12. Zong & Subdivision Ordinance with Neck/Flag Lots I
I CITY O ,.....„.„
I ,
_ $ ,
.. . . _
• ,,,,.. , : . :" . CHANHASSEN
. , , , .
1 .. a 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 "of by CRY Administrator
4 Endorsed +l ft
1 MEMORANDUM i!rlodrlla
Re;ectec'
II TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager B°` �7�'
0-- Este Submfied to Ccitm.s>;on
FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director .„
Dec Sub t1: to uc.unc;l
IDATE: February 5, 1990 a- j?- go
SUBJ: Proposed Revisions to the Zoning and Subdivision
1 Ordinances Dealing with Neck/Flag Lots and Lot Frontage
Requirements
1 BACKGROUND
During the review of several recent development proposals, staff
1 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
II accessed by private drives [Section 18-57(n) ] outside the MUSA
line subject to certain criteria, but does not provide similar
flexibility in serviced areas. The ordinance formerly allowed up
Ito 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
with the Vineland Forest plat. The RSF district requires that
I all lots must have a minimum lot frontage of 90 feet, thus
precluding the possibility of developing neck lots or lots served
by private driveway without the granting of variances. (A neck
I 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. )
1 Staff believes that there are valid reasons to consider
approval of neck lots and lots accessed by private drives. It is
occasionally inappropriate to force construction of a full stan-
1 dard public street. The use of private driveways can result in
decreased environmental impact due to their more flexible design.
In addition, the development pattern in an area may preclude the
il 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
example if a road is run along rear property lines) . At the same
II time, lots having little or no frontage on a public right-of-way
can provide high quality homesites that are accessed in a manner
that is sensitive to these limitations. The use of private drives
II
11 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
11 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-
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 .
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.
M 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-
l! way meets the public right-of-way.
II
Mr. Don Ashworth
February 5, 1990
I/
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. I
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 .
II
11 Mr. Don Ashworth
February 5 , 1990
Page 5
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
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
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
and Fire Marshal and they indicated support for the concept.
1
I
1
1
I
1
I
I
I
11
f II
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: I
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
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
( 4) lots in the area outside of the year 2000 metropoli
f-ellowing conditions; i
(1) Reservation of a sixty foot easement;
( 2) The private drive shall be constructed to appli
these situations may contain a gravel surface.
have to meet the above refc-rtnced city standards if
aurface in compliancc with a pp licable city stan
public street is providcd. I
(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
I
11
II
( 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.
11 ( 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
SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS:
( 1) COMMON SECTIONS OF PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS SERVING TWO
( 2) OR MORE HOMES MUST BE BUILT TO A SEVEN ( 7) TON
DESIGN, PAVED TO A WIDTH OF TWENTY ( 20) FEET,
11 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.
Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately
upon its passage and publication.
-2-
11
11
' 11
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) 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
i
I
I
-3-
I
ORDINANCE NO.
11 CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
' AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE
' The City Council of the City of Chanhassen Ordains as
follows:
Section 1. Section 20-1, Definitions, of the Chanhassen
City Code is amended to read:
' Neck lot/flag lot means a lot that does not provide the full
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,
Section 20-595 shall be revised as follows:
Section 20-595. Lot Requirements and setbacks.
I 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
11 ( 2) The minimum lot frontage is two hundred (200) feet, except
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.
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.
( 3) The minimum lot depth is two hundred ( 200) feet.
( 4) The maximum lot coverage is twenty ( 20) percent.
( 5) The setbacks are as follows :
a. For front yards, fifty ( 50) feet.
b. For rear yards, fifty ( 50) feet.
c. For side yards, ten (10) feet.
( 6) The setbacks for lots served by private driveways and/or
' flag and neck lots, are as follows:
a. For front yards, thirty ( 30) feet. The front yard
shall be the lot line nearest the public right-of-way
I
I
that provides access to the parcel. The rear lot line
is to be located opposite from the front lot line with 11
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.
II
( 7) The maximum height is as follows:
a. For the principal structure, three ( 3) stories/forty II
( 40) feet.
b. For accessory structures, three ( 3) stories/forty ( 40) I
feet.
( 8) The minimum driveway separate is as follows:
a. If the driveway is on a collector street, four hundred II
( 400) feet.
b. If the drivway is on an arterial street, one thousand I
two hundred fifty (1,250) feet.
Section 3. Section 20-615 entitled Lot Requirements and II 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) . II
(2 ) The minimum lot frontage is ninety ( 90) feet, except II 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
- - - - S —
I 401 . L 1
• \
I
1 • ' I Si t c
■fr;17. _ 1
4
II ( 3 ) The minimum lot depth is one hundred twenty-five (125)
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:
i (a) For front yards, thirty ( 30) feet.
( 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:
ta. 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
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.
11 Neck / Flag Lots
Fron Lot Line
iJ/ H
'1 1 00 Lot Width 1
Lot WIdtk
LL . H
1
( 7) The maximum height is as follows:
a. For the principal structure, ( three ( 3)
stories/forty ( 40) feet.
-3-
r
II
b. For accessory structures, three ( 3) stories/forty I
( 40) feet.
Section 4. This ordinance shall be effective immediately
upon its passage and publication.
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 11 day of , 1990.
ATTEST: 1
1
Don Ashworth, City Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor 1
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1990) 1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
-4-
Planning Commission Meeting
' January 17, 1990 - Page 56
(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
I 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
1 equipment.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
(Ladd Conrad left the meeting at this point and turned the Chair over to
Steve Errmings.)
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CITY CODE FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE
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
' Emmings: Has everybody read the material? Is there anything you want to
add to what you've already read?
'
Krauss: I'd be happy to respond to questions. I guess all I'd say is,
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.
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 fax greater
than Paul's at the time but it's a great concept because there are times,
1 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
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
1
Planning Commission Meeting ' II
January 17, 1990 - Page 57
11
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 II
he'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.
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 ,
about for a long time. This ordinance. Isn't that right?
Krauss: I hope so, yes. ,
Emmings: Okay, let's go around for comments. Annette?
Ellson: I like it. I think it answers what we've been trying to 1
accomplish and I am not about to try to make it better. I think it's
perfectly fine.
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 II
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 II
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
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
with them. But I think it does give you the flexibility to do that. It's II
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.
Batzli: Okay. So in Vineland they had more than the 4 parcels so this
wouldn't have helped that particular situation. I
Krauss: Well the way Vineland ultimately shook out is that there was only
one home that became a neck lot access from Pleasant View.
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 58 •
I
11 Batzli: Yeah, but as originally proposed it would have served what, like
20 lots so they wouldn't have been able to do the private.
' Krauss: No. We didn't support that concept from the start.
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.
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
developing a new public street or private drive that's in proximity to
somebody elses property line rather than being centered within a large
I parcel. It's an issue that, typically you want to keep the roadway
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
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
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.
Ellson: This won't be the one that's going to solve that.
I
1
II
Planning Commission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 59
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. II
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 y ,
9 m or anything.
.
Batzli: No, and I had it on my list. I
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.
Krauss: 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 II
have a fundamental problem with that because that's making this person over
here a corner lot and. . . I
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
violating our own standards. If we do that than we have to go through a
variance procedure. I
Emmings: What can' t be closer than 30 feet? A paved street?
Krauss: If we plat a new road less than 30 feet from somebody's house, 1
we're creating .a variance situation.
Emmings: House or lot? I
Krauss: House.
Ellson: But for now in this what do you think Brian? ,
Batzli: I like this. I've said that. We got off the track. That's all I
have. I
Ahrens: I'm not aware of the past problems with Vineland but I think that
this is well written. I
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 II
looks funny to me.
I
I ,planning Commission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 60
' Batzli: I think there's an i in there.
Emmings: Instead of an a?
' Batzli: Yeah.
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?
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'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.
' 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
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.
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
January 17, 1990 - Page 61
Eaamings: 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 II
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?
Elison: It says serving 2 or more. I
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. I
Batzli: But this doesn't say that I don't think does it?
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.
Krauss: If you'd like to clarify that so that it is the common portion, I II
don't have a problem with that. That's what it's intended to mean.
E mings: Okay. Then that makes a lot of sense to me. And I'm ,
grandfathered in.
Elison: You mean there's no way to go after him. ,
Batzli: Do we need a motion or something?
Emmings: That'd be good. If no else has any other comments. We'll have a ,
motion.
Elison: I move that the Planning Commission approval proposed ordinance ,
changes on, I supposed I should give the Ordinance Number.
Emmings: Yes. I
Elison: Amending Section 20-615 as set out in the staff report and 18-57.
Emmings: Is there a second? ,
Batzli: I'll second it for discussion purposes.
11
Planning Commission Meeting
11 January 17, 1990 - Page 62
iEmmings: Alright. Discuss.
Batzli: Are you going to go with the amendment that the private driveways,
only those common portions.
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
1 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.
That's what you're amending your motion to?
' Ellson: That's exactly right.
Emmings: And you agree with that?
11 Batzli: Yes.
Ellson 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.
' Emmings: We have a report from the Planning Director on the City Council
meeting. Does anybody want to make any comments about that?
Ellson: I was really surprised with that number 3 item.
' Krauss: Everybody in the audience was real confused as was I and the City
Attorney.
' Ellson: What was the vote?
' Krauss: It was unanimous.
Emmings: Is it okay to change the second reading in midstream like that?
Krauss: Yes.
11