3c. City code amendment subdivisions, right of ways CITY OF � L'
PC DATE: 11/28/90 /
I \I ', CC DATE: 12/10/90
. CH�NH�SSEi�I , CASE #: 90-1 SOA
By: Olsen/k
1
STAFF REPORT
•
,
IPROPOSAL: Subdivision Ordinance Amendment to Amend
Section 18-57 (b) and (n)
ZLOCATION: Act' r‘ by Ciy Pfrnink ,ator
..e) APPLICANT: City of Chanhassen Re;,..,- ..
J �r tz-$- a
I _. . . :aissio.
Q
•
/2- iD- 1a
I . ,
Manager's Comment - This item has been publishes '
I PRESENT ZONING: twice and no one from the public appeared/
questioned the amendment. The amendment is a
ACREAGE: fairly simple one and accordingly, staff has
I DENSITY• asked that the rules of procedure be waived
and the first and second reading be approved.
•
I ADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE: N -
S -
Q E -
111 W -
0 . WATER AND SEWER:
I W
PHYSICAL CHARACTER. :
I ammo
2000 LAND USE PLAN:
I
I
Planning Commission
November 28, 1990
Page 2
' ANALYSIS
' Currently the Subdivision Ordinance requires a right-of-way of 50
feet for local streets and cul-de-sac turnaround radius in the
urban residential district. The Engineering Department has
requested that the right-of-way be increased from 50 feet to 60
' feet to further accommodate pedestrian ways, utilities and snow
removal. In recent development proposals, staff has required the
60 ft. radius and street right-of-way to be provided. To make the
' Subdivision Ordinance consistent with what staff is implementing,
the design standards of the Subdivision Ordinance should be amended.
Section 18-57 (n) refers to public streets constructed in a
' subdivision within and outside of the Metropolitan Service Area.
Currently the wording states the "Year 2000 Metropolitan Service
Area" . Since the year of the Metropolitan Service Area has the
' potential to be changed, staff is recommending that reference to a
year be removed and that the generic Metropolitan Service Area
remain in it's place. This amendment does not change the intent of
' the statement.
State statute does not require a public hearing or review by the
Planning Commission for an amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance.
' Since the Subdivision Ordinance is something that the Planning
Commission closely works with and implements through review of
development proposals, staff is holding a public hearing in front
' of the Planning Commission to allow the Planning Commission to have
input. The proposed amendments are quite minor and are consistent
with what staff has been implementing.
' RECOMMENDATION -
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following
' motion:
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Subdivision
' Ordinance amendment to amend Section 18-57, Streets, to
reflect current city standards for right-of-way widths as
follows:
Right-of-Way Pavement
' Street Classification Widths Width(feet) (feet)
' Local Street
(urban residential) 60 28 to 32
' Cul-de-Sac, Turnaround
Radius (urban-residential) 60 42 ;
I
Planning Commission
November 28, 1990
Page 3
and that Section 18-57 (n) be amended to read:
(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
subdivisions located outside the year 2000 metropolitan
urban service area shall conform to the rural standard
requirements as prepared by the City engineer's office.
The construction of private streets is prohibited.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE ,
On November 28, 1990, the Planning Commission unanimously
recommended approval of the proposed amendment to the Subdivision
Ordinance as proposed by staff. The Planning Commission
recommended one change to the last sentence of Section 18-57 (n) by
replacing the word "are" with "is" so the sentence would read:
"The construction of private streets is prohibited. "
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
The City Council recommends approval of Subdivision Ordinance
amendment to amend Section 18-57, Streets, to reflect current city
standards for right-of-way widths as follows: '
Right-of-Way Pavement
Widths Width
Street Classification (feet) (feet)
Local Street
(urban residential) 60 28 to 32 '
Cul-de-Sac, Turnaround
Radius (urban-residential) 60 42 ; '
and that Section 18-57 (n) be amended to read:
(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
subdivisions located outside the year 2000 metropolitan
urban service area shall conform to the rural standard
requirements as prepared by the City engineer's office.
The construction of private streets is prohibited.
I
I
Planning Commission
November 28, 1990
Page 4
' ATTACHMENTS
' 1. Planning Commission Minutes dated November 28, 1990.
2. Sections 18-57 (b) and (n) of the Subdivision Ordinance.
1
1
11
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. ,
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 18-57, SUBDIVISIONS,
OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
Section 1. Section 18-57 (b) of the Chanhassen City Code is
hereby amended by changing the required right-of-way widths for
Local Street (urban residential) and Cul-de-sac, Turnaround radius
(urban residential) from 50 feet to 60 feet.
Section 2. Section 18-57 (n) of the Chanhassen City Code is
amended by deleting the words "year 2000".
Section 3 . This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon
its passage and publication.
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this '
day of , 1990.
ATTEST:
Don Ashworth, City Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on ,, 1990)
•
•
1
1
1
il
Planning Commission Meeting
11 November 28 , 1990 - Page 13
— Emmings moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval to amend Conditional Use Permit *88-17 to approve a fence with a
- -- maximum height of 15 feet at it's highest point with the following
condition:
II1 . The applicant shall work with the staff to get a little more screening
up close to the fence or some how work out additions to the landscape
1 plan to break up the fence a little more.
All voted in favor except Ellson who opposed and the motion carried with a
vote of 4 to 1.
IIErhart: Annette 's opposed. Anybody would want to make some comments? Of
course we 'll start with you Annette .
IElison: I just think that it 's easy enough to go with just the 8 foot and
keep it the way it was originally passed .
IErhart: Yeah . I would like to add too that I 'd like to see perhaps more
screening than was communicated in the motion. I think with the height of
the thing and the time that it 's going to take to screen it with the trees
I that are there , I really think that a bit little more creativity ought to
be put into this thing and some investment to make it visually better
faster . So I would agree with Joan 's initial comment . Do you have any
II ' more?
Ahrens: No.
1 Erhart: Okay . Anything else Brian?
Batzli : No . I agree with what you just said. I think he does have a
l large investment and it wouldn't hurt to break up the fence with more
screening than perhaps a little bit.
I Erhart: Alright . Thank you. Let's see, that will go before the City
Council on December 10th. Thanks for the photographs .
IAhrens: Do you want them back?
Steve Willette: No, you can keep them .
IIPUBLIC HEARING:
SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 18-57, STREETS, TO REFLECT
IYCURRENT CITY STANDARDS FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTHS, DRIVEWAYS, ETC. AND MODIFY
THE URBAN SERVICE AREA REFERENCES.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . Vice Chairman Erhart called the
IIpublic hearing to order .
Batzli moved, Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
IIfavor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
II
I
Planning Commission Meeting
November 28 , 1990 - Page 14
Erhart: Is there any discussion by any of the commissioners on the
proposed amendment change? --
Ahrens: The last sentence of ( n) in the , where it says the construction of
private streets are prohibited . It should be an is.
Batzli : She stole your thunder .
Erhart: One of the things that I think that I 'd like you just to think
about and it 's not a big thing but by doing this essentially you're
increasing the effect of minimum lot size in the city of Chanhassen to I
15,500 feet . What you 're doing is you're taking, by increasing the road
width by 5 feet on either side , you take an average lot of 100 feet , that's
5 time 100 , that 's 500 feet so what you're doing is you're decreasing the
density of our city .
Olsen: That isn't changing though. It's just the right-of-way. The
actual width will be . . .
Erhart: Right-of-way gets excluded from the land area that's developable .
Krauss: If you 've got 10 acres of gross land, you 're right . . .but
effectively as Jo Ann pointed out, we 've been doing it this way for the
past year anyway. 1
Erhart: I mean you did it and we never thought about it. I 'm just
pointing out to all the other commissioners that effectively are you
reducing the density of your urban area here by 500 divided by 15,000.
Emmings: You have to use a calculator?
Erhart: Yeah, I do . By 3 1/2%. I certainly have no problem with the 1
road .
Batzli : Being a proponent of open spaces and assuming they're not going toil
pave the extra 10 feet , I like this.
Emmings: Well yeah, you originally wanted 90 feet. 1
Batzli: That's right . Just big green boulevards .
Erhart: I guess if I was getting more open space, I 'd rather have it 1
clumped in a park that somebody could use it I suppose. . .spending any time
on it. Is there any other discussion on it? If not, does somebody want to�
make a motion?
Batzli : I move that the Planning Commission adopt a motion as set forth in
the staff report to amend Section 18-57 set forth therein. If that made 1
sense?
Ahrens: You sound like a lawyer . 1
Erhart: Is there a second?
1
w
Planning Commission Meeting
November 28 , 1990 - Page 15
Elison: Second .
Batzli : Oh, with the one change , "are" to - "is" .
Batzli moved, Elison seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Subdivision Ordinance Amendment to amend Section 18-57(b)
and ( n) with the change in item (n) changing the word 'are' to 'is' . All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Erhart: Anything on the Minutes? Anybody? Any old business anybody wants
to bring up? Is there a motion to approve the Minutes? I guess we 've got
two meetings here .
Emmings: We 've gotten recent direction that we don't have to do this
anymore . If there are no changes , that they 're simply approved as written .
We ask for changes and if there aren't any , we just .
Erhart: Great . I 'm glad I 've been updated.
Vice Chairman Erhart noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meetings
dated October 24 , 1990 and November 7, 1990 as presented .
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
' Erhart: City Council Update. We 've gotten a nice report from Paul on
that . I think Paul wants to discuss a little bit about the comp plan
thing .
' Krauss: Let me touch on a couple things if I may Mr . Chairman. . . .The
downtown traffic . . .did a preliminary report for the City Council at the
last meeting . We're still in the process of doing some more data
' collection and models but they were retained through the HRA late last
spring, or initially when we thought Target was a serious proposal but to
examine the downtown street system and see if it's really going to carry
' through the future and what sort of design standards we needed. Their
preliminary indications are , well they're a little bit startling when you
deal with what we have there now. They're telling us that in all
probability we 're going to need a four lane section on 78th Street
certainly west of Market Blvd. out to CR 17 and that is going to be
designed that way . In fact the realignment . . .being designed for that .
They 're also indicating that it 's probable in the long run we'll probably
' need 4 lanes up to Great Plains Blvd . which. . .configuration over there.
It's not something we have to run out and do tomorrow and there are going
to be proposals for turn lanes and signalization at 2 or 3 intersections
will be needed at some point in the future but they're telling us that in
the long run that that's probably going to occur . So that was a
preliminary report to the City Council and there's a lot more detail that
I 'm not going to touch on now but we would be coming back to the HRA
certainly and I believe we could also give a report to the Planning
Commission as to how that 's developing. I think some of you might have
been involved in some of the consideration of downtown street systems so
we 'll keep you posted as to Stragar-Roscoe's progress but there is going to