity of the use proposed or the number of dwellings having rights of access. To the extent feasible, the City may impose such conditions even after approval of the beachlot if the City finds it necessary based upon conflicts with the use of other property or failure to maintain property of 11 equipment. All voted in favor and the motion carried. (Ladd Conrad left the meeting at this point and turned the Chair over to Steve Emmings.) I PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CITY CODE FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE 11 SUBDIVISION AND ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE RSF DISTRICT STANDARDS DEALING WITH LOT FRONTAGE AND ACCESS BY PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS. Public Present: ' Name Address Terry Forbord Lundgren Bros. , Vice President I Emmings: Has everybody read the material? Is there anything you want to II add to what you've already read? Krauss: I'd be happy to respond to questions. I guess all I'd say is, II this is arising out of a need that's become apparent during the processing of our subdivisions and having worked on these things over the years, that we just needed a method of legitimizing these things. The standards that are being proposed are pretty tough. This does not provide an easy out for somebody that wants to avoid a public street. Emmings: Okay, this is a public hearing so we'll open the public hearing. II Is there anybody that's got comments? Terry Forbord: Terry Forbord from Lundgren Bros.. Actually I support Mr. Krauss' proposal. There certainly are, this does legitimize the need for private driveways although I may at times think there's a need far greater than Paul's at the time but it's a great concept because there are times, just from an environmental standpoint, that it really doesn' t make any sense to put in a street. Oftentimes we get conditioned into thinking with II if we put in streets, that's a good thing to do. The bigger and the wider and the longer and the more pavement and that's not always really what's in II 1 f Planning Commission Meeting 1 January 17, 1990 - Page 57 the best interest of the land, the City, the public. Remember somebody has to pay for those streets and those get attached to the price of the homes ' so sometimes putting in streets aren't the best thing to do and private driveways, in the right situation, certainly are a good idea. Paul , certainly pointed out a couple areas in the existing ordinance that really didn't deal with this correctly and he's done a really good job in the way IIhe's presented this. Emmings: Do you have any comments on the neck lots and flag lots? Terry Forbord: No. I pretty much can support this and endorse this. There's a time, certain situations that may come up where you might have to deal with it differently but there's a variance proceeding that one can go through. I support this. 1 Batzli moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Emmings: Paul, this basically clears up things that we've been talking 1 about for a long time. This ordinance. Isn't that right? Krauss: I hope so, yes. IIEmmings: Okay, let's go around for comments. Annette? 1 Ellson: I like it. I think it answers what we've been trying to accomplish and I am not about to try to make it better. I think it's perfectly fine. II Batzli : My only question is, it seems to me that we had a situation not really like this but kind of in what was Vineland? Now one of the concerns there was that they were putting the road in the guy's backyard. We were ' talking about a sideyard setback from the road that was proposed to go up through the neck. How do you address something like that? It's really not addressed in here necessarily other than you would allow a private drive if there were fewer than what, 4 homes or whatever? ' Krauss: Yeah, but there is language and I doubt if I can find it but there's language in here that allows you to set some sighting criteria for 1 a private drive recognizing that particular problem. It will also allow you to impose some landscaping requirements if necessary to minimize impact because these things do run near people's backyards. That is a problem 1 with them. But I think it does give you the flexibility to do that. It's number 5 on page 2 of the zoning ordinance amendment. The driveway shall be designed to minimize impact. upon adjoining parcels. The City may require revised alignments and landscaping to minimize impacts. 1 Batzli : Okay. So in Vineland they had more than the 4 parcels so this wouldn't have helped that particular situation. 1 Krauss: Well the way Vineland ultimately shook out is that there was only one home that became a neck lot access from Pleasant View. i 1 Planning Commission Meeting I/ January 17, 1990 - Page 58 Batzli: Yeah, but as originally proposed it would have served what, like II 20 lots so they wouldn't have been able to do the private. Krauss: No. We didn't support that concept from the start. I Batzli: Well it was a big cul-de-sac. But assuming that that was the only access into and out of there, you'd still have a problem in situations like " that where there was more than 4 homes. Still have a sideyard setback problem for certain neck, flag accesses so this as originally proposed by the developer, this wouldn't have helped that particular homeowner. Krauss: No, and specifically it's intended not to. If you're platting '. more than 4 lots, almost invariably, you can put a public street in. There's really no reason not to. I Batzli: But that's the question. How intrusive can a developer be into an existing homeowner 's sideyard by serving, let's say it was 160 lots? That's my problem with it and I don't know that this addresses it and I don't think it's intended to. Krauss: No, it isn't and that's a problem that occurs anytime you're I developing a new public street or private drive that's in proximity to somebody elses property line rather than being centered within a large parcel. It's an issue that, typically you want to keep the roadway II centered so those who benefit are the ones who are impacted by it. That's a rule of thumb and we do that with all public streets. This ordinance is real specific. It's only dealing with those situations that for very specific criteria we can't serve by public street. And yeah, that situation, that scenario may develop but unlike with public streets where the design is basically handled in the subdivision process, this gives you the authority to move the private driveway around. If you want to save some trees on a property line, you can require that it be shifted. If there isn't landscaping, you could require that it be installed so in some respects you probably have better control over the private driveways under II this ordinance than you do with the public street. Batzli: But let's go back to Vineland for just one second and I agree with what you just said but if they would have put a public street in there, wouldn't it have been reasonable to require them to not have it shifted all II the way over to the east on their property line so it was only 24 feet away from this guy's house. Wouldn't it be better to be able to force them to center it on their own neck portion even if it was a public street and not a private driveway? That's what we weren't able to do and he was trying to put in the 3 houses on the west side and run the road right along the property line. That's what the adjancent property owner was objecting to. We still have that problem. Krauss: We still have that problem. I Elison: This won't be the one that's going to solve that. • Planning Commission Meeting -January 17, 1990 - Page 59 11. Batzli: Yeah I know but I was hoping like maybe we were working on something to solve that problem too. But I like this. Don't get me wrong. I was hoping that this was going to solve that. The other problem's still in the mill I guess. Emmings: We don't have it as a work item or anything. 11 Batzli: No, and I had it on my list. ' Emmings: I agree. It's something that's always bugged me when I see them put in a road and all of a sudden the person who had a yard now has frontage on the sideyard. IXrauss: Well you know, if you reflect back for a moment to the first item we had tonight where we proposed that road dropping to the south. The purchaser and the realtor suggested that we require, that we put that road right up against a neighboring property. His proposal to us was that rather than put this road over here, which impacts a new lot that comes like this, he said why don't you just drop it down there. I said, well we have a fundamental problem with that because that's making this person over here a corner lot and. . . Emmings: Now other than jawboning, do you really have any way to prevent him? I think there ought to be, even if it was. . . Batzli : But see at times you may want it there. That's the difficult part. Krauss : First of all , it can't be any closer than 30 feet or we're I violating our own standards. If we do that than we have to go through a variance procedure. Emmings: What can't be closer than 30 feet? A paved street? ' Rrauss: If we plat a new road less than 30 feet from somebody's house, we're meeting variance situation. IIEmmings: House or lot? Krauss: House. Ellson: But for now in this what do you think Brian? I Batzli: I like this. I've said that. We got off the track. That's all I have. ' Ahrens: I'm not aware of the past problems with Vineland but I think that this is well written. Emmings: I agree. I only have a couple of things. I just don't know, I ' circled two words as being, they're looking funny to me spelling wise. Curvalinear on the first one. Maybe that's the way it's spelled. It just looks funny to me. 1 Planning Commission Meeting I January 1 7, 1990 - Page 60 r Batzli: I think there's an i in there. ' Emmings: Instead of an a? Batzli: Yeah. I Emmings: That's what I thought. But I didn't look it up so I don' t know. And then over on the other one, under Section 1, paragraph 1, it says unfeasible and that's a funny word to me. I think it's either not feasible ' or may be infeasible. Krauss: Where are we now? I Emmings: Unfeasible. I don't recall ever seeing it before. Again, you could refer to your dictionary and see. Then the only substative comment I I've got is down under the second group of numbers in number 1, it says private driveways. The reason this is interesting to me, I live and you should know, on a system of three houses are served by a private drive and , , it's a very, very nice arrangement. It works real well. We share. We all hire one guy to plow and share the cost in a real reasonable way and it's just very nice. I really kind of like it but here it says, if it serves two or more homes, it has to be a 7 ton design paved to a width of 20 feet. " My two neighbors have an asphalt drive and I have just rocks because I like just rocks and it's not 20 feet wide. I'll bet it's 8 feet wide. Krauss: Well there's a real good reason for that and that's the Fire Code. II Emmings: Well okay. , Ellson: And he's going to come after you as soon as this goes into law. Emmings: What's the problem? ' Krauss: What's the problem is we can't guarantee that we can get our fire trucks down an 8 foot wide street or an 8 foot wide driveway. , Ellson: With gravel especially. Krauss: We're not talking about serving one home where you can sort of bull your way through if you need to. We're talking about serving 2 or more which is a fairly significant amount of traffic. There's more of a likelihood that you' ll have an emergency situation. Fire code requires a II 20 foot wide paved surface with a turn around area that they can maneuver in. Now that turn around area is not a 60 foot diameter cul-de-sac but you can flare out driveways and such to make it work. I Emmings: But just a minute now. You're talking about actually paving a 20 foot width. A standard driveway. Krauss: For a single home, may be 10 feet. ' Planning Commission Meeting IJanuary 17, 1990 - Page 61 Emmings: I think that's awful unless you absolutely, fire trucks are not 20 feet wide. They may need some maneuvering. Krauss: They're not 20 feet wide, no. They would fit in a 12 foot drive lane but they oftentimes have to maneuver around one another. Ellson: If a parked car is there or something. Krauss: If it's not plowed to it's full width. Emmings: What's a little odd to me here is that you've got, if I'm just one house on a driveway, do I need to be 20 feet wide paved? Ellson: It says serving 2 or more. Batzli: Do you just require then that portion of the driveway that's serving the common portion of the driveway? Krauss: That's correct. And if you have a driveway that serves two homes, one behind the other, after you pass the first home, the driveway could then flare down to 10 feet. Emmings: Oh, alright. IBatzli : But this doesn' t say that I don't think does it? I Emmings: See in my situation again, everybody comes in on the same long piece and then it all splits off. If it's only the common portion, I have no problem with that. IKrauss : If you'd like to clarify that so that it is the common portion, I don't have a problem with that. That's what it's intended to mean. II Emmings: Okay. Then that makes a lot of sense to me. And I'm grandfathered in. Ellson: You mean there's no way to go after him. Batzli: Do we need a motion or something? I Emmings: That'd be good. If no else has any other comments. We'll have a motion. II Ellson: I move that the Planning Commission approval proposed ordinance changes on, I supposed I should give the Ordinance Number. IEmtinings: Yes. Ellson: Amending Section 20-615 as set out in the staff report and 18-57. IEmmings: Is there a second? Batzli: I'll second it for discussion purposes. Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 62 I Emmings: Alright. Discuss. ' Batzli: Are you going to go with the amendment that the private driveways, only those common portions. I Ellson: Yeah, reword the section to be a little more clarification to that. Batzli: Then I like it. Ellson: I didn't think it needed an amendment to it. I figured he was just going to write it that way but you're right. We're going to get legal. Emmings: Okay. So you're amending your motion then. To allow the staff to clarify that in that section they're talking about the common portion of the driveway and may be certain other things like when one house is behind the other. Again it will be past the first house or something like that. 1 That's what you're amending your motion to? Elison: That's exactly right. ' Emmings: And you agree with that? Batzli: Yes. , Elison moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend ' approval of amending Section 20-615 and Section 18-57 as presented by the staff with clarification in Section 18-57 on the common portion of the private driveways must be paved to 20 feet in width. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE. I Emmings: We have a report from the Planning Director on the City Council meeting. Does anybody want to make any comments about that? I Ellson: I was really surprised with that number 3 item. Krauss: Everybody in the audience was real confused as was I and the City II Attorney. Ellson: What was the vote? ' Krauss: It was unanimous. Emmings: Is it okay to change the second reading in midstream like that? I Krauss: Yes.