2 Private Streets & Flag LotsC O?
690 C#y Center Drive, PO Box' 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Phone 612.937.1900
General Fax 612.937.5739
Engineering Fax 61Z 93 Z 9152
?ublic Safety Fax' 612.934.2524
Web wu,m ri. d~anhasse,, mn. us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner
DATE:
May 10, 2001
Use Of Private Streets And Flag Lots
BACKGROUND
On April 3,2001, the Planning Commission reviewed four scenarios for an
ordinance amendment regarding private streets and flag lots. The commission
tabled action on this item and directed staffto perform a cross check search of the
City Code for the words private street, private drive and flag lot to make sure all
of those issues are in sync, and include a list of possible conditions to attach to
Section 18-57(6).
ANALYSIS
Staff performed a search of the entire city code and identified each ordinance '
where the following words appeared: Alley, Boulevard, Cul-de-sac, Public Street,
Private street, Street, Roadway, Road, Right-of-Way, and Sidewalk. All of these
terms provide access and any changes to the definitions of the above listed terms
would impact certain portions of the code.
Sec. 1-2. Rules of construction and definitions. In the construction of
this Code and of all ordinances the rules and definitions set out in this
section shall be observed unless such construction would be inconsistent
with the manifest intent of the city council. The rules of construction and
definitions set out herein shall not be applied to any section of this Code
which shall contain any express provis:on, ex. tuareg such construction or
where the subject matter of the context of such section may be repugnant
thereto.
This section allows each Chapter in the City Code to have its own terms and
definitions. However, to provide clarity and consistency, we are working with the
city attorney to provide unified definitions for the terms that would meet the
intent of all chapters. Once these terms are defined, staff will review the chapters
and ensure that the intent of these chapters is upheld.
The Ci~. o.£Chanhassen. A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thrivine businesses, and beautiflul parks. A ereat place to live, work, and pla
Planning Commission
May 10, 2001
Page 4
STREET
Section 1-2 Street. The word "street" means a way, public or private, for the
conveyance principally of vehicular traffic, whether designated as a street,
avenue, parkway, road, alley, lane, throughway, expressway, highway, place or
however otherwise designated, consisting of a roadway and boulevard, the latter
of which may contain a sidewalk.
Section 7.5-12 Street or publicly owned right of~vay means each of the following
which have been dedicated to the public or are hereafter dedicated to the public
and maintained under public authority or by others and located within the city
limits: streets, roadways, highways, avenues, lanes, alleys, sidewalks, easements,
rights-of-way and similar public property and areas that the grantor shall permit to
be included within the definition of street from time to time.
Section 12-7 Street means any street, avenue, alley or other public way intended
for the travel of vehicles.
Section 12-31 Street or high~vco, means the entire width between boundary lines
of any way or place ,,',,hen any part thereof is open to the use of the public, as a
matter of right, for the purposes of vehicular traffic.
Section 18-1 Swee! means a public right-of way' accepted or a private right-of-way
approved pursuant to the requirements of the city, by public authority which
provides a legal primary means of public access to abutting property. "Street"
includes a highway, thoroughfare, arterial, parkway, collector, avenue, drive,
circle, road, boulevard or any other similar term describing an entity complying
with the preceding requirements.
Section 20-1 Street means a public right-of-way accepted or a private right-of-
way approved pursuant to the requirements of the city by public authority which
provides a legal primary means of public access to abutting property. The term
"street" shall include a highway, thoroughfare, arterial, parkway, collector,
avenue, drive, circle road, boulevard or any other similar term describing an entity
complying with the preceding requirements.
ROADWAY
Section 12-31 Roadway means that portion of a street or highway improved,
designed or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, including the shoulder.
ROAD
No definition found
Planning Commission
May 10, 2001
Page 5
RIGHT-OF-WAY
Section 12-31 Right-of-way means the entire strip of land traversed by a highway
in which the public owns the fee or an easement for roadway purposes.
SIDEWALK
Section 1-2 The word "sidewalk" means a way, public or private, comprising a
portion of the boulevard of a street, including that portion of the street between
the curb line and the adjacent property line which is improved, designed or
intended for the principal use of pedestrians.
C OF
690 CiO, G, ter
?0 Box 147
Ct;anhasse,, Mi, nesota 55317
952. 937. ]900
Genera/Fax
952.937.5739
E, gi, eeri,g Department Fax'
952.937.9152
Buildi,g Department
952.934.2524
Web Site
www. ci.c/Ja, hassen, m,.us
MEMORANDUM
TO'
Planning Commission
FROM:
Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner
DATE: March 28, 2001
SUBJ'
Private Streets/Flag Lots - Proposed Ordinance Amendment
Staff has always been a strong advocate of private streets Jn environmentally
sensitive areas. The criteria is practical and reasonable. It requires applicants to
demonstrate that they are actually opting to use the private street for reasons other
than maximizing the number of buildable lots within a subdivision. We strongly
discourage the Pla~ing Commission and City Council from eliminating it. The
success stories associated with private streets in the city are numerous. The city
promotes prese~wation of wooded areas, wetlands, topogn'aphy, bluffs, creeks, etc.
Public right of way has a ,width of 60 feet, while private streets are only 30 feet
wide. They both provide access to property. One of the main differences from an
environmental standpoint is its low adverse impact. It minimizes grading limits
and requires wider lots. If the city intends to require preservation of natural
resources, we must keep this essential tool. Our, expectations of developers must
be realistic (to promote preservation, we reduce street width).
Private Streets/Flag Lots
March 28, 2001
Page 2
~ ...... ............. ' i:ZZ::Z:Z:, i: ' :::::::Z::::::: ::~::::::~i ::: :; : ::::: ~. :~:ii:iI
, . '' - ".' "~ ' i .:~: : ~ : : ~ ,~ ~,l~qt~l;:[ :[ i~lh *~lhff~d!~:7.[ :1:'.?~} 7: [;"~: t~ .... ;: ,: ~ ~ 2 t'~ '. :. :: ' i : : : :
~_.. ,.-~ ..... ~ ..... ;. :;~.:,.: :..
The cu~ent ordinances pe~ai~ng to private streets ~d flag lots are a~ached (A~ac~ent ~ ]).
Both ordinances ca~ the same language as far as conditions under w~ch they may be pe~i~ed.
The ordinance clearly prohibits private streets u~ess the following exists:
The construction of private streets is pro~bited except as specified in section 18-57(0).
Private streets may be permitted in business, industrial, office, R,8, R-12, and R-16. Up
to four (4) lots in the A-2, RR, RSF, and R4 districts may be served by a private street if
the cily finds the following conditions to exist:
And
(q) Flag lots may be permitted in the A2, RR, RSF and R4 if the cityfinds the following
conditions exist:
The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to constrict
a public street. In making this determination the city may consider the location of
existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and the existence
of wetlands.
After reviewing the surrounding area, it Zs conc[uded 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 street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural
resources including wetlands and forested areas.
The ordinance also states, "If the use of a private street is to be allowed, it is subject to
specific standards". One of these standards states:
(6) The private street shall be designed to minimize impacts upon adjoining
parcels. The city may require revised alignments and landscaping to minimize
impacts. An erosion control plan should be completed and approved prior to
construction.
Private Streets/Flag Lots
March 28, 2001
Page 3
The following are alternative ordinances for consideration.
Option 1
Private Streets and Flag Lots must meet the Subdivision - Variance Section requirements (18-22)
in addition to sections 18-57 (o) and (q). This addition would require an applicant to
demonstrate a hardship. We believe that this option will allow the city to impose conditions
dealing with house orientation, landscaping, etc. We have contacted other communities and
found that both the City of Minnetonka and Plymouth permit flag/neck lots and Private Streets as
a variance attached to a subdivision.
This option can be accomplished by adding the following language:
18-57 (o)
(4) The use of a private driveway may be permitted if the criteria in section 18-22.
Conditions for granting a variance are met.
18-57(q)
(4) The use of a flag lot may be permitted if the criteria in section 18-22. C conditions for
granting a variance are met.
Option 2
Orientation: The ordinance could be amended to require flag lots and lots served by a private
driveway to provide yard orientation that conform to the following standard:
Front yard must face or adjoin neighboring front yards.
Rear yard must face or adjoin neighboring rear or side yards.
This ordinance would prohibit inflll or stacked lots; yet, it may still be applied to new subdivisions.
This can be accomplished by adding the following language:
20-615 Lot requirement and setbacks.
The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" District subject to
additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter and chapter 18:
(8) Lots served by a private driveway or a flag lot shall conform to the following yard
orientation:
Front yard must face or adjoin neighboring front yards (stacked or front to rear lots
are prohibited).
Rear yard must face or adjoin neighboring rear or side yards.
Private Streets/Flag Lots
March 28, 2001
Page 4
Option 3
Increase the setbacks and dimensions on flag lots and lots served by a private driveway as follow:
Minimum Lot width 110 feet.
Minimum Lot depth 145 feet.
Minimum Front and Rear Yard Setbacks 40 feet.
Minimum Side Yard Setbacks 20 feet.
These increased dimensions will allow for a larger buffer. This option can be accomplished as
follows:
Section 20-615. Lot requirement and setbacks.
The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" District subject to
additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter and chapter 18:
(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.
(3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred twenty-five (125) feet. The location ofthese lots
is conceptually illustrated below. Lot width on neck or flag lots and lots accessed by private
driveways shall be one hundred and ten (4430) (110) feet as measured at the front building
setback line and lot depth shall be one hundred and forty five (145) feet as measured at the
front property line (where lot width meets 110 feet).
(6) The setbacks for lots served by private streets and/or neck lots are as follows:
a. For front yard, thirty forty (g4) 40) 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-foot minimum width.
b. For rear yards, thiet-y forty (gO 40) feet.
c. For side yards, ten twenty (-1-0 20) feet.
Option 4
Leave ordinance as is.
CONCLUSION
We believe that all problems encountered in the past have been the result of structure orientation.
To prevent this from happening in the future, staff recommends the adoption of option 1. The
city will have the latitude of approving or denying a request based on findings. Also, conditions
can be attached to a variance application addressing home orientation, screening, etc.
Private Streets/Flag Lots
March 28, 2001
Page 5
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the following ordinance amendment, adding
subsection 18-57 (o) (5) and 18-58 (q) (4) as follows:
18-57 (o)
(5) The use of a private driveway may be permitted if the criteria in section 18-22. Conditions
for granting a variance are met.
18-58(q)
(4) The use of a flag lot may be permitted if the criteria in section 18-22. Conditions for
granting a variance are met.
ATTACHMENTS
lo
Lot configurations.
Examples of subdivisions containing private streets and flag lots.
g:\plan~sa\flag lots-ord.amend.doc
LII I
TYPICAL SUBDIVISIONS
FRONT YARD FACES STREET AND NEIGHBOR'S FRONT YARD, REAR YARD FACES
REAR YARD
ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD WI. TH A MIX np Pn.qS!BLE LOTS
1,00~ 6g JBIA] 'XepsJnql
008
00~
1,3,aaJ:ls
s3,ol
Japjoq / /
uo!s!^!pqns ~Ol9 uaplo9
~'~ ~eJoldx=~3~¥ I~IS~
1,00~ 6~: JelA! '~epsJnq/
00~ 00~ 0
uo!s!^!pqns Xon-1 e)le'l elu!od
~'~ ~e~oldx~o~¥
1,00~ 6~ Jel/~ 'XepsJnq/
S],OI
JapJoq
S],OlbelJ
001~ 00;~ 0
uo!s!^!pqns e^oo I!elel!qM
I,'!, .~e.~oldx-~o.~,9, I~IS=J
~00~ 6~ JelA! 'f, epsJnq.L
oo1~
, ,
oog
uo!s!^!pqns a§p!~! ~opeqs
~'~ jaJoldx'~oJ¥ I~JS:J
~00~ 6~: JBIAI '~BpsJnql
oo~
I,:J88J:Js ..'
s3,ol
J;3pJoq /
S:JOIbelJ ~:
·
uetulo9 ~OH UemlO9
I,'1~ JeJoldx-~3J~f I~IS:~
Planning Commission Meeting- April 3, 2001
shown in the plans prepared by James Robin, Landscape Architect dated March 9, 2001 subject to
the following conditions:
1. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant shall provide proof of recording of a Declaration of
Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland. The City shall approve a wetland
replacement plan prior to any wetland impact occurring.
2. The wetland mitigation area shall be constructed prior to wetland impact occurring and shall
meet the City's buffer strip and structure setback requirements.
3. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota
Depatlment of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of
approval.
4. Storm water shall not be discharged into any wetland basin prior to pre-treatment.
5. Type III silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all areas to be preserved as buffer or, if no buffer
is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge.
6. Tile applicant shall re-seed any disturbed wetland areas with MnDot seed mix 25 A, or a similar
seed mix that is approved for wetland soil conditions.
7. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked ill accordance with the City's
wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of
city staff, before construction begins and shall pay the city $20 per sign.
8. A 20 foot wide easement shall be provided over storm pipe connecting public waters/wetlands.
9. The rim elevation for Manhole No. 2 shall be 956.0.
10. The proposed invert elevation of the storm sewer on Wetland A shall be shown.
11. Tile survey benchmark shall be shown on the plan.
Ail voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to O.
PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CODE: CHAPTERS 18 AND 20,
REGARDING THE USE OF PRIVATE DRIVES AND FLAG LOTS;
Sidney: Okay the next items that are up for public hearings include amendments to the City Code and in
this case what I'd like to do is to have discussions on items 6(a) and 6(b) followed by 6(d), and then leave
6(c) to the last item since that could involve substantial comment. So the first part of the item here is
discussion about amendments to the City Code Chapters 18 and 20 regarding the use of private drives
and flag lots. Staff report please.
21
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 2001
Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Sidney: Thank you. Questions of staff commissioners?
Sacchet: Yeah, Madam Chair I do have a question. Two questions actually. I have a whole collection. I
have flag lots in blue, in yellow, in green and now in pink and so this has been going around a little bit so
in one of those other colors you were actually referring to a different variance segment. Like in Option 1
now you refer to the subdivision variance section 18-22. In a previous incarnation of the same entity we
were referring to the zoning variance section 20-58. And I wanted to have a little clarification why one
or not the other or what's the background there?
Al-Jarl: Tile private driveway ,.rill COl-ne in as part of a subdivision.
Sacchet: So tile subdivision thing is basically more applicable than zoning framework. Now it appears
to me by my looking at how they compare that the subdivision variance fl'amework is a little less
stringent. At least it has less numbers of things to look at. I think that'd be something to clarify.
AI-Jaff: These conditions would fit in with a subdivision. There are only 4 of them. They apply to
subdivisions. The other set of variances that deals with additions to homes for instance, setbacks.
Sacchet: It's more specific.
AI-Jaff: It's more specific to home additions.
Sacchet: Okay. And then my second question, I think xvhen we discussed that last time, my interest ,.vas
all of the above. You may remember that. Of all the options. I think this is a pretty balanced approach.
I however wonder whether it could be possible to combine it with for instance Option 3. To have them
both part of it or whether that would be carrying it too far. I wonder whether you have any feedback,
whether that would practiceable.
Aanenson: I think it's wide. That's ~vhy we xvanted a variance because each circumstance is different. I
think that was the intent of saying we would attach conditions depending on the circumstance. It would
be implied that we would be recommending and certainly you would put/),our fingerprint on that as
would the council, but that ,.vas the intent is that based on orientation, whatever's happening in that
neighborhood. And it may be set back. Maybe need a deeper lot, wider lot. Whatever is kind of that
neighborhood standard and so that's why I think we'd leave it open. Leave that flexibility in there.
Sacchet: So what I hear you say Kate is that ;t ,.rill be almost redundant to have that additional, these
additional points because it's a variance in either case. I mean a flag lot by nature would require a
variance?
Aanenson: I guess I'm saying, I don't want to put a standard in there because it may be more or less.
You know I would leave it open to say whatever's happening in that neighborhood is what we'd come
back and say in order to mitigate the variance we would recommend these things and if you want to put a
list to say, it may include width, depth. I'm not sure we could cover everything but that's the intent is
that we would recommend some different standards to mitigate that. One of the things that Sharmin had
mentioned that seemed to be some of the point of discussion is the orientation of the home. That's where
we've had some of the problems when the houses may be imposing on someone's back yard and so that
xvould certainly be one of them to make it consistent with that.
22
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 2001
Sacchet: Just to be real clear, understand you correctly Kate. So what you're, saying is that with Option
1, with putting it into the variance framework, it gives the city the capability to put all these mitigative
factors into effect without necessarily have an increased requirement for a lot width, depth, setbacks and
so forth?
AI-Jaff: It could be a condition that you would impose upon a variance.
Sacchet: In the frmnework of the variance, okay.
Aanenson: Right. For example, I'm assuming you may get one in a different zoning district. This is
assuming that they're RSF districts. You could have it in a different zoning district which is some of the
problems laying out specific setbacks. So that's the intent is that with the variance procedure you would
apply something to mitigate that.
Karlovich: I have a question for staff too. I don't know the history of any of the difficulties with trying
to impose the current ordinance but can you correct me if I'm wrong, what I'm seeing is that the city
would have to ~nake Findings 1, 2 and 3 and either deny or say a private street can go in if the 3 factors
are there. If we added a variance process then, there's also going to have to be a finding of undue
hardship. Is that the goal as to what we're trying to get to?
Aanenson: I think that's the direction we've been given.
Karlovich: Okay. That makes sense. So it actually, at least in my mind, gives us more control over the
situation. There has to be a finding of undue hardship and then I think within the variance framework
you can put the conditions on the variance. I don't know if we could put conditions on, in your finding 1,
2 and 3 or not finding 1,2 and 3. I'm speaking out loud.
Sidney: Other questions of staff?.
Karlovich' No.
Sidney: Okay, this is a public hearing. Anyone wishing, excuse me. I'd like a motion to open this up for
public hearing.
Slagle moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. Ail voted in favor and the motion
carried. The public hearing was opened.
Sidney: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, pleas,: come forward and state your name
and address.
Janet Paulsen: My name is Janet Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. Commissioners. I think I have a
few questions here in the definitions. Definitions are key. For example, what exactly is a private street.
Should access 2 or more lots. What does that mean? Also private drive. Private drive isn't mentioned in
here. There's no definition in our code of private drive. Private drive is the situation that caused the
problems in the Igel project. I want to know what that means and why is that in the private street
ordinance. Or if it isn't, where does it belong? Also lot area. Currently it says it doesn't include street
rights-of-way. Doesn't a private street have street rights-of-way? Well on the Igel property we were told
it wasn't street rights-of-way, it was a private drive. Also define lot. Currently the code says is lot is
23
Planning Commission Meeting- April 3, 2001
undivided by a private street or a public street and our staffdid not agree that with a private drive
easement that would be true. So I want to know where do we stand on these things. A private street
easement doesn't have a definition in our code, what is that? Because that's ~vhat's used to squeeze in
more homes on smaller pieces of property as opposed to a private street that stands alone. And the
impact, private streets, there's no parking allowed so the impact is great on the neighboring property or
the neighboring street. Where do all these people park? They park on the public street. And also the
upkeep. After the street starts to deteriorate, who's going to fix it? And then itl 20 years, they have a
covenants. Covenants last 30 years and then something else has to be decided. Itl the interpretation, the
city staff feels they can interpret as they wish. As a citizen I wish to read the code and understand what it
means just by reading it. I don't have to go and have special interpretation. I have a few questions about
Option 3. This would be the requirelnent that you have on side yard setbacks of 20 feet and it was
changed several years ago because quote by staff, it was unworkable. It would have been great if they'd
left it. Some of the examples used. This is Golden Glow Acres. This area is within...of Lake Lucy so it
should have a 20 foot setback on a private street... The bottom of the L here is 30 feet. The rest of it is
25 feet. I thought the minimum was 30 feet easement for a private street. It's called a private driveway
easement so what does that mean? Does this mean after the current ordinance was set? Also in the
future, and this isn't supposed to be, I looked it up in the Carver County Records, this is supposed to turn
into a cul-de-sac here and this is the private street here. So again it's... I have a question on this picture.
...actually in front of this flag lot here. How do we define...
Sidney: Noxv which subdivision was that? That you just showed.
Janet Paulsen: It's Golden Glow Acres.
Sidney: Okay.
Janet Paulsen: And this is White Tail Cove... has a private street going in. Given as examples of flag
lots but I don't know if you can call, these aren't flag lots. This is a private street going here. It has 3
honms on it and it's leading right to this property that wants to develop so how many more can go on
there? It's kind of an awkward situation. And then finally... This lot is a flag lot but this lot sitting out
here supposedly with a private street going to it. I guess that's all I have to say.
Debbie Lloyd: Hi. My name's Debbie Lloyd. I live at 7302 Laredo Drive. Some of your faces are very
familiar over the last year. Others of you I welcome to the Planning Commission. You have tile hardest
job in this city I believe. Next to the mayor's of course.
Mayor Jansen: Well I don't know about that.
Debbie Lloyd: We have worked over a year on this one subdivision. We've learned a whole lot about
the code and the shortcomings of the code. When we address this private street, flag lot issue I think we
also have to look at Section 18-60, Lots. Section A. It reads, all lots shall abut for their full required
minimum frontage on a publicly dedicated street as required by the zoning ordinance or on a private
street, or a flag lot which shall have a minimum of 30 feet of frontage. So if we jump itl and change one
thing, we'd better start looking at tile ramifications of everything because if I've learned anything is that
there isn't just one isolated part of the code. It's all tied together through different sections. 18 and 20
and even in some other parts of code. Surprisingly itl the very basic foundation of the code. And Jan
touched on some other elements, I think definitions really need help in this section. Definitions have
gotten us I think into a lot of trouble because we use words interchangeably and this is something I read
at the City Council meeting the other evening. Street. It's amazing how this word has been manipulated.
24
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3,2001
Shared driveway. Common portion of the driveway. Cross access easement. Private driveway. Private
drive. Private street. Driveway access easement. I just hope that when we look at the entire private
street issue we consider everything. I know the Paulsen's and I would be very happy to participate in a,
just maybe a general discussion off the record, just to interrelate all the findings that we have. I have a
box full of information at home. I mean it's a massive, it's a massive change we're looking for because it
is so intertwined. And I hope no one else has to go through what we went through in the process and I
think it will only help benefit the Planning Commission and the council to get these things fixed and done
so that a common man can pick up this book in the library and say, this is what I plan to do with my land.
Or this is what my neighbors are planning to do. I need to read this and get acquainted and figure out
where my rights are and where their rights are because no one wants to, you don't want to take away
anyone's rights. Neither do we. We just want to make sure all of our rights are protected. Thank you.
Sidney: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the commission?
Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion
carried. The public hearing was closed.
Sidney: Commissioners. A lot of questions.
Karlovich: I'll start off by saying first of all it appears as though the term private driveway is not
consistent with the ordinance. It probably should read private street. One of the other comments I just
want to make with regards to definitions. Not everything in the code can be a defined term and as an
attorney, even if you have a defined term, that doesn't mean that everything is cured because if you show
me a defined term, I can argue that it means a couple different things one way or the other depending on
which client's paying you to read it one way or the other so. Definitions are great, or a total update of the
code would be great or add more definitions. I just don't know if that's in front of us right now. Just
kind of throwing that out for commissioner discussion. '
Sidney: Any other comments?
Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair. Well first of all I want to thank the Paulsen's and Debbie for all your
support and your hard work researching all that stuff and I think, I would like to encourage staff to take
them up on their offer to help line up maybe some of this terminology. However on the other hand, I
don't think the terminology is necessarily what's in front of us to consider right now. I don't think the
issue is so much the private road situation. To me at least, the way I see it, what's in front of us, the
crucial thing is the flag lot element. And that's what we run into some challenges in the past with, I
really like the aspect of having the variance element in the picture so that it gives the city some say in
how a house, a building is oriented. Tlmt it gives us a say in the setbacks. Now myself coming from the
environmental perspective I would propose to add some, maybe not ~:lements of requirements as they are
proposed in the Option 3 but at least express the intent. That the intent for flag lot would be to have the
extra 10 foot in the front and rear setback and I would say probably 5 extra feet on the side would be
proportionally more appropriate than have 10 foot all around. But rather than make it a requirement, at
least express the intent in this framework that with a flag lot we'd expect some extra spacing. And to
address your concern that we encountered with a recent situation, I do believe that woUld give us enough
of a handle to be able to put things in a better context than we were able in the past with similar
situations so. In terms of term definition, I mean one term that I continually struggle with, and I don't
think it can be defined is the term hardship. If we go this route and we define that route to go with a
variance, olle of the key things that was pointed out is there's going to have to be a hardship involved and
that's a very elusive term and...objective in exactly how that's being nailed down so we're opening us up
25
Planning Comlnission Meeting- April 3, 2001
to another element of interpretation in the end but I think it fulfills the intent of what we asked staff to
look into with these flag lots so you have a little more control basically over what's happening. So I do
support the staff's recommendation. Would like to state however the intent of increasing the setbacks
and the lot width and depth and all those aspects.
Sidney: Any other comments?
Kind: Madam Chair. An idea to just Uli's concern is, I don't know if you have your ordinance book
with you. It looks like you might. On page 1009. If everybody will turn to their ordinance book. Page
1009, number 6 talks about the private street shall be designed to minimize impacts upon adjoining
parcels. I think that might be a good spot to insert the types of things that we would like. For instance
the next sentence says, the city may require revised alignments and landscaping to minimize impacts.
I'm suggesting maybe we couid add building orientation and increase setbacks to that list to give people
who are subdividing an idea of the types of things we would be asking and then when the particular case
comes before us, we can apply conditions that would be appropriate. And I too like Option 1. I like the
idea of having a little more discretion for approving flag lots and private drive. Private street lots and I
also would like to direct staffto do a word search in our ordinance book on private drive or private street.
Get them in sync and then come up with a fabulous definition.
Sidney: Any other comments?
Claybaugh: They indicated that the City of Minnetonka and Plymouth also had permit flag and neck lots.
Any discussion with those cities in terms of pros and cons?
Al-Jarl: Again they follow the same, identical criteria that we have for flag lots, as well as private
streets. It is intended to preserve environmentally sensitive areas.
Claybaugh: The question was more along the lines of, as they implemented it previously to this, what
kind of problems have they run into, if any?
Al-Jarl: None were mentioned.
Sidney: Other comments? I guess I might make a comment that I feel adding the variance language is
quite beneficial and I think that would be to the residents benefit as well so with that, any further
discussion?
Slagle: Madam Chair, let me throw out one thing that I just thought of. I would like to encourage staff to
really sit down with the Paulsen's. It sounds like they will but lust again another encouragement. It
sounds like some very valid concerns. I'd really like to see some type of report or something that, on
how that interaction went, if that's okay.
Sidney: Okay. And staff, I also wonder if you could address some of the issues that we, or questions that
we heard tonight. Jan had a number about definitions and then specific examples. If you could maybe go
through some of the responses you have to her questions.
Aanenson: Tonight or?
Sidney: Would you prefer to do that in another session?
26
Planning Commission Meeting- April 3, 2001
Aanenson: Yeah. Those were all brought up through the last process. We'd be happy to do that again. I
mean I'd prefer to do that in writing.
Sidney: Okay.
Aanenson: If you wanted to table or something.
Karlovich: I have one other question for staff. With regards to the wording, the use of a private street
may be permitted if the. I just answered my own question. I withdraw my question for staff.
Sidney: Yes, and I guess I heard Kate, did you suggest that we table this item for further?
Aanenson: Well if you want me to respond to all those. They have been answered by the city attorney, a
lot of them so I guess I'd like to, you know instead of mis-speaking.
Sidney: Miscommunicating.
Aanenson: Exactly, and just to be clear that we're on, and interpretation has been made. That I stick
with that interpretation since it's been made by the city attorney, I'd like to have the opportunity to bring
that forward to you.
Sidney: Okay.
Sacchet: l'm not sure though, Madam Chair, whether that would require tabling this. I don't know
whether they're so closely intertwined, the two things.
Mayor Jansen: If I might Madam Chair, maybe add to that. It might be beneficial for us to move the two
forward together, and l'm hearing what you're saying as far as tabling it. If only so that you can maybe
see some of those issues and they are rather complex, and I don't know that they can actually be
simplified or not, but it might be worth taking a look at and bringing forward with this so that you know
how they're all interacting. Any idea how quickly you'd be able to bring that back? Is that a
monumental task as far as pulling together all those comments?
Aanenson: That was part of the last, no. I think that we could put, if you table it for 2 weeks, we can
sure. Yeah, it's all in writing it's just that I want to make sure we pull it all together and again, some of
the city attorney had given opinions on and so.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Sidney: Okay, I'd like a motion.
Kind: Okay. I'!! make a motion that we table the private street, flag lot item so staff can address some of
the issues brought up by the public tonight and also do a cross check, is what I'm describing it, and do a
search basically in our code book for the word private street, private drive and flag lot and just make sure
that we're bringing all of those issues forward at the same time. And oh, and when you come back
include some sort of list of the possible conditions. Possible conditions that we would attach if we
approve a variance for a private street or a flag lot.
Sacchet: I second that but I'd like to make a friendly amendment. Actually two friendly amendments.
27
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 2001
Kind: Thank you.
Sacchet: I'd like to be with your last element you requested, I would like to be specific that we would
have it worded so that it fits into paragraph 6 on page 1009 of 18-57.
Aanenson: 18-57(6), yes.
Sacchet: That we would actually have proposed language that would be inserted there in the middle of
that paragraph to kind of define the expectation of what we'd be looking for. And then my second
friendly amendment xvouid be, if you could, with the recommendation of the variance...we would, the
intent xvould be to have increased minimum lot width and depth. Minimum front and rear setback and
minimum side yard setbacks. Slightly increased. My suggestion would be 10 feet, except for the side
ones where I xvould say 5 feet. If that could be defined, I think that would be nice. Can you accept that?
Kind: I'm not sure ifI accept that second one or not because I think it depends on the situation as to
whether we would want to increase setbacks or increase landscaping.
Sacchet: As a possibility. Not as a requirement.
Kind: So I would not put it in an intent statement. I would put it in number 6.
Sacchet: Oh. as a possibility.
Kind: Exactly.
Sacchet: Obviously it would have to be from case to case.
Kind: So I'd probably leave it out of an intent statement.
Sacchet: So it would be an intent statement. It would be in an example framework of what xve would be
asking for?
Kind: You're saying that you want an intent statement?
Sacchet: Well I'd like to anchor in, and I might be pushing it beyond the ideal balance point with this but
as I said before, from an environmental viewpoint, I'd like to have that somewhat clarified that when we
make this type of an exception that we do want a little more space around it. That we do want a little
extra environmental value in it. That's where I'm going with this.
Karlovich: There's always going to that circumstance we'll need a variance from our variance.
Kind: I think it's probably implied with the variance.
Sacchet: Okay. I can accept that if you don't accept it.
Kind: So I accept Uli's first fi'iendly amendment, and do we have a second to that?
Sacchet: I already, oh we need to second the amendment?
28
Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 2001
Kind: I think you seconded it.
Sacchet: I seconded your motion yes. We need to second before we make amendments, don't we?
Sidney: Right. Okay, so it's time to vote then. I'm trying to think here.
Kind moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission table the amendment to Chapters 18
and 20 regarding the use of private drives and flag lots and direct staff to address the issues
brought up by the public, do a cross check search of the code book for the words private street,
private drive and flag lot to make sure all of those issues are in sync, and to direct staff to include a
list of possible conditions to attach to Section 18-57(6). All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously 6 to 0.
Sidney: Motion carries and we'll see that back in 2 weeks.
Aanenson: Yes. We'll get together with the neighbors and hopefully we'll have it back in 2 weeks.
Sidney: Thank you. I think on that note I'd like to ask that we take a 5 minute break and we'll be back in
5 minutes to resume.
The Planning Commission took a 5 minute break at this point in the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE: CHAPTER 20 REGARDING
LAKE SHORE PLACEMENT OF STRUCTURES.
Lori Haak and Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this'item.
Sidney: Questions of staff.
Kind: Yes Madam Chair, yes I do. I have kind of a philosophical question here. Were the iakeshore
owners in our city notified that this would be on tonight's agenda?
Haak: No.
Kind: And the question for my cohorts here is whether we should send specific notice to lakeshore
owners in our city because this really does affect them. I know it's probably not required but I think it
might be a nice idea and if we think it's a nice idea. then I would suggest that we stop our discussion and
have our discussion when lakeshore owners have been notified and have a chance to be here. What do
you all think?
Sidney: I'd like to continue the discussion since it's here. However I think I agree with your comments
sine this is an ordinance that will be affecting quite a few homeowners. In this case they should be
notified. Other comments?
Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair. I do agree with Deb's point that lakeshore owners should be notified but I
do not agree with Deb in that we should stop our discussion because I think since we're looking at this
right now, let's take a step with it but maybe not do it as exhaustively. I mean there are certainly
discussion part where you would think if there are lakeshore owners that would want to be part of it, I
29