3 Amend Chapter 20 CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
690 City Center Drive
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Phone
952.937.1900
General Fax
952.937.5739
Engineedng Department Fax
952.937.9152
Building Deparm~ent Fax
952.934.2524
i~b Site
www. ci. chanhassen, mn. us
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner
Matt Saam, Project Engineer
DATE:
September 13, 2001
SUB J:
Amendments to Chapter 20
BACKGROUND
The city has been experiencing a proliferation of residents using accessory
structures accessed by second driveways. This is resulting in lots with two
driveways within residential low-density districts. These driveways are causing
problems in some neighborhoods. _
Also, the issue of landlocked parcels Which are able to gain access through Cross
access agreements remain uncontrolled under-the current ordinances. In order to
give the city some discretion in denying such uses or approving them with
conditions, staff is recommending the attached ordinance amendment be
approved.
One significant point that staff must clarify is that this amendment pertains to
private driveways, which are defined in the ordinance as "Driveway means a
private access from a street to an individual lot." The driveway in question
serves a single home. This is not a private street which is defined as "Private
street means a street serving as vehicular access to two (2) or more parcels of
land which is not dedicated to the public but is owned by one (1) or more private
parties."
A driveway and a private street should not be confused as being the same. A
driveway serves one home and is a permitted use. A private street serves up to
four homes and is only permitted as a variance, under the subdivision ordinance.
At the August 21, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, some issues were raised
regarding the ordinance amendment. The Planning Commission tabled action
On this amendment and directed staff to respond to them. They are as follows:
a) "Code currently requires a 10' side yard setback for structures. A driveway is
a structure. Why reduce it to 5'?"
~e City of Chanhassen. A growh~g community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charmin~ downtown, thrivin~ businesses, and beauti/~d /)arks. A o'eat ~)lace to live, work, and ola~.
Planning Commission
September 13, 2001
Page 2
Answer: See Sec. 20-909 subpara. 5(e). Driveways are exempt from the structure setback
requirement. We have since deleted this requirement.
b) "Code already requires a 10% maximum grade for a driveway.-"
Answer: True. See Section 18-60 (e) Lots. This requirement is in the subdivision ordinance.
Staff is amending the zoning ordinance to be able to regulate building permits.
e) "No minimum widths are required? The right-of-way is undefined, no minimum widths for a
right-of-way?"
Answer: We've added a minimum width of 10' for driveways. We are not dealing with right-of-
way widths for this ordinance.
f) "If private driveways are to be used in Chanhassen, they should be excluded from RSF
zoning...It is inappropriate to permit private driveways in RSF."
Answer: The intent of this proposed ordinance is to regulate private driveways used for every
single family home. We cannot exclude private driveways from RSF zoning. It would simply
deny homeowners access to their property.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the attached amendment to Chapter 20. All new language is
shaded, deletions from the existing ordinance have a single strike though, and deletions to the
proposed ordinance that was proposed at the August 2I, 2001 Planning Commission meeting,
have been struck through twice.
g:\planXsa\ driveway memo 2.doc
au!"'l A~@do~d
~Ie,".,",@P!S
/,,e,,,v,@^p(]
p~e,,,valno61
,,',,e~peoM
qJn~
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE
THE CITY COUNCEL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section 20-1122 of the Chanhassen City Code, is hereby amended as
follows:
Sec. 20-1122. Access and Driveways.
The purpose of this subsection is to provide minimum design criteria setback and slope
standards for driveway construction. The intent is to reduce interference with drainage
and utility easement by providing setback standards; reduce erosion by requiring a hard
surface for all driveways; to limit the number of driveway access points to public streets
and to direct drainage toward the street via establishment of minhnum driveway slOPe
standards. Parking and loading space shall have proper access from a public right-of-
way. The number or: and width of access drives shall be located to minimize traffic
congestion and abnormal traffic hazard. All driveways shall meet the following criteria:
a. Driveways shall be setback at least 5 feet fi'om the side property lines.
The vertical profile fora driveway shall not exceed 10% maxhnum slope.
Driveway grades shall be a minimum of 0.5 % and a maximum grade of 10%.
hz areas located within the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA) as
identified on the Comprehensive Plan, driveways shall be: surfaced with
bituminous, concrete or other hard surface material, as approved by the City
Engineer. hz areas outside the MUSA, driveways shall be surfaced from the
intersection of the road for the first l O0 feet of driveway, with concrete or
other hard surface ~naterial, as approved by the City Engineer.
On comer lots, the minimum corner clearance from the roadway right-of-way
line shall be at least 30feet to tire edge of the driveway.
For A-2, RSF, and R-4 residential uses, the width of the driveway access shall
not exceed 24 feet at the right-of-way line. No portion of the right-of-way may
be paved except that portion used for the driveway, bzside the property line of
the site, the maximum driveway width shall not exceed 36feet. The minimura
driveway width shall not be less than ]O feet.
For all other useS, the~Width ofth~driveWay aCce~
width measured at the roadway ay line.~No
way may be paved except that po~ion~tsed-for th ...................
go
On lots not meet#zg the mthimu~:~Wldth req~ire~hents at ine,
thc driveway setback nzcO'!be rc to ~e fol
h. 1. The driveway Will not in;~rferc with any existing casement.
h. 2. The location of the :cl'~veway~us~e. approved
ensure that it will not Cattse jStnoff ontO ' ~ad]accnt propgrttes_
ho
One driveway apPr°aCh is ali°wed fromi4~ingieresi
A turnaround is required°h~driveway~ntering.om
road, or collector roadway
city streets where this iS deemed neCes -c
traffic counts, sight distances, street
turnaround is required bythe engine-er, thi~re~re~
building permit
jo
Separate driveways serV ing ufitity facili~ie~ are~ermitted..
Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and
publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this
,2001.
day of
ATYEST:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Linda C. Jansen, Mayor
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21,2001
Blackowiak: There's been a motion. Is there a second?
Feik: I was not here for the long discussion you had in June so I'd feel...making a second.
Blackowiak: Well I can't second so it's up to you. You don't want to second this?
Sacchet: Motion doesn't fly, alright.
Blackowiak: Okay then will you please withdraw your motion.
Sacchet: I withdraw my motion.
Blackowiak: Okay. I'll entertain another motion.
Slagle: Motion to table this. I'i1 make a motion that we table the proposed Section 18-37, Exemptions
until further information from staff. Further, help me out.
Feik: That works.
Slagle: Okay. Further information from staff.
Blackowiak: Okay. There's a motion. Is there a second?
Feik: I'll second.
Slagle moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the amendment to City
Code Section 18-37, Exemptions until further information is received from staff. All voted in
favor, except Sacchet who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1.
Blackowiak: And comments.
Sacchet: I would have liked to pass this through.
Blackowiak: Okay. And I would like to make one comment as well. I will direct staff to respond in
writing to the comments made by the Paulsen's and to attach that to our next packet when we see this
again and also I want that attached to council's packet when it goes to council so they have a written
copy of what's been happening this evening so, okay.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CODE TO PERMIT ONLY ONE DRIVEWAY
ACCESS PER LOT.
Sharmin A1-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 2001
Blackowiak: Okay commissioners, do you have any questions of staff?
Feik: I've got a few. How often does this issue come up?
Aanenson: Maybe I could address that too. It's been an issue lately. We've had a proliferation of
people using accessory structures for other uses and the way they can get those is through an additional
driveway. That would curtail some of that. It' s caused a lot of problems in some neighborhoods. Some
bad feelings. So that was one of the Criteria driving this. The other is as Sharmin indicated, the cross
access agreement was, is a way to subdivide property. And this would make it a criteria that we have the
ability to review so it would give some level of control for the city to review that.
Feik: This would be applicable to any size residential lot though, whether it's rural residential or
otherwise?
Aanenson: Right. We spent a lot of time trying to exempt what would and wouldn't work. And as I
indicated to you before we have a variance request for a very, very large accessory structure and having a
separate driveway makes it a lot easier. And those sometimes turn into commercial uses. Again those
are big rubs for neighborhood uses. We have quite a few of those that we're working on trying to
eliminate. So certainly if they want to come to the Planning Commission and say I store my RV or
whatever and it seems appropriate, it works well with the neighborhood, if the lot's large enough. We try
to develop some criteria that says gosh, if it's this big of a lot, it just became too difficult so we felt we'd
leave it up to you as through the process to say, because it's a large enough lot that would work,
depending on how the accessory structure, you got access to it. It seemed to make some sense.
Feik: Okay.
Blackowiak: Any other questions right now? No? Rich.
Slagle: Just a quick question. How do we define a utility facility?
A1-Jaff: We talked about that earlier. It would be.
Aanenson: A cell tower.
A1-Jaff: Cell tower.
Slagle: Okay. Water tower.
A1-Jaff: Correct. Lift station.
Aanenson: Sometimes there are large utility boxes. We have some of those too. For example like Sprint
or some of those have those accessed to at the tower locations.
Slagle: So it'd the' obvious ones that one would think? There's no way to get around that?
Aanenson: Yeah. It's intended to be a public utility, yeah.
Slagle: Alright.
19
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 2001
Blackowiak: Okay, Uli.
Sacchet: Yeah I've got a few questions. In the cover to this, which is a very brief introduction, the
background, you're talking about landlocked parcels and then the need that it needs a variance for this
second driveway situation. Access, cross access agreement variance. And I understand a little better
how the landlocked picture come in, but the proposed language that you put in front of us for this
ordinance doesn't really state variance per se. That's implied or?
A1-Jaff: I'I1 give you a different example. Our ordinance says front yard setback is 30 feet.
Sacchet: And then if you want more or less.
A1-Jaff: If you want less. It doesn't say if you want less you have to go before the Planning Commission
to apply for a variance.
Sacchet: That's a given, okay. Okay. Okay, that answers that question. I just want to make sure that we
have this properly correlated. Another similar thing in the introductory paragraph that you're proposing,
it talks about establishing the minimum driveway slope standards. I don't know where I ever looked it
but I don't really see it talking about slope standards in the.
A1-Jaff: It would be the 10% grade.
Sacchet: It doesn't say that .... you sort of touched on it already with the numbers we put in there in
terms of how wide can it be, or narrow. To not exceed 36 feet. Where does the 36 come from?
A1-Jaff: Three car garage.
Sacchet: Three car garage and...
Aanenson: And people parking RV's and boats and that's again code enforcement tends to be an
increasing problem. Some people want to pave to get that.
Sacchet: So if they have a 3 car garage they make it full width, that's basically 36 so that's where that
comes from?
Aanenson: Yeah.
Sacchet: Okay. And then we're talking about inside the property, like under clause (e) we're talking
about access maximum and then also the inside width. Under clause (f) we don't talk about the inside
limit. They can do whatever.
A1-Jaff: Please keep in mind that you always have to meet the 25% hard surface coverage.
Sacchet: So we count that impervious surface clause would keep that in check?
A1-Jaff: Absolutely.
20
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 2001
Sacchet: Okay. That answers that question. Now we're talking about the minimum, or the maximum of
how wide these things can be. We don't feel there is a need to define a minimum because we figure that
people, if they have a little car and they want a small driveway, I mean we basically trust people have
some common sense. Is that where we're at? Which is good. I mean if we don't trust the people we
might as well close shop. Alright. Could you define turn around? Is that, that probably is Saam
question. Where it says turnaround is required in certain cases. I just want to make sure I understand
what we mean by saying turnaround.
Saam: Sure. Thank you commissioners. Turnaround, acceptable turnaround area for such things as if
you're backing out of your driveway, just an area so you can turn around and pull back out. Similar
situation, access for emergency vehicles. We require sufficient turnaround areas and shared driveways,
things of that nature where a fire truck or something may need to get to more than one lot. So a
turnaround, just an acceptable area where a person doesn't have to back out 100 or 200 foot long
driveway if you're, you know abutting a highway in a rural setting.
Aanenson: Maybe I could add to that too. If you look at the lots on Lake Lucy, they have tumarounds on
the property so they're not backing out onto that collector street. They have shared driveways, they also
have a turn area so they can make that turn movement on the property before coming out. That's a
different type of turn. Turn about.
Saam: That's a good point. It's a traffic concern too. Like Kate said, you don't want to be backing out
onto a 50 mph collector roadway.
Sacchet: I do understand the rationale. I just wonder how defined we are.
Aanenson: Yeah, we have different examples.
Saam: I think we do say in there we'll review it deemed necessary by the city engineer so we'll work
with that.
Sacchet: ...basically you'll work with the resident, okay.
Saam: Yep, let them come up with something and we'll review it.
Sacchet: Okay. That's the questions I have for right now, thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay. I just have a couple questions. As I look through these conditions Sharmin or Kate,
I see that there are a couple that are addressed elsewhere. 10% slope, I mean isn't that already in the
code? I mean aren't there some of these items are in the code?
Aanenson: Yes. Yes.
Blackowiak: And why are we addressing them again?
A1-Jaff: It's under a private street and not private individual driveway. And these are standards that we
already implement but we just wanted to...as part of the ordinance.
Blackowiak: So you're saying then in what went before council last month, we talked about private
driveways and private streets.
21
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 2001
A1-Jaff: The 10% grades that we have in our ordinance.
Blackowiak: Are only private.
A1-Jaff: I've only been able to find them under private streets.
Saam: They're for driveways also.
Blackowiak: I thought so.
Saam: There is one spot in the code where it says maximum driveway grade is 10%, and that's the only
requirement which it specifies for driveways. We're trying to get all of the driveway requirements in one
spot so you don't have to be flipping through the code, because that's what I have to do. I flag my code
for all these different things. Well it'd be nice to just turn to this and see oh, it's got to be this wide.
That's the maximum. This is the maximum slope. You know this is the setback from a corner. We're
trying to get them all in one spot. We should probably strike that one if this is approved, remove the
other one so we don't have redundance.
Blackowiak: Okay, great. Thanks. Next question. We have no minimum driveway width and I know
you just said that if a car wants a smaller driveway, that would be fine. However this just brought me
back to what we said in our work session Kate where there was a house plan that came in without a front
sidewalk because they were right at that 25% impervious. What if we have the same problem where
we've got a house that's at their 25% impervious and they come and say well we're doing a 3 foot wide
driveway to meet our impervious surface. That sounds pretty ridiculous. What can we do to fix that? I
mean I think that there should be some sort of minimum.
Saam: Sure, sure. That's a good point. We could add a minimum. 12 foot wide, that's our standard
lane width. That would be acceptable to me.
Blackowiak: That would be like a single car garage?
Saam: A single driveway.
Blackowiak: Okay, a single driveway, 12. I'm just saying that you know...
Aanenson: That's fine, I agree with you. That is a good point. I'm not sure if 12 or 10.
Blackowiak: And I don't know what the number is but I'm just saying that.
Aanenson: But I think that's a good point, we should put something in.
Blackowiak: And I only thought of it because of what you said before.
Aanenson: But to calculate impervious surface, right. Someone said well I'm only going to do 8 foot.
Most people don't do single car garages because, but right.
Blackowiak: But I think that we should have some sort of minimum in there.
22
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 2001
Aanenson: Or neck it down at that drive.
Blackowiak: Just a reasonable, you know a reasonable width so that cars can drive on it without going
off the edge. Okay, and my final question has to do with what happens when you have a big landlocked
parcel that you know is going to be subdivided in the future. Okay. We're talking about a single
driveway and a second driveway is a variance. Have we thought that through? Are we comfortable
doing that?
Aanenson: Yes.
Blackowiak: And what would happen to that larger parcel that eventually will be subdivided? It would
just have to come in through, tell me the process. What would happen?
Slagle: Isn't there one over by Westwood perhaps? That's going to be landlocked.
Blackowiak: Well I think the parcel you're talking about.
Slagle: I thought there was one that was going to.
Blackowiak: Not landlocked but.
Aanenson: It has access onto a street.
Blackowiak: He has access but he wants the church to, right.
Saam: Addressing your question Madam Commissioner, if you have one single parcel say in a rural
setting right now and your question is alluding to well what happens when this develops? Is that correct?
Blackowiak: Correct, yes.
Saam: Where you'll need multiple driveways. Well we'll require platting at that point so we'll have
separate lots. Multiple lots all with their individual driveway access. We'll have interior streets. Is that
getting to your.
Feik: Assuming they can get there. You could have wetlands. You could have other issues that you
could not access a large lot behind an existing rural residential.
Saam: Okay, yeah. I'm following you. So then we wouldn't have a plat, right? So we wouldn't have
another lot. So you can't subdivide.
Feik: Well you would have another lot. What you do is there'd be no access potentially other than going
up this existing driveway.
Aanenson: Right, and that's a variance criteria which we want to control.
Feik: Is the minimum length on this private street, driveway...
Aanenson: For one home, no.
23
Planning Commission Meeting- August 21, 2001
Feik: A minimum length. So could they in your example you show.
Aanenson: On length. Your house has to be set 30 feet from the street.
Feik: What I'm saying is in your example where you show the private street here, is there a minimum
length of that street from the time it leaves the curb to the point where it can break off. Could it break off
within 5 feet of the curb there? I mean where does, how long does this private street need to be?
Saam: Edge of the right-of-way. We'd want it to the edge of the right-of-way and then they can break it
off.
Feik: So they could break it off immediately once they get through the right-of-way easement?
Saam: Sure.
Feik: So it doesn't need to be.
Saam: Provided there's sufficient turnaround, again like I spoke of before. That's something we'd look
at.
Blackowiak: Comfortable?
Feik: No. But that's okay.
Blackowiak: Alright tell you what, I'll open this up for a public hearing and we'll have time to comment
later. This item is open for a public hearing so if anybody would like to comment on this issue please
step to the podium, state your name and address for the record.
Jerry Paulsen: Jerry Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive. We take turns. I'd like to question item (b). We're
talking about a vertical profile of our driveway not exceeding 10%. As Matt brought up, a driveway
can't exceed 10%. When I brought a plat up to Teresa here months ago, I said does this driveway now
exceed 10% and she took the ruler and measured that much and she said yes. Is a vertical profile 150 feet
of driveway and it can have 20% up here and 5% down here? Or is this ambiguous by saying, using the
term vertical profile as opposed to just saying the driveway can't exceed that 10%. I guess that's just a
question. It seems kind of strange to put this under, this whole thing about driveways under parking and
loading. It's kind of a hidden way back. More proper might be addressed under streets and so forth I
think. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Thank you.
Janet Paulsen: Janet Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive. As Jerry said, I think it's placed in the wrong spot in
code. Private driveways have always been in 18-57 so why in parking and loading? Private driveway
easement does provide access but it serves the same purpose as a street and has nothing to do with
parking and loading. We're not really talking just about a driveway. We're talking about a driveway
easement. It serves the same purpose as a private street. It's a duplication. So why do we need a
duplication? It has less rules on it, has less width. That's why you can cram more into a smaller space.
It's a danger to my neighborhood and I object. Second amendment proposed makes no mention of a
variance. When you talked about private streets, you made sure that the word variance was put in there.
It should be put in there. That's the only way we can be sure. There are no stated minimums. When we
24
Planning Commission Meeting- August 21, 2001
had the private driveway ordinance before 1990 and it changed again in '94, they had a minimum
easement of 30 feet and it had on the common section of it, it had to be 20 feet wide. Nothing's said
about that in this. And of course they finally addressed the setback. But again a private driveway allows
a street to be going, essentially a street to be going pretty close to a person's house. If it's a 10 foot
setback that'd be 20 feet from your bedroom window. So why are we lowering the'standards? This issue
was almost discussed at the City Council meeting becauSe I brought it up and I just wanted to show you.
The planning department really didn't want to address private driveway easements at this meeting, as you
can see. But they almost discussed except that Roger interfered. He changed the subject to just talk
about a plain driveway. That's not what we're talking about. I think it's really important to make the
distinction. Reminds me of a movie video we saw recently called The Practice and it said lawyers never
lie, they just use the truth judiciously to totally confuse. Well that's what I think was done. I think you
should forbid private driveway easements. You' ve got private streets to provide an access to a
landlocked lot. It has to be in a 30 foot easement and that protects minimally neighbors. They crowd
private drive easements would crowd, and in 20 years they deteriorate and who's going to keep them up?
It's going to be a big mess in Chanhassen. A bad infrastructure. A private street serves the same
purpose, and by the way Lake Minnetonka, or Minnetonka forbids private streets but they do have private
driveway easements and they make the stipulation. You have to have 25 feet all around in order to put a
home in there. We're ending up with a home 10 feet from our, it will be their back yard. 10 feet from
our property line because of what happened with the Igel thing. I object to private driveways.
Blackowiak: Thank you.
Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I can't tell if you can still see this.
Blackowiak: I see Matt. Oh, yep we can.
Debbie Lloyd: When Sharmin pointed this out she pointed out,'I mean this is essentially what we've
talked about as a flag lot. And she called this the cross access easement. But essentially this driveway,
as we're calling it tonight I guess, from the private street to this landlocked parcel, that is also a cross
access easement. And that's what I tried so hard to point out at City Council and I think Rich, you might
have gotten that. This is a cross access easement. The other thing about a driveway 5 feet from a
property line. I just kind of drove around. I thought 5 feet from a property line. Where can I find that? I
don't see that anywhere. Most people's driveways come off the street into their garages. Their structure
has a setback. It's not 5 feet. I appreciate that we're trying to clarify some of this but again I think more
work needs to be done and I ask you to look at this with a fine tooth comb. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Come on up. We're not limiting you to 5 minutes.
Debbie Lloyd: I forgot one thing. 5 feet from a property line. We talk about tree impacts. Well a tree
impact zone I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, these numbers are starting to fade. I think the impact
zone on a tree is about 20 feet.
Aanenson: It depends on the tree.
Debbie Lloyd: Ok'ay. But if you put a driveway 5 feet from a property line, you're not affecting just
your property. You are affecting the property next to you. You' re affecting their tree line, and that was
another environmental point I want to make. Thanks.
25
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 2001
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Unless there are any more comments, I will close the public hearing.
Staff, I'm just going to give you a chance to make any comments or clear up anything you'd like to right
now before we commissioners make our comments.
Aanenson: No comment.
Blackowiak: Okay. Matt?
Saam: I've got one. The driveway slope. I think, well Mr. Paulsen spoke to it I believe. Yeah, the way
it's worded there in (b), we could change that. The driveway grade maybe shall not exceed 10%
maximum slope. We're just talking about the vertical rise. If that was confusing to anybody.
Feik: At any point or over the.
Saam: No, that's overall. 10% max anywhere. It can't go 20% you know for 5 feet and then.
Slagle: From beginning to end.
Feik: Right.
Saam: 10% max anywhere. I guess we look at the contours between each one and make sure it's not
10%.
Sacchet: Basically no portion of the driveway will have more than 10%.
Saam: Correct. I guess unless you have any specific questions for me, they spoke about a lot of stuff
but the driveway grade was the main one that I wrote down. Setback issue. Sharmin and I talked about
it. From an engineering standpoint our only concern was our easement. And the way we looked at it
was, well we pave our streets and we have utilities under there so we would allow them to pave over an
easement. If we have to go in there it will be ripped up but, so that was, and from an engineer standpoint,
that was our issue with the setback. I really don't have any issue with it.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Okay, commissioners. Time for comments.
Feik: I've got a few.
Blackowiak: Go right ahead.
Feik: As long as you're up, by the way, is there currently a minimum length that a driveway needs to be
paved?
Saam: A minimum length?
Feik: I mean you've got in your item (c) you've got in areas outside the MUSA they must be 100 feet.
What is the background of that?
Saam: We looked, we got information from a lot of different cities for this. About 10 different cities.
Neighboring towns around the Minnesota River Valley. The 100 feet number, that could be decreased.
Our point is, we don't want to have gravel driveways that could wash out into a drainage ditch and cause
26
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 2001
erosion problems. Plug up culverts, that sort of thing. So that's why we're seeing outside of the MUSA
where typically that's an agricultural setting, we'd like to see the first 100 feet off the roadway paved to
minimize that washing out of the gravel, dirt, that sort of thing. I could go, if we want to minimize that,
we could go with the edge of the right-of-way. It' s got to be paved to the edge of the right-of-way at
least.
Feik: Thank you. Continuing my comments. As it relates to locating this in the parking and loading
space section. That's up to staff if they can manage it there, that's where it needs to be. I don't have any
concern with where this is located. I do have a concern with how this will be enforced in a rural
residential area wherein someone might have bought a number of acreS years ago. At this point would
like to subdivide their 10 acres or whatever they've got left and would like to get some additional access
to the areas in the back without giving up their frontage or that may be constrained by wetlands or trees
or other things. So I had a concern how this would be construed in the rural residential areas. I'm not
sure it's really appropriate.
Aanenson: Okay, can I address that? This is going in Chapter 20 because it's the standards for existing
lots. This is checked when someone comes in for a building permit, this is where you check to make sure
that the driveway's in the right spot. If someone's subdividing, that's Chapter 18. Those are the
different standards.
Feik: So this wouldn't be applicable to someone with a 10 acre lot that.
Aanenson: If they're going to put 1 house on there, yeah.
Feik: Well no, he's got 1 house on the front 2 ½ acres.
Aanenson: Then he goes through a subdivision, that's a different process.
Feik: And he will be able to do a cross easement to get to the back?
Aanenson: He would still need avariance if he needs a cross.
Feik: But via a variance he could get a cross easement to get to the back.
Aanenson: Correct. Correct. That's what this would require, yep.
Feik: Okay. Then in that case, thank you for addressing that. I guess I do agree with one of the
commenters that said, in a more urban area 5 foot setback on the side of a lot, considering we I think, the
setback of a home is fairly short on the side.
Aanenson: The problem with that is, that's where most people park their boats and their RV's.
Feik: I understand.
Aanenson: And when you have a 10 foot side yard setback, that's where we prefer that they be is on the
side.
Feik: Could we require screening though? Could we require them to put a fence up? If they're going to
put this street in, or driveway or whatever anybody wants to call it, and I am a homeowner and my
27
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21,2001
neighbor wants to do this and I do not have, I'm not benefiting from this at all other than I'm going to
have a driveway 5 feet from my shrub line and my swing set in the back yard, could we require them to
put a fence up along?
Aanenson: You're saying if someone wants to go closer than 5 feet to put their camper.
Feik: No, at 5 feet. You've got 5 feet in there, right?
Aanenson: No, we took that out.
Feik: So what is the?
Aanenson: There is none. There is none right now. There are situations where people have side loaded
garage that back right close to the property line. Within 3 feet, 5 feet on side loaded garages. Or people
that park their campers or.
Feik: I guess I'm more interested in addressing it in that if we were doing this to approve, in your
example of another dwelling in the back, that I don't think it would be unreasonable to require, to
develop some sort of a fencing screen.
Aanenson: Right, and that would require a variance. When they come in for a variance you can attach
whatever condition you deem reasonable to mitigate that impact. That would be one...
Feik: So this really has nothing to do with the flag lots anymore then?
Aanenson: No.
Feik: Never mind.
Blackowiak: Yeah I was going to say, this is not. This picture back here, I guess refer to the upper left
hand comer lot, that is not a flag lot.
Feik: It's confusing.
Blackowiak: It is a landlocked parcel with a cross access agreement. Flag lot would actually own...
Feik: But we're splitting hairs here as it relates to the neighbor who's next to this sees no difference
between a landlocked lot and a flag lot.
Blackowiak: Right.
Feik: In their minds it's the same thing.
Aanenson: Right, and that's why we're adding the thing that would be require the variance to meet that.
So then you could attach, put a condition in. If you wanted landscaping or fencing, whatever. Or greater
setback.
Feik: Okay, thank you.
28
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 2001
Blackowiak: Okay, Rich.
Slagle: I have to say this. I'm getting really confused. And it's getting to the point where, how should I
say this. I really want to ask for help on this. And let me preface it by saying, you guys do an awesome
job. Day in and day out, you know that I feel this way. These folks back here who I don't know other
than seeing them here, seem to have good point. Seem to have a passion about this area, and I commend
them for that. I get frustrated when I see comments being made by some of us, the staff, other guests and
then in the back shaking their head no, like it can't, it's not in there. It can't be, whatever. I'm just
wondering is it, you know just an observer sort of, how can two groups have such different ideas about
what is being said. So my request is this, can you guys get together and talk about these things? Get
Roger involved if there' s questions about his interpretations of what you think it should say or you guys
think it should say, and I only would ask this in this case because these folks are here all the time. If it
was just someone who came off the street and threw out a comment, I wouldn't say it. But I just don't
want to be listening to a lot of this anymore, just because I'm getting confused. Every day.
Aanenson: In every code amendment I guess we could deliberate with them.
Slagle: Well as an example, Roger in the notes throws out well wouldn't you, we wouldn't want
everyone to go through the process of getting I hope a variance for every single family driveway in town.
It seems to me a very good point. Yeah, I mean but I'm just wondering from your point, does that make
sense? I mean is that a laborious, bureaucratic thing.
A1-Jaff: That is exactly what we're talking about.
Slagle: Okay, then what's wrong with that? You know I want to be like this mediator but what's wrong
with that comment which seems to make sense?
A1-Jaff: We're talking about individual driveways. One person using that one driveway accessing their
home off of the street.
Slagle: Correct, and are you asking, if I can interject, you're asking, or suggesting we put a variance
clause in there to protect the citizens.
Aanenson: So people can't put 2 driveways on 1 lot without a variance.
Slagle: Is that okay?
Aanenson: That's what we're trying to prevent.
Saam: If I could add something Commissioner Slagle. We do have design criteria for private streets or
driveways, whatever the. I'm sorry, whatever the correct verbiage is. We already have that. So this is,
as Sharmin said, separate.
Slagle: Okay. Then I'll just once again reiterate my request. Can there be some convening of a sit down
session with the Paulsen's and Ms. Lloyd, just to address these as a courtesy to our citizens who are our
clients, and just let's hopefully be done with what I consider to be some gaps in interpretation of what's
going on. Is that fair Madam Chair to ask?
Blackowiak: You can ask anything you like.
29
Planning Commission Meeting -August 21, 2001
Slagle: Okay. I'mdone.
Blackowiak: Uli, comments?
Sacchet: Yeah, I have comments. Well first of all I do want to again thank our permanent guests as we
call them for all their support in our work and unlike with the previous item that was before us where I
said I had a little hard time correlating it, I do believe that, and I got the letter that relates this item. I
didn't get the letter for the previous item from you and I do think your points relate very much to this
item. And I think they should be looked at and put into the context. On the other hand, it really, I have
to say that too, I sincerely regret to feel like there is some sort of an antagonism a little...
(Taping of the Planning Commission meeting ended at this point in the discussion.)
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
30