Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7A - Private Street StandardSTAFF AGENDA REPORT AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: DATE: 7A DONALD RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR TREATMENT OF PRIVATE STREETS MARCH 20, 1995 INTRODUCTION: DISCUSSION: ISSUES: City Council directed that a public hearing be held on Ordinance Standards relating to the treatment of private streets in future developments. Planning Consultant Blair Tremere prepared the report attached to this agenda item and discussed standards that could be applied in such cases. The report deals only with private streets in planned unit developments and does not deal with streets or roadways in townhouse or apartment developments or larger commercial projects. The report concluded that a lesser standard might be applied to private streets in a planned unit development focusing on delineation of the so-called right-of-way mainly for the purpose of measuring setback. The language in the report did not clearly indicate the standards that should be applied and discussions with Public Works suggest that the same standards applied to public streets should be applied to' private streets with the option provided of allowing a lesser standard through the PUD process as appropriate. Staff generally agrees with the conclusions and recommendations of the consultant's report except staff believes that the language in Alternative l(a) should be modified to reflect the requirement that the standard for private streets shall be the same as for public streets and to then provide a mechanism allowing for modification of standards through the planned unit development process where appropriate. suggested that the following language be added under Alternative It is the l(a) that following the last sentence after the word easements insert a comma and continue with the following language: provided that combined width of outlots and easements shall not be tess than the right-of-way, pavement width and easement requirements for public streets. This requirement may be modified as part of the approval of a planned unit development if, in the sole opinion of the City, such modifications preserve the intent of this ordinance. White the Planning Commission concurred with the above recommended modification, during the course of the discussion it was pointed out that the statute currently references several chapters in state statutes which refer to enforcement of state laws on public streets, it was suggested that -1- 16200 Eagle Creek Ave., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDATION: ACTION REQUIRED: reference to the same statute might be appropriate in dealing with private streets thereby allowing for the enforcement of traffic laws and standards on the private streets. The Planning Commission passed the motion to this effect and recommended that the City further explore the necessity or desirability of such an amendment to the City code. This is a separate action from approval of the language regarding private streets and Council action on this issue could take the form of a directive asking staff to further investigate the need for or desirability of such a code amendment. The Council has three alternatives: 1. Order preparation of an ordinance amendment consistent with Planning Commission recommendation. 2. Order preparation of an ordinanCe amendment requiring private streets to adhere to public street standards in all respects. 3. Make no change in current ordinances. Staff recommends that the Council pursue Alternative 1 and direct preparation of an ordinance relating to private streets which establishes standards equivalent to public streets with the provision that standards may be modified through the PUD process. Motion to direct staff to prepare ordinance amendment. Reviewed By: B~nnie Carlson, Asst. City Manager 'SOOlCC' -2- AGENDA NUMBER: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: DATE: Blair Tremere, Public Affairs Consulting Consideration of Ordinance Amendments Regarding Private Streets January 18, 1995 INTRODUCTION: A public hearing about amendments to the City Code regarding private streets has been scheduled. 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. The City Council considered this subject twice last year, and directed at its December 19 meeting that public hearings on code amendments and standards as follows: Private streets will be allowed only in Planned Unit Developments that have home owner associations; e Private streets will be constructed to public street standards for width and design stren?th; ~ The standards should address what the City may require to ensure maintenance according to City standards, including what recourse might be available when the maintenance of future private streets is neglected. DISCUSSION: The Development Review Committee has discussed the matter extensively. The Committee and~ particularly the Engineering and Planning staff have identified the need to clarify the Code as to where and why private streets would be allowed. Reasons one would desire private streets in a planned unit development include: · There is an expectation of more design- oriented features, including reduced yard setback distances, than .with a conventional plat. That may be the case, depending upon how liberal the City wishes to be with minimum building setback standards. 2. Some developers indicate that a private road corridor ("right-of-way") should be narrower than a full public street right- of-way, containing mainly the street itself, with little boulevard area on the sides. Areas needed for snow storage~ mail boxes, utilities, and aesthetics) can be accommodated through easements over the adjacent lots. · The "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. o Developers have contended that, when private road standards are less than public street standards--in terms of the depth, width, materials--there is a savings which may be passed on to the initial homeowners. Some 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 in this and the earlier reports, whereby any private road or street allowed by the Council--only in PUD's--would be constructed to full City street standards. A related matter is clarification of the Subdivision Code requirement for lot frontage upon a street. The City Attorney discussed this with the Council and noted that the reference to streets that have received "legal status" could be revised to be more specific. The concern about long-term maintenance can be addressed with a code requirement that the private development covenants and by-laws contain language that allows the City to ensure the necessary upkeep if the homeowners association fails to do so and provides for the costs of the work to be assessed against the property. ISSUES: The fundamental issues have been identified in the previous staff reports to the Council and are reflected in the Council direction cited above. The following is a summary of the concerns: · · Planning for, developing, and maintaining .a transportation system is one of the basic municipal functions. Proper design and construction are critical to the maintenance of safe and useable streets. The cost of most maintenance and reconstruction is covered with property taxes. A problem with reduced construction standards is that the roads deteriorate more rapidly and thus end up costing more to maintain and/or rebuild--something homeowners and their associations disdain; and they often request (demand) the City to assume ownership and responsibility for private roads. The requirement that all streets be publicly dedicated reflects sound physical and fiscal planning. Certain developments, such as multi- residential complexes and planned unit developments feature driving and parking characteristics that, when properly planned and constructed, can serve the needs of the residents just as well. The key consideration is the unified ownership or the legal owners association which can legally control and manage the infrastructure. Residents become part of that system when they rent or buy in the development. Association members, particularly pay property taxes as well as dues, and they may question the value of the private system and the wisdom of those who approved it. There is a reasonable expectation that at least the road systems in planned unit developments where there are owner-occupied dwellings abutting the roads, will be "offered" to the City at some time after the development has been settled. Two design questions need to be addressed: if the conventional street dedication standards are 50 ft. for the right-of-way which supports a 30 ft. local street, what should be street corridor width be in a PUD? A 30 ft. outlot can be platted that will contain the street: 10 ft. easements could be required across the e · · properties on each side. (b) the lots must have frontage on the street; the frontage (width)~ per the City Code, is measured "at the setback line." Where is the setback line when the street is not publicly dedicated? At the easement per Item (a); or, at the back of the curb? Setback dimensions are established during the PUD plan/plat review process and, by definition, this a design-based (flexible standard) consideration. The Code can, on the other hand have minimum standards applicable to PUD's as well as conventional plats. (c) the determination of the minimum setback dimension should also be clarified regarding lots on private streets in areas other than PUD's (see comments below on Frontage of Lots). A standard for this dimension can be set that relates to the back-of-curb or to an easement line. Private infrastructure, if allowed, should be explicitly limited to specific situations, such as a planned unit developments. The City Attorney has suggested that the phrase, "unless approved by the Council," be deleted from the public street requirement: this would ensure consistent treatment of proposed developments. Developers seeking approval of private streets in developments other than PUD's could do so through the formal variance procedures. The long-term maintenance of approved private amenities (including, but not limited to streets) can be addressed in the Code as a requirement for language to be incorporated in the homeowner association covenants. An association could still request that the City assume ownership and control of streets, but the Code language does address an approach the City can take that would deal with the physical deterioration. The frontage issue is one of clarifying the conditions involved with roads that have gained "legal status"--through public expenditure, public maintenance, or some recognition (access easement) o~her than public dedication. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Conduct the public hearings and develop a recommendation for the City Council to approve the following amendments to the City Code: (a) Amend Section 6-6-2-I of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) to read as follows: "Private Streets: Private streets shall not be approved nor shall any public improvements be installed for any private street ~p~ve~-~y-~he-~e~. Private streets may be permitted in planned unit developments tha~ have homeowner associations approved by City;. those private streets shall be platted ~s. outlots, and shall be designed a~_d constructed in accordance with this section;. provided., the street pavement may be contained within the outlot and the balance of the street right-of-way may be provided by adjacent easements." (b) Amend the Zoning Ordinance Planned Unit Development Requirements (Section 6.11 of Ordinance No. 83-6) to add the following: A Home Owner's Association shall be ,~_stablished prior to the sale of any lot or other land when land areas, amenities, or structures are approved bv the City and provided within the Planned Unit Devel.oDment for private recreational uses~ services, or private ownership of streets or utilities.. The Association documents shall be in comDiiance with applicable State Laws. su._b_9~e__c_t_ to review and approval bv the City Attorney, and shall provide for the following: fl) Membership shall be mandatory for each property owner and any Successive buyer. (2% The open space use restrictions and ownership must be permanent. The Association shall be responsible for liability insurance, local taxes, and for the maintenance of the common amenities, streets, u_tilities, and other facilities aDDroved_~.___W_i~h the Planned Unit Development. (4~ Property owners shall be responsible for their pro-rata share of the cost and the assessment levied bv the Association which can -- become a lien on the property in accordance with State Law. (~) The City may enter .upon the Common Areas and perform street maintenance and repair; snow removal from streets; control of surface water drainage; maintenance and re~air of sanitary sewer~ storm sewer~ water supply system or other utilities~ when the City Council has found and has expressed in a resolution that the Association has failed to provide those services that are deemed necessary for the health, safety, and welfare of the residents and occupants of the property. _ -- -- The City may assess the cost of the maintenance or repairs or improvements directlv aqainst benefitted lots or may assess the Common Area in which case the Association shall levv a special assessment aaainst the benefitted lots to defray the total amount of the City assessment,. The title of the Association and the owners of lots in and to the Common Area shall be made subject to a non-exclusive easement in favor of the City for the purpose of ingress and -- e~ress for public safety enforcement and services, animal control, health and protective inspections, to provide other public services deemed necessary bv the Citvo and for the purposes set forth herein. (c) TO BE INSERTED · Conduct the public hearings and develop a recommendation to the City Council to not approve the code amendments, citing specific reasons. · Conduct the public hearings and table the item for specific reasons. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No.1. Attachments: 1. 2. o December 19, 1994 city Council minutes April 18, 1994 and December 14~ 1994 Staff Reports to the City Council May 2, 1994 City Attorney Opinion Letter