Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8B Private Street StandardsSTAFF AGENDA REPORT AGENDA#: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: DATE: INTRODUCTION: BACKGROUND: DISCUSSION: 8B. ACTING PLANNING DIRECTOR BLAIR TREMERE CONSIDER APPROVAL OF PRIOR LAKE PRIVATE STREET STANDARDS DECEMBER 14, 1994 FOR COUNCIL MEETING ON DECEMBER 19, 1994 This item is presented to update the City Council about Staff findings regarding the merit of allowing new developments with private streets. The City Subdivision Code discourages private streets, but does provide that they may be allowed at City Council discretion; the Code specifically mentions Planned Unit Developments. A related concern is the Code provisions for lots which may have frontage on private roads "with legal status" or private roads and streets in a Planned Unit Development. Staff has deliberated the various issues raised and has drawn several conclusions. The City Council, based upon the Agenda Report dated April 18, 1994 from the City Manager on this topic, directed Staff to prepare revisions to the Subdivision Code which allow private roads only in Planned Unit Developments and only if the proposed roadway meets construction standards set forth by the City Engineer. A copy of that Agenda Report is attached for reference. The Planning Staff and the City Attorney's office also had reviewed the subject as the result of some development proposals which raised questions about the intent and scope of the Code provisions. More recently the developer of The Wilds publicly suggested that the streets throughout that development should be "privatized" as part of a tentative plan to provide additional security for the residents. That proposal was not formally submitted and the developer has indicated he is not going to pursue it. There are several housing areas in The Wilds which do have private roads, per City approval at the platting stage. The Development Review Committee has discussed the matter extensively. The Committee and, particularly the Engineering and Planning Staff has identified the need to clarify the Code as to where private streets would be allowed. We have also identified the need to be explicit about the physical standards to which private streets must be built; namely, they should meet or exceed the public street standards. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55.3~.2-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ISSUES: ALTERNATIVES: The key reasons one would desire private streets in a planned unit development is that there is an expectation of more designed-oriented features, including reduced yard setback distances, with a PUD Plan than with a conventional plat. That may be the case, depending upon how liberal the City wishes to be with minimum building setback standards. Also, some developers might find that a private road corridor might be narrower than a full public street right-of-way, containing mainly the street itself, with little boulevard area on the sides. Those areas (for snow storage, mail boxes, and aesthetics) would be accommodated through easements over the adjacent lots. The difference or "gain" to the developer is a front setback measured from the back of the curb, for example, whereas the setback distance in a conventional plat is usually measured from the right-of-way line. Finally, developers often prefer that road standards be less than public street standards in terms of the depth, width, materials, and the like. There is a perceived savings which may or may not be passed on to the initial homeowners. The problem with the reduced standard theory is that the roads deteriorate more rapidly and thus end up costing more to maintain and/or rebuild--something homeowners and their associations disdain. That also results in requests (demands) for the City to assume ownership and responsibility for the private roads. Thus, increasingly cities have adopted code standards and policies not unlike Prior Lake's which at least discourage private roads and streets, or limit them to only certain areas such as PUD's. Some communities do not allow them anywhere; others have been contemplating an approach outlined by Staff whereby any private road or street allowed by the Council--only in PUD's--would be constructed to full City street standards. Amendment of the Subdivision Code to allow private streets only in PUD's will not only clarify this matter but will still allow a developer to propose private roads in other developments by means of a variance. The language does not encourage private streets outside of PUD's. The engineering standards recommended by Staff will be specified in the draft Ordinance Amendments; the intent is that private road design standards will be the same as public road standards. One possible exception, given the nature of PUD's, is that the "boulevard" areas may be of a smaller dimension. Also, a distinction will be needed among the several street classifications since all PUD's may not be exclusively residential. The Staff will review the Zoning Ordinance PUD provisions to ensure consistency with the revised Subdivision Code. Accept this report and reaffirm the direction; specifically to prepare amendments to the Subdivision Code and/or Zoning Ordinance to allow private roads only in Planned Unit Developments and only if the proposed roads meet public street construction standards set forth by the City Engineer. Further, coordinate with the City Attorney to ensure the Subdivision language regarding "legal status" of streets is clarified and consistent with the new Code and Ordinance language. -2- RECOMMENDATION: ACTION REQUIRED: Attachments: REVIEWED BY: 2. Receive the report from the Staff and take no further action. 3. Table the item for specific reasons. Staff recommends Alternative No. I so that the hearings can be scheduled for early 1995 and so the final corrective actions can be taken by the Council before the 1995 development "season". A motion to direct Staff to proceed per Alternative No. 1. 1. April 18, 1994 Staff Agenda Report from Manager. 2. May 2, 1994 City Attorney Opinion Letter. Frank Boyles, City Manager -3- STAFF AGENDA REPORT. AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: DATE: BACKGROUND: DISCUSSION: 8C FRANK BOYLES, CITY MANAGER CONSIDER STATUS OF PRIVATE ROADS UNDER THE TERMS OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE APRIL 18, 1994 The proposed Red Oaks subdivision and the Mark Simpson lot division, and the anticipated proposals for private roads in at least three outlots in The Wilds (see attached) have raised issues about private streets in new plats. The Council should provide direction on whether or not they believe amendments should be made to the subdivision ordinance to clarify intent and to reduce problems which have been experienced with private streets. Prior Lake Subdivision Ordinance (see attached) contains two sections dealing with private streets. Section 6-6-2 (I) states "Private Streets: Private streets shall not be approved nor shall any public improvements be installed for any private streets unless approved by the Council. Private streets may be permitted in planned unit developments." The City Attorney has interpreted the first sentence to mean that private streets may be approved by the City Council in virtually any subdivision whether it is a planned unit development 'or not. Consequently, private streets could be requested by any petitioner whether a PUD or conventional subdivision is being proposed. The second subdivision ordinance paragraph addressing private streets is 6-6-4 Lots: (A) which states, "Location: All lots shall have frontage on a publicly dedicated street or a street that has received legal status, except that lots in planned unit developments may have frontage on a private road or street..." Because private roads may receive legal status through the granting of an easement or by usage, this provision also tends to allow private roads for any plat request. Private streets are sometimes useful in smaller developments where it is difficult to conform with public street width standards. Townhome developments often include private streets as well because of the need to provide access to many units from a Iow traffic volume street. -1- 4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EHPLOYF. R Prior Lake's present private street inventory is the result of annexation and special land use applications in PUD's. The vast majority of private streets were approved by township government and constructed without standards and then later annexed to Prior Lake. Although Prior Lake currently does not have construction standards in place for private streets, the two private streets constructed in the past 15 years were required to address the City's current design standards. Problems with private streets are as follows: ISSUES: 1. Substandard Construction: Poor drainage and premature breakup of the pavement has tumed owners to the City for maintenance and/or total takeover of the street. 2. Inadequate Width: This has resulted in on-street parking problems, snow storage and removal problems, utility installation, setback problems for structures and sometimes circulation problems for large emergency and non-emergency vehicles. 3. No Res_oonsible Party_: A critical problem with the City's inherited streets is the lack of homeowners associations to maintain the streets. An informal neighborhood group is satisfactory as long as the maintenance cost is Iow and the street was adequately constructed 'initially. As the maintenance cost escalates, private street owners realize that it is beyond their means to resolve the problems. They to the City and demand a level of service for their private road comparable to public roads in other neighborhoods and should receive equivalent service. 4. Corlnection of Public and Private Streets: Where a section of private street connects to public streets (such as, Louis Stassen's West Edge Estates) the potential for area traffic to short cut to public streets using private streets is high. Adjacent residents use this fact to underscore their argument that the private street should be made public. 5. Traffic Law Enforcement: Since the streets are private property the police department is constrained to enforce only the following: Handicapped parking, D.W.I, reckless driving and fire lanes if posted. The snowbird ordinance, no parking, speeding and similar violations may only be enforced by the private property owner. s Despite their^advantage,, private streets may be appropriate in certain instances. For'~xample: Townhomes with home owners associations typically are served by private drives. In such developments it is often difficult to determine where the public street ends and the private driveway begins. Given town home development configurations it seems that it would be difficult to outlaw private streets entirely. I believe that if Private streets are to be allowed by the Council, then a number of safeguards should be required: 1. Private streets should be built to the same structural -2- ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDATION: ACTION REQUIRED: standards as public streets (i.e., amount of sub-base, minimum bituminous wear and finish course, curb and gutter, and storm water drainage system). The same type of traffic including emergency vehicles, moving vans, garbage trucks and the like will use the streets. A prerequisite to authorizing private streets should be a statement on the homeowner deeds that the street is private and their responsibility in perpetuity. It is not to be subject to City takeover. The developer or Homeowner Association documents should be required to address how summer and winter street maintenance will take place and be financed in perpetuity. A street replacements fund should be established, for ultimate street reconstruction should be in fifteen to twenty years. e The private roadway should provide sufficient off street parking. No parking should be allowed on the street. The private road should facilitate better buffering of the project from the public street and create a greater sense of neighborhood. Pdvate streets should be limited to conditions that provide direct land access for local traffic. Only one end of a private street would be connected to a public street or a private street may connect a public street in two places as long as it is the same street. Council has a number of altematives: 1. Eliminate private streets altogether by directing amendments to the existing City Code. 2. Direct the staff to prepare additional clarifying amendments to the City Code to address the conditions under which private streets should be allowed. 3. Make no changes to the existing language Unless the Council wants to have no limit on where and whether private streets can be installed, some type of subdivision ordinance changes are necessary. The Council should determine which ordinance changes it desires and direct the staff to pursue altemate I or 2 (above) and provide the staff with direction on the altemate of their choice. Staff would then research the matter and provide a more complete list of ordinance amendments for future Council consideration. A motion directing the staff to prepare ordinance revisions defined by the Council. -3- 6-6-2: (c) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) STREETS: The arrangement of all streets, collectors and arterials shall conform to the transportation section of the City of Prior Lake Comprehensive Plan. Except for cul-de-sacs, streets shall connect with existing or dedicated streets and adjoining subdivisions or provide for future connections to adjoining unsubdMded tracts or shall be a reasonable projection of streets in the nearest subdivision. Streets shall be dasigned and located In relationship to existing and planned streets. Such design shall mInimize the negative effect on the environment and on public convenience and safety. Street width and pavement width shall conform to the minimum standards found in Table I. Final design is dependent upon traffic voluroe and soil factors. All other design factors must be in accordance with the 'Public Works Design Manual'. local residential streets shall be laid out to conform as much as possible to Ihs topography, to discourage through traffic, to permit efficient drainage and utility systems and to provide a minimum number of necessmy streets for convenient and safe access to the property. Half Streets: Half streets shall be prohibited, except where essential to the reasonable developroent of the subdlvislon and In conformity with other requirements of these regulations. In those Instances where a half street is accepted, the other half must be dedicated when the adjoining property is subdivided. Any half street providing access to a lot shall not receive a building permit until the other half of the street has been platted. Cul-de-sacs: The maximum length of a cul-de-sac shall be five hundred feet (500') measured along the centedine from the Intersection of origin to the end of right-of-way. If the development plan for the overall area calls for the extension of the street, then an appropriate turn around must be ddveloped. Eyebrow cul-de-sacs shall not be permitted except under unique circumstances. Grades: Ail centedine grades shall be at least 0.5 percent and shall not exceed 10.00 percent. Service Streets: Where a subdivision abuts or contains an existing or planned major thoroughfare or a railroad right-of-way, the Council may require a street approximately parallel to and on each side of such right-of-way for adequate protection of properties and to afford separation of through and local traffic. Reserve Strips: Reserve strips controlling access to streets shall be prohibited except under conditions approved by the Council. (i) Private Streets: Private streets shall not be approved nor shall any public improvements be installed for any private street unless approved by the Council. Private streets may be permitted In Planned Unit Developments. (K) Hardship to Adjoining Properly Owners Avoided: The street arrangements shall not be such as to cause hardship to owners of adjoining property In platting their own land and providing convenient access to Intersections: The angle formed by intersections shall be as close to 90 degrees as possible unless unique circumstances dictate a lesser angle. Intersections of more than four(4) comers shall be prohibited. Roadways and street intersections shall have LOTS: (A) Location: All lots shall have frontage on a publicly dedicated street or a street that has received legal status except that lots in Planned Unit Developments may have frontage on a private road or street. Frontage on a street shall be measured at the setback line. (B) (c) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) Size: The lot dimensions and areas shall comply with requirements specified in the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance. Side Lot Lines: Side lot lines shall be approximately at right angles to straight street lines or radial to curved street lines. Double Frontage Lots: Double frontage lots shall be avoided except where lots back on an arterial or collector street. Corner Lots: Comer lots for residential use shall exceed the minimum width and area requirement for that district by twenty percent (20%). Wetland or Detention Pond: Any lot abutting or including a wetland or detention pond within a Residential Zoning District, shall have one-hundred (100) percent of the minimum lot size requirement for the zoning district, as identified in the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance, outside of the 100-year flood elevation of the wetland or detention pond. 1. For all ResidentialZoning Districts, the subdivision grading plan shall indiicate a minimum setback of thirty (30) feet measured from the 100 year flood elevation of the wetland or detention pond to' the building pad or house location. (Ord. 94-01). Lot Remnants: All remnants of lots below minimum size remaining after subdivision of a larger tract must be added to adjacent lots rather than allowed to remain as unusable parcels. Butt Lots: Butt lots in residential districts shall be platted at least twenty percent (20%) wider than the minimum width for that district. 25 1500 {DS Ccn~er SO South Eighth Street Minneapelis. Minm:sota 55402 (612) 339-8131 Nlinnesota WATS (g00) 752-4297 FAX (612) 339-8061 LOMMEN NELSON LAW FIRM L~.nmen. Nelson, Gde & Stageberg, EA. Stcpl~en C. Rathke Attorney at Law Minneapolis Office (012) 336-9305 Snuthsidc Office Plata. Suite 2A ih i U Crest~. iow Drive t-[.tdscm, WI 54016 (715) xqq-82t7 Twin City Line {612) 436-~085 F.~X (7t5) 356-8g19 Mr. Frank Boyles City of Prior Lake 4629 Dakota St SE Prior Lake MN 55372 May 2, 1994 CITY MGR. OFFIC CITY OF PRIOR tAKE 41994 RE: Private Roads Our File 16772G Dear Frank: The purpose of this letter is to comment on the issue of private roads and the April 20, 1994 memorandum from the planning department. I also understand that John Simpson has reviewed the April 20th memorandum and has requested a rehearing of his application for an administrative land division. For the reasons stated in this letter, I believe that the council acted well within its discretion when it denied Mr. Simpson's application for an administrative land division. The council was entitled to base its decision upon .Section 6-6-4(A) of the ordinance along with the stated opposition of neighboring property owners. As I understand it, the problem arises in those areas of the city which were acquired by annexation. The previous township government had approved development with access by private roads. Lomrnen, Nelson, Cole & Stageberg, Mr. Frank Boyles May 2, 1994 Page 2 The two provisions of the city code which have been brought to my attention are as follows: Private streets: Private streets shall not be approved nor shall any public improvements be installed for any private street unless approved by the council. Private streets may be permitted in planned unit developments. (Section 6-6-2(I)) Local: Ail lots shall have frontage on a publicly dedicated street or a street that has received legal status except that lots in planned unit developments may have frontage on a private road or street. (Section 6- 6-4(A)) Both of the sections are included in Title 6 which governs subdivision regulations and Chapter 6 of that title which is entitled "Minimum Design Standards." These sections, read together, demonstrate a strong public policy on the part of the city discouraging private streets. Section 6-6-2(I) provides, however, that private streets may be approved by the council. Of course, the plat itself must be approved by the council. Thus, if a developer requested approval of a plat which contained private streets, the council has the authority to approve the plat. Section 6-6-4(A) does not prohibit private streets. Instead, it governs'the location of lots on a proposed plat. That section itself is quite unambiguous except for the reference to "a street that has received legal status." As I mentioned at the April 18th meeting, a street may receive legal status by virtue of public expenditure. As you know, a street that has been continuously maintained by a municipal government for six consecutive years becomes a public thoroughfare to the extent of the improvement without public dedication. Lornmen, Nelson, Cole & Stageberg, PA. Mr. Frank Boyles May 2, 1994 Page 3 In order to reconcile the two provisions, "legal status" may also include prior approval of a private street, by agreement between property owners or use as described above, if that prior approval, agreement or use clearly gives a lot owner an unqualified right of access. If the council csn approve a p!~t containing a private ro~d~ does it then have the authority to approve a l~t on that private road? The answer is in the affirmative. The council has the authority to approve private roads and may approve a lot on a private road that has "legal status." In the Simpson case, Section 6-6-2(I) did not apply. The council was not asked to approve a private street; a private street already existed. The council was asked to approve an administrative land division (Section 6-1-3). I do not know whether the private street in question "has received legal status" by virtue of the fact that it is part of a previously approved subdivision. It is clear, however, that the council could rely on that section to disapprove the division. The council heard testimony that brought into question ~he legal status of the private road and the right of a buyer of the proposed lot to an unqualified right of access. Based upon that consideration, the council could deny the division until given a clear opinion which satisfies staff and the council regarding the right of access. If the council approves a plat containing a private road pursuant to the authority given it by Section 6-6-2(I), the council, in effect, acknowledges the "legal status" of the private road. The council denied the applications submitted by King and Benedict without any reference to Section 6-6-4(A). Since those applications were denied, they provide no precedence for reconsidering the Simpson application. I do not know whether the members of the council had Section 6-6-4(A) in mind when the council either approved or denied similar requests with lots fronting on private roads. Even if that section Lommen, Nelson, Cole & Stageberg, P.A. Mr. Frank Boyles May 2, 1994 Page 4 was overlooked, it does not justify a different result in the Simpson case. Now tha~ the council has Section 6-6-4(A) in mind, it is not required to deliberately ignore it simply because it was overlooked in the past. To address the broader issue, Section 6-6-4(A), is consistent with Section 6-$-2(1) only after "legal status" is kroadly interpreted. The council has complete discretion to approve a private road but more limited authority with respect to approval of lots which front that private road since it must determine "legal status." To achieve greater consistency, assuming that the council wishes to continue to discourage private roads, the council may want to consider amending Section 6-6-2(I) by striking the words "unless approved by the council." The council may also want to consider clarification of the term "received legal status" in Section 6-6-4(A). If those amendments were adopted, exceptions to the ordinance would occur only if the council approves a variance. A restrictive policy regarding private roads may have unintended results in those platted areas served by private roads. These older plats may contain impractical lots which need to be rearranged through the administrative land division procedure. The planning staff may need guidance in addressing those situations. In conclusion, the provisions of Section 6-6-4(A) provide ample justification for the council's denial of the Simpson application since the applicant did not satisfy the requirement of legal status. The council may, of course, reconsider its decision if it wishes to grant a variance from ~hat section or if the applicant has additional information concerning the "legal status" of the street to the satisfaction of the city. Very truly yours, GEBERG, Stephen C. Rathke P.a. SCR:jrw cc: Glenn Kessel, Esq.