Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9A McCormick Acres Plat MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT OCTOBER 15, 2001 9A JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR "McCORMICK ACRES" History: The Patrick L. McCormick Trust has filed an application for a preliminary plat for the 1.85 acre site located on the south side of CSAH 12 (170th Street), west of CSAH 13 and east of Pheasant Meadows. The preliminary plat, to be known as McConnick Acres, consists of 1.85 acres to be subdivided into 5 lots for singe family residences. There are two existing single family dwellings on this site. The applicant also requested variances to the minimum lot area for 3 of the proposed lots. The Planning Commission initially considered this request on July 9, 2001. The Commission tabled action on the request until August 13, 2001, in order to allow staff and the developer to assemble additional information. On August 13, 2001, the Planning Commission further continued the hearing until August 27, 2001 at the request of the applicant. The applicant requested an additional continuance to September 24, 2001, due to scheduling conflicts. On September 24, 2001, the Planning Commission considered this preliminary plat application, along with the variance application. The Planning Commission denied the requested variances to the minimum lot area; however, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: 1. The plat must be revised to eliminate Lot 5. The remaining lot lines must be reconfigured to provide the minimum lot area for each lot. 2. The existing easement for installation and maintenance of sanitary sewer and water to the property to the south must be identified on the final plat. 3. Prior to final plat approval, the Tree Inventory must be revised so all trees are labeled and it must be signed by a registered land surveyor. 1:\01 files\O 1 subdivisions\prelim plat\mccormick acres\cc report. doc Page 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (1352) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 4. The water and sewer service locations must be verified. 5. The applicant must obtain an access permit and any other required permits from Scott County prior to final plat approval. A draft copy of the Planning Commission meeting minutes is attached to this report for your information. Current Circumstances: The preliminary plat consists of 1.85 acres to be subdivided into 5 lots for single family residential development. The proposed lot areas range from 10,212 square feet to 13,500 square feet. The applicants requested a variance to the minimum lot area requirement for Lot 3, Lot 4 and Lot 5 of the plat; however, as noted above, the Planning Commission denied this request. This plat proposes no new public streets; however, the plat does dedicate an additional 17 feet of right-of-way for CSAH 12. Access to the property is from CSAH 12. The Scott County Highway Department has noted access permits will be required for new driveways. The County has also noted the developer will be required to combine some of the driveway accesses to these lots, so as to minimize the openings onto the County Road. The parkland dedication requirements for this plat will be satisfied by a cash dedication, in lieu of land, for each of the new lots. The lots with the existing dwellings are exempted from the parkland dedication fee. The rationale for requiring cash in lieu of land is twofold. First, the amount of land dedication required is too small to provide any usable park. Second, there are two parks within close proximity to this development: a neighborhood park directly across CSAH 12 and W oodview Park in the Sunrise Estates subdivision to the west. Sanitary sewer and water main is currently located in CSAH 12. The locations of the services to the proposed lots must be verified prior to final approval. There is no storm sewer proposed for this site. The plan indicates the new building sites will drain to the north, towards the existing drainage swale along CSAH 12. This development is also subject to the Tree Preservation requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The developer has submitted a Tree Inventory for this site; however, several trees on the plan are not labeled. It is most likely that no tree replacement will be required. However, the Tree Inventory must be revised to label all of the significant trees, and it must be prepared and signed by a registered land surveyor. 1:\01 files\O 1 subdivisions\prelim plat\mcconnick acres\cc report. doc Page 2 The Subdivision Ordinance requires two front yard subdivision trees per lot. The developer has submitted a landscaping plan identifying the required trees. The Issues: The staff originally identified two main issues pertaining to this preliminary plat. The first issue was the need for variances to the minimum lot area for three of the proposed lots. In the original request, the applicant noted it has always been the family's intent to develop this property into five lots. Whatever their intentions, an application to subdivide this property has never been submitted, until this preliminary plat. The attached letter also states it was the City's plan to develop this land into five lots. However, when sewer and water service was installed in 1972, this property was assessed only the lateral front footage charge. Any other assessments were deferred until development took place. The Planning Commission considered all of the above information and found that the request did not meet the hardship criteria. The Commission therefore denied the requested variances. The applicants have not appealed this decision; therefore, the only issue before the Council at this time is the preliminary plat. The second issue pertaining to this proposal is access to the property to the south, which is adjacent to TH 13. Originally, the staff believed that the State had purchased the access rights to this site; however, we have since learned that the State has not purchased access control to this property. The State still has the right to issue an access permit to the site, and through the permitting process will control the location of the access. The access to this property from Pheasant Trail, the platted but unimproved road to the west, is an additional access that mayor may not be utilized at some time in the future. Another option is to create a new access by realigning the TH 13 and CSAH 12 intersection. This option would most likely require the acquisition of property from other property owners. The City staff plans to discuss this option, including the responsibility for costs, with the MN DOT and the County Highway Department as the plans for the improvement of CSAH 12 proceed. A third issue was also brought to the Planning staff s attention. This issue pertains to the existing easement for the installation and maintenance of sanitary sewer and water to the property directly south of this site. That easement must be included on the plat of this property. Conclusion: The Planning Commission concluded the preliminary plat is consistent with the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance requirements. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat, subject to the following conditions: 1:\01 files\O 1 subdivisions\prelim plat\mcconnick acres\cc report. doc Page 3 FISCAL IMPACT: AL TERNA TIVES: RECOMMENDED MOTION: REVIEWED BY: 1. The plat must be revised to eliminate Lot 5. The remaining lot lines must be reconfigured to provide the minimum lot area for each lot. 2. The existing easement for installation and maintenance of sanitary sewer and water to the property to the south must be identified on the final plat. 3. Prior to final plat approval, the Tree Inventory must be revised so all trees are labeled and it must be signed by a registered land surveyor. 4. The water and sewer service locations must be verified. 5. The applicant must obtain an access permit and any other required permits from Scott County prior to final plat approval. RlJdgpt Impnrt. Approval of the preliminary plat will allow the developer to proceed to the final plat, which will in turn allow the construction of one new house. The new house will contribute to the City's tax base. The City Council has three alternatives: 1. Adopt Resolution #Ol-XX, approving the preliminary plat of McCormick Acres with the finding that the preliminary plat is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. 2. Deny the preliminary plat on the basis it is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and/or the Comprehensive Plan. In this case, the Council should direct the staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact for the denial of these requests. 3. Defer consideration of this item for specific reasons. The staff recommends Alternative # 1. A motion and second to approve Resolution OI-XX, approving the Preliminary Plat to be known as McCormick Acre subject to the stated conditions is requi d. 1:\01 files\O 1 subdivisions\prelim plat\mccormick acres\cc report. doc Page 4 Irt RESOLUTION 01~ RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF "McCORMICK ACRES" MOTION BY: J& SECOND BY: j]" WHEREAS: the Prior Lake Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on July 9, 2001, to consider an application from the Patrick L. McCormick Trust for the preliminary plat of McCormick Acres; and WHEREAS: the Prior Lake Planning Commission continued the public hearing to August 13, 2001, August 27, 2001 and September 24, 2001, at the request of the applicant; and WHEREAS: notice of the public hearing on said preliminary plat has been duly published and posted in accordance with the applicable Minnesota Statutes and Prior Lake Ordinances; and WHEREAS: all persons interested in this issue were afforded the opportunity to present their views and objections related to the preliminary plat of McCormick Acres for the record at the Planning Commission hearing; and WHEREAS: the Planning Commission and City Council have reviewed the preliminary plat according to the applicable provisions of the Prior Lake Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and found said preliminary plat to be consistent with the provisions of said ordinances; and WHEREAS the Prior Lake City Council considered an application for preliminary plat approval of McCormick Acres on October 15, 2001; and WHEREAS: the City Council finds the preliminary plat of McCormick Acres to be consistent with the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA: A. The above recitals are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. B. The preliminary plat of McCormick Acres is approved subject to the following conditions: 1) The plat must be revised to eliminate Lot 5. The remaining lot lines must be reconfigured to provide the minimum lot area for each lot. 2) The existing easement for installation and maintenance of sanitary sewer and water to the property to the south must be identified on the final plat. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 1:\01 files\O 1 subdivisions\prelim p1at\mccormi~~ ~&r~\rO~~~EMPLOYER Page 1 . . 3) Prior to final plat approval, the Tree Inventory must be revised so all trees are labeled and it must be signed by a registered land surveyor. 4) The water and sewer service locations must be verified. 5) The applicant must obtain an access permit and any other required permits from Scott County prior to final plat approval. Passed and adopted this 15th day of October, 2001. YES NO Mader , Mader Gundlach \ Gundlach Ericson \ Ericson Petersen \ Petersen Zieska \ Zieska {Seal} City Manager 1:\01 files\O 1 subdivisions\prelim plat\mccormick acres\rsO 1 xxcc.doc Page 2 ..-..--'-----------.:. Location Map lW ~LJ 'I4\\J.Cfl 1 . 4 ac_ a:: Q . ~, Q - 8 - 'lAC ~~ ~, . o 14 ~.~ tp.' ~0~ EEt I<<.,<J WISl1DI2 '3 ..~~3rt1 ~ \~ \2 \ J · r<..ll:..LLL.:J ESl"ATE 11M 13 1lI ',. !~ Ii'.. I 11 ~ Location of McCormick Acres ~ ---~ . ClC--f-. ~ i~-' J 9 i~: J -:::..:..J ;' l' ..-..:.~~ PH~ ->. .?~ , ./'. ~-MEApOW 1Q~~ ./ // __.J. ~~ '..... .5-""; '---. ..... Ii " . .....,.-. CD >J' <:( o -- ( 7.'" C '.' ) 0 '. "/' l..... ~ // ./,,/' ./ """",.. 10 .,;-.... ,sP<' ... ,~ ./ ,,~,i>. /(' ..,~~// C,v../ ./ // . ----- -(I N A 300 o 300 600 Feet "'--" .....---..--.....-.---.... ...----..-.----------r--....-... ~ ~ ': ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e . !: ~ ~ , ,; ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t) ~ ~ ~ ~ I I Ih U-f I 1 I .:..;;~ f I ~!jUf I .. , j If Ja'i' .'_1 ! it; I . jfidJ1.J ~!!U ~ ]I 11'liJ. If Ifj;;JJji Ln ! IJ Ii I I J .)....' dill " i ' . Iii" ~: I 'I ..... '''.J ~ jJ IfjJ'lJ~: ~ . ". ~ ,11"!;T i:l' ~ J ,ljIiiI.j I . I. ,. 1 I' ~ I~ illl1 Un,' I J~ Ii 11l.! I 111 d " ~J I 'I I '\ I ~j . -\ , , II lAl ,'. !~/j~'1 I II , , I j jr" , , . t 1 J!'" , Ii fi i iH~; i '. / ~ ,II , -.,.. I ql! I ~ '. .... ....\ ..... I ! / ~. ~ ,I I , z / .,..- li ! ~ ~ J j ,,/' I ,. / ...~--..- " .... , / -------- " .//'IC,~' ------...---' .\ ._....~ ._- ----- 'I, '1,. .-..,,---.-....-... "< / "..1 . ~ ~. :~ !il; .~: ~I~ ,I II l' I' I --;':;\ /~'~\ / I") ,. r"- i . , , , ittl'h !. . II I I ' 'I t I ' II' '7-_ ~ I: i : ~ II'i 1j :,....; ;'!J if . ii!; i i! ;i . l ~ 1 J J , fn~jl; i11!id fl';'''. ;!ifil! 11111'1 f . ~ f! ,II!., . 1-1\ f ... ~ t! ! ~: ! ! f!J1ip 2 ;Jilld . . ,~ :: ~ 'i iil;'l' ill:!!! -t --J__ -' I ]'; I J..! J! IJ': :f.. ,~1" 1, ~ { :!.~ SUfi ~ ii Ii ,I 1 Ii:: ~ ... - ';. , I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . 1 ~ I r~ ~ i~l ~1 ~ iiHl m.. V'i~'i':t .:;:;:::= usu 2Em I ; Jim ~; · mg (' 1 ~ :-::. d _ ~ !illi d I ~ Hm ~, i ~ i~;~~ ~; h , ~ ~ :ei::.o ~ ~ . ~ !is ;; ~, " !i \ , _ ~ . J I ~ : i I ; i.~ f ~II' I I ~ ! I I 3 , , J , . j , Ij " ~! H d L Ii i H U i U 1111111 dL i Ii! : . . 0 . . "T iii. .... 0 . . , . . . _ . _ J!J = I a . :...... ~O:#.c31 Ifi ~ I 11 ~ mY .25.2001 2:2BPM CIlY OF IoR5ECA NO. 980-. P.1/Z May 24, 2001 Pb:Ina. . Pnarle . Fax' Jane Kansier. AlCP p]~T1T1ing CoorriiT1~tnl City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Drive SE Prior Lake, ~ 55372-1714 RE: McCormick Acres PrelimiT1ary Plat & Variance Application Dear Ms Kansier: Thank you for taking th~ time to meet with my family and I about the abQve referenced plat and variances. As we have advised yo~ our family has owned this property since the early 19605. The area proposed to be platted was originally the farmstead for a larger parcel. There still remain the original farmstead home and two out buildings on the property. In addition, my father developed a single family home on a portion of the property. It was always my family's intent to develop this property into five single family homes, In fact, in 1972 the City installed a new street and replaced utility lines into V'" the site. The City stubbed :five services into the property. It was always our plan, and the plan of the City, to allow five single family residences on this site. As you can see from the attached drawings, the placement of the second home was done with car~ to ensure adequate property to meet typical lot sizes in the area at the time the second home was built. The property could most likely have been subdivided into five lots under the subdivision ordinance available at the time. The County is now requesting that we dedicate an additional 17 feet of our frontage along each one of these lots for future highway expansion. Although we are not objecting to the dedication of this property at this time, the homes immediately ta the east of our property are presently located closer to 170rJ:. Street SW (County Road 12) than our sites. It is unlikely that the roadway could be ~"q'anded to the depths that are proposed by th.e county wit.i.out leaving dwellings with inadequate front setbacks. We are requesting a variance from the lot area requirements of the Prior Lake Zoping Ordinance for three of the five parcels located in this subdivision. As I have stated, it was always our intent. and the City's intent. to allow five lots to be developed in this area. The proposal of the County to take additional frontage along 170m Street SW, reduces the lot area available to these properties and creates a substandard condition. It is, therefore, our request that the City of Prior Lake grant a variance from the area requirements of the ordinance by reason of the narrowness of the lot and the extraordinary condition created by the County's request for additional right of way. This request has resulted in a peculiar and practical difficulties and creates an undue : !'FlY. 2S. 2001 2: 20PM CITY Of" IoIl=lSECA. NO. 980 P.V2 hardship upon my family acting as developer for the site. We also feel that the . conditions applying to our site arc not 1m H1ce or peculiar to the property immediately adjoiDing the proposed platted area. The granting of this easement is therefore necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of my family, acting as developer of the site. The granting of this easement will not impair an adequate SUpply of light and air to ihe adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, incre~e the danger of fire, or danger the public safety. Further, the granting of the variance will not unreasonably impact the character of the development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair the established property values in the surrounding are~ or in any other way impair the health, safety and comfort of the area. The variance will also nqt be contrary to the intent of the Prior Lake ordinance or the Prior Lake Comprehensive Plan._ The granting of the variance is necessary to alleviate a demonsttatable undue hardship or difficulty to our property I The hardships that are created by the strict application of the ordinance are not as a result of the actions of the property owners or prior prop~ owners. It is therefore our request that the Prior Lake Planning Commission and City CoWlci1 grant the variance to the Lot area as requested by our application. If you have any further questions about this m~er, or need any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, *~~ Kris M. Busse 1401 611 Stree! NE Waseca, tvIN 56093 SCOTT COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DMSION - IDGHWAY DEPARTMENT 600 COUNTRY TRAIL EAST JORDAN, :MN 55352-9339 (952) 496-8346 -"~ !-.~ ~ 7.' .-:::: 8 ~-' . --=--~_' :.~ :.~',,\ I :; ;: ; .; . iLl \Ji. l JlJN , 9 2001 ,~ : ' '" I ; ; ~ : ) : i ;L:;;--/ j Fax: (952) 4~tHS,,6j I BRADLEY J. LARSON PUBUC WORKS DIRECTOR! COUNTY HIGHWAY ENGINEER June 8, 2001 Jane Kansier Plonning Coordinator City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, NIN 55372 RE: Preliminary Plat, McCormick Acres CSAH 12, West of m 13 Dear Jane: We have reviewed the preliminary plat as it relates to the Scott County Highway Department and offer 10. the following comments. ~ As specified in the recently approved County Transportation Plan, Scott County has adopted the following applicable policies regarding access to County Roads: 22. Strive to maintain appropriate spacing of intersecting local streets and driveways in accordance with the Scott County Minimum Access Spacing Guidelines. 24. Encourage the design of a network onocal roadways to properly direct traffic to collector or arterial roadways. 25. Support local roadway networks that reduce the need for neighborhood traffic on arterial and collector roadways for local trips and encourage interconnected neighborhoods. The plat as proposed creates three new closely-spaced accesses to CSAH 12. 'vVe understand that there are quite a few existing parcels along CSAH 12 with direct access to the roadway, but we would be willing to work with the City in coming up with alternatives to ex.acerbating the problem. In this particular case, the proposal also potentially worsens the Issue of access for the parcel to the south. It is our understanding that the parcel to the south is zoned commercial. Will the City support connecting this commercial property to Pheasant Trail? Ifnot, it appears as though direct access to TH 13 (an arterial projected to carry 14,000 vehicles per day by 2020) is becoming the only option. Again, we support local roadway networks that reduce the need for direct access to artenal roadways. This would also mean the future development would have only one access point, which would not be ideal for emergency access. Although we are not in support of the development as prooosed I as described above), we have the following comments if the CiN does aporove the development :lS orooosed: + Lot 3 shall share an access to CSAH l2"wlth Lot 2 or Lot 1. All access permit shall be required for all new accesses to csAH' 12, as well as for modification of any existing accesses to CSAH 12. An Equal Opporwniry/Safery Aware Emp{over ... _.... .. "'---r-.'.--.. . .,.,. --'- . We highly recommend a driveway turnaround be installed with each driveway. This will eliminate the safety issues created by vehicles backing onto the County road when leaving the residences. . The existing accesses that will not be used as part of this development should be removed and graded to match surroundings before issuance of a building permit General conditions: . No berming, ponding, landscaping, or signage shall be permitted in the County right-of-way. . An access permit shall be required for this development. + Any increase in drajnage entering the County right-of-way shall require a detailed stonnwater analysis to be submitted to the County Engineer for review and approval. As always, we appreciate the opportunity to comment. Please call me at 496-8060 if you have any questions or need further clarification. ~~ Brian K. Sorenson, P .E. TranSportation Engineer Copy: Craig Jenson, County Transportation Planner Jack Witt, County Highway Utility Inspector Bud Osmundson. City Public Works Director Tim Arvidson, Project Engineer, Bolton & Menk Inc. Paul Czech, MnJDOT Planning . ........-.. __;:;;;,.~. ~'.4~";;'"' .:...': . :?/!(03/0!.._g: O",--.fAX ;'f U - .---. ----- --_. -- -----. iii 001 ~128089944 CUB FOODS BURNSVILLE .~.... J) WarrutY Deed IDdiTidual to Joint Tcna:tn Form No. 5-M J\Iilkr.I)J\'j, <'0.. 1r1inm:J!>c,li, Z\linnLO"J&.& 1.: niiurnl Cl,)n\OI-~._nh'lnl: Bl.Jnk., (.R,.,-i~('d ]9":"6. ~b i s 3l n bentur t t l,{ ads thi3..............._.......__.Cf..-:::.a.a,y of......_.....L'"b:..l,,;~.k...E..li....... 19 ..~~....., between.............. ~.~:!;~..;.~ ...~.~..J1~~~P.~...~~..~ ..~....~~g.~.~.!.....!?:~e.~....~.~..~~.~~.................................... of the County of..........~.<?~.;~arcr..jC...M6nnens...an~n~~#~f K~~~~.;... nusfiano...a:no...wirla.A:.:...... o t the first part, and. ..........................-.............................................-.......................-.......................................................-.....................-.................. .........................._......................_..........................~........_.................................... .........".................................:......................._............., of the County of ...........~.~~!::':.............................................an.li StatfJ of............................_.~~::.~~.~.:..................... ..., paTties of the second pari, . Witnessetf), Tha.t. the sa.w. pa,.t.i..~.~... or the fi7'st It7-t, in oonsicle7'ation of the sum of...~.~.~..:.~g~....... .9.l;}.~....4.Q.J..*.~....~4 ..9.~~.;-....g:~g.4....~.~...!.~~.~~ ..~....~g.~?:...~;:!:':~?:9.~::::::::::::::=:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::- DO LL.,1RS, to .......~'?:~...............in hand paid by the said parties of the second part., the 7'eoeipt whereof is he7'eby aclL~nowl- p.dged, ito ......... he7'f!.by G7'ant, B(lr~ain, SeZZ, and C07L7.ley lmto the said parti.es of the second pa.rt as join.t tr:.Tf.([.nts and not tV te.nants i,1- C07''''77UJn, their assign.~, the S7.c,7'vivor ot sa.id pa.7.ties, and. the heirs ana assigns of the su;n.:i7:o7', Forever, aZl the f;7.act...... 07' pa7'ceL... of land lying and bein1 in the County of .............';:!.~9.:!;:1;...........................................ana. Sta.te of .lfinnesota, desc7'ibed a': foZl.ows, to-wit: That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 10, Township 114, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the Nor~ west corner of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Qua~te~; t~ence East (assumed bearing) along the North line thereof a distance of 388.90 feet; thence South a dis~ tance of 168.00 feet to the actual point of beginning of the land to be described;~ ~~ence East a distance of 175.00 feet; t~ence North 32.00 feet; thence East a distan~ of 741.08 feet more or less to the East line of said Northwest Quarte~ of the North- east Quarter; thence Southerly along said East line to its intersection with the Northerly Right of Way line of State Trunk Highway No, 13; the.."'lce Sout.'1.westerly alon said Right of Way line to its inte~section with a line drawn Sout.~ 4 degrees 52 minutes 42 seconds East f~om the aforementioned actual point of beginning; thence North 4 degrees 52 minutes 42 seconds West a distance of 698.13 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 10.00 acres more or less. Together with an easement for the installation and maintenance of a sanitary sewer and water line over, under ~~d ac~oss that part of the Northwest Quarte~ of the Northeast Quarter of Section la, Township 114, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota described as follows: A strip of land 20.00 feet in width the cent=~line of said strip being described as follows: Ccmmencing,at the nort.~west ccrne~ of said Northwest Quarter of t.'1.e Northeast Quarter; thence on an assumed beazing of East along the north line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter a distance of 641.80 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence Souih a distance of 168.00 feet and there termin~~ing.. r .- . v <._..._...-.-.A.-"....".".:___d '-'"----'"--'-'----_.~-'" INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: PLANNING/ENGINEERING Ralph Teschner, Finance Director MCCORMICK ACRES - preliminary (assessment/fee review) May 15,2001 A 1.85 acre parcel in 10-114-22 (PIN #25 910 005 0 & 25 910005 2) is proposed to be platted into McCormick Acres. The property was initially served with sewer and water utilities in 1972 under Project 72-7. Under the original assessment roll this property was assessed lateral front footage of 150' with the remaining frontage deferred until developed. The property was assessed 100% for sewer and water trunk acreage charges. Since utilities are available to the property site, the cost for the extension of services internally will be the responsibility of the developer. In addition to these improvement costs, the subdivision will be subject to the following City charges: Park Dedication Lateral Sewer & Water Charge Collector Street Fee ; Stormwater Management Fee $ 1685.00/unit 293' @ $60.00/ff $ 1500.00/acre $3180.00/acre Lot 2 Block 1 and Lot 4 Block 1 McCormick Acres would be exempt from these fees since existing homes are located on, these parcels. The remaining three lots would be subject to the application of these City cha~ges which would generate the following costs to the developer based upon a net lot area calculation of.42 acres as provided within the site data summary sheet of the preliminary plat description. Cash Park Dedication: 3 units @ $1685.00/unit = $5,055.00 Lateral Sewer & Water Char2e: 293' @ $60.00/ff= $17,580.00 Collector Street Fee: .77 acres @ $1500.00Iac = $1,155.00 Storm Water Management Fee: .77 acres @ $2943/ac = $2,266.00 These charges represent an approximate cost of $8,685.00 per lot for the three (3) newly created lots within McCormick Acres. Assuming the initial net lot area of the plat does not change, the above referenced cash park dedication, lateral sewer and water, collector street and storm water charges would be determined and collected within the context of a developer's agreement for the construction of utility improvements at the time of final plat approval. There are no other outstanding special assessments currently certified against the property. Also, the tax status of the property is current with no outstanding delinquencies. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER H: \S P L I TS\M cC onni ckAcres. doc PLANNING CO:MMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, JULY 9, 2001 1. Call to Order: Chairman Vo of called the July 9, 2001, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. Those pres were Commissioners Criego, Lemke, Stamson and V onhof, Planning Director Don Rye, PI . g Coordinator Jane Kansier and Recording ecretary Cannie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Atwood Criego Lemke Stamson V onhof 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the J e 25, 2001, Planning Commission meeting we j corrected. onhofread the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting. 4. Public Hearings: ~ A. Case Files 01-039 and 01-040 Consider an application for a preliminary plat to be known as McCormick Acres and to consider variances to the minimum lot area for three of the proposed lots for the property located on the south side of 170Ch Street, North of Highway 13 and east of Pheasant Meadows. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated July 9, 2001, on file in the office of the Planning Department. The Patrick L. McCormick Trust has filed an application for a preliminary plat for the 1.85 acre site located on the south side of CSAH 12 (1 iOth Street), west of CSAH 13 and east of Pheasant Meadows. The preliminary plat, to be known as McCormick Acres, consists of 1.85 acres to be subdivided into 5 lots for singe family residences. There are two existing single family dwellings on this site. The application also includes a request for variances to the minimum lot area for 3 of the proposed lots. There are two main issues pertaining to this preliminary plat. The first issue is the need for variances to the minimum lot area for three of the proposed lots. The need for , L\O 1 files\O 1 plancomm\O I pcminules\MN07090 I .doc .,. Plll1l1ling Commission Meeting July 9. 2001 variances is caused primarily.by the County requirement for 50' of right-of-way rather than the standard 33' of right-of-way. If the standard amount of right-of-way were dedicated, Lots 3 and 4 would meet the minimum lot area requirement of 12,000 square feet. Lot 5, however, would still be less than the minimum lot area with an area of 11,681 square feet. The second issue pertaining to this proposal is access to the property to the south. Although the property to the south is adjacent to TH 13, the State purchased the access rights to this site several years ago. At the present time, the only access to this property is from Pheasant Trail, the platted but unimproved road to the west. This will remain the access to the property, unless the City creates a new access by realigning the TH 13 and CSAH 12 intersection. Another option is to require dedication of right-of-way through this plat from CSAH 12 to the property. This would result in the loss of a lot from the proposed plat. . If the Planning Commission finds the variance to the minimum lot size is justified, the proposed preliminary plat meets the standards of the Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance. If the preliminary plat is to proceed, it should be subject to the following condition: 1. Prior to final. plat approval, the Tree Inventory must be revised so all trees are labeled and it must be signed by a registered land surveyor. 2. The water and sewer service locations must be verified. 3. The applicant must obtain an access permit and any other required permits from Scott County prior to final plat approvaL If the variance is not approved, a fourth condition requiring that all lots meet the minimum lot area requirement must be included. Staff recommended the Planning Commission defer action on the preliminary plat and variance to August 13,2001, allow the applicant the opportunity to reconsider the proposed plat. Criego questioned if the property south of the applicant was landlocked? Kansier pointed out the access through Pheasant Meadows. Rye said at the time of the designation the City had no idea the State would purchase the access off Highway 13. Criego also questioned the easement location. Rye said the description indicates it is located to the easterly side of the house. Comments from the public: Applicants, Kris Busse and Tim Arvidson, spoke as representatives of the Patrick McCormick Trust. Busse respectfully disagreed that there is a hardship with the property as there are !\v-a existing homes. With existing homes one does not have the ability to layout the property in a-typical subdivision fa;hion. Regarding the access issue, B"usse L:\O I fileslO I plancommlO I pcminuteslMNOi090 I_doc 2 PII11I1Iing Commission Meding July 9.2001 did not feel it was a good idea to run commercial traffic through a residential area. Suggested re-aligning the Highway 13 and County Road 12 access. It would be a better- controlled traffic area. By placing the burden of access to the neighbors' property is not fair to the McCormick family. They were never paid for the access rights. It is hard to understand that someone was paid for access rights and now the McCormicks are required to provide access. Arvidson pointed out the location of the log house. At the time it was built, the house met City ordinances. The City required 12,000 square foot lot sizes after the log home was built. The staff report pointed out that the majority of the variances are for the additional footage dedicated to the County for right-of-way. ," Julie McCormick, said there is some difference in keeping the property in the original state. McCormick questioned the value of the property if subdivided. She would like to see the property remain the same. Judd Dow, (McCormick's fiancee) said they did not get a notice until yesterday. The family is split two to two on the decision to subdivide the property. Dow felt the family needed more time for adequate council to study the value of the land. Question if there would be more valuable to keep the existing lots or subdivide. Commissioner V onhof explained the Commission could not answer those questions. The surrounding property owners are notified 10 days prior to the meeting. Kansier pointed out the notice wjent to the applicant. Dow said they would like to get adequate appraisals and requested more time to study the issue. Two of the trust heirs felt the hardship is not there and would leave it as is. Rye questioned if decisions of the trust were made together or by one person. Dow said it is up to Kris Busse. Two of the heirs would like more information. Howard Monnens, owner of the 10 acres south of the property, said he does have an access from the State to Highway 13. He would have to get a permit. He also has a water and sewer easement from 1980 though the McCormick property. Monnens does not see the Pheasant Meadows property as an access for the commercial property. Monnens also stated he went to the State and they were okay with getting access. The City felt access from the intersection of 170th and Highway 13 was too close to the interchange for an access. The County said they only thing they could do was to suggest counting 1,300 feet as a possible access from the westerly side of Pheasant Meadows, which would not work. Monnens asked the City to look into a long-term solution. He felt the State, County and City officials should consider the future of the area now. Mark McCormick, an heir of the McConnick trust, pointed out the older home on the west side sits up 8 to 10 feet, and is concerned the driveway is too close to the adjoining lot and will have to be adjusted. Several trees will have to be taken out and a retaining wall will have to be constructed for access to the old house. The other house has a high LID! files\DI plancomm\D I pcminutesIMND7D9D i,doc ., .J ,.-." -,...."..,---.-------r------",.-' Planning Commission Meeting July 9, 2001 elevation and would look like an island. He was concerned they would loose value on the home. William Baker, resident and representative for Pheasant Meadows Association stated their concern is for the access trail through the property. He agreed with Mr. Monnens that the area has to be looked at as a total. Access through a residential area is not appropriate. The Association would like to maintain the integrity of the area. They are objecting to any further development access through the area. Baker questioned what the affect would be if the commercial property would be changed to residential? Pheasant Meadows is planning on petitioning for a variance on the roadway to prevent a future . access. Baker presented a petition from 64 Pheasant Meadows residents outlining his comments. .. Mike Klingberg representing his parents Bill and Nancy Klingberg, 3655 170th Street, east of the property, are concerned for a potential home 20 feet away from their property. The public hearing was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Lemke: . Agreed with staff to defer this to the August 13, meeting. There are many issues which require more information. , Criego: . Questioned staff: If the applicant does not dedicate the right-of-way at this point, is that acceptable or is he required to dedicate it? Rye said it depends on what law book you read. Recent Supreme Court decisions state you cannot compel dedication by the need of a proj ect. You can compel dedication but what you dedicate has to be proportionate to the need created by the project. The issue to be resolved is whether or not traffic generated from this development would be of volume warranting dedication to the entire right-of-way or some percentage of it. . Criego clarified. . Rye said anytime the City approves a plat on a County Road, the County would always say they need right-of-way. It tends to come up more on County roads. . Does not like to plat property in a substandard method. Three lots are substandard. The Commission does their best to keep the standards. . If the dedication were required would be against approving the application at this time. There is no question that the driveways proposed would be connected to the County road. Kansier said the County felt the driveways would have to be combined. In essence there would be 3 openings. The County requires driveway pennits. . The applicant did not show a need to divide into 3 substandard lots. L: \0 11iles\0 1 plancomm\O I pcminutes\MN07090] .doc 4 :,: p~ C:mlmiMio" M~ July 9, 200] Stamson: . If you can't compel a dedication, does that mean the City cannot require it at all? Rye said the City would have to purchase the right-of-way if it is needed. . Questioned if the City would develop access through Pheasant Meadows? Rye said the neighbors objected to Pheasant Meadows accessing through their neighborhood. As a result of that, a connection to the west was eliminated. This was retained but the street itselfwas not built It is a platted right-of-way. Dedicated public street . Agreed with Criego and City Staff that it is a matter of convenience to split into 5 lots. They do not meet the standards. . Willing to give the applicant more time to look at the issues. V onhof: . More information was received than was in the report. Suggested obtaining more information before a decision is made. . Agreed with Commissioners on the variance request. Perhaps 4 lots would be more appropriate. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LE.i\1KE, TO DEFER THE MAITER TO THE AUGUST 13, 2001 MEETING. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. ''k... Kansier clarified that staff should i,;ome back with information on access and realignment of the intersection of Highway 13 and 170th. V onhof pointed out that access is in the CIF for the City and County for 2002. Stamson requested addressing the dedication issue. The City cannot compel the applicant to dedicate access.. V onhof explained the actions on this issue. Lemke sugges~d the trustees should leave their addresses with staff for notification. B. Case File -049 Consider an applicatio to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow off-premise na late signs in comm cia! districts. The purpose of this public he ng is to conside amendment to the Sign provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Th applicant, Wensco, is requ . g an amendment that would allow off-premise n late signs in commercial districts. e signs are generany used by multiple te t shopping centers to list the names of the in . 'dual tenants. Examples of th 19n5 were preseI]J:ed. Wensco would like to use this typ f sign to identify the v 'ous businesses located in the Fountain Hills development. The Zoning L '0 1 fileslO 1 plancommlO I pcminutes\MN07090 I.doc 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24,2001 1. Call to Order: Chairman V of called the September 24, 2001, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. ose present were Commissioners Atwoo Criego, Lemke, Stamson and V onhof, Plannin Director Don Rye, Zoning Adminis ator Steve Horsman and Recording Secret Connie Carlson. 3. Present Present Present Present Present 2. Roll Call: Correction: Item 4 age 16 - top of page - orrect Motion vote: Ayes by Stamson, Atwood and Le e, nays by V onhof and Crie The Minut from the September 24, 2001, Plann g Commission meeting were as corrected. Co missioner V onhof read the Public Hearing Stateme and opened the meeting. 4. Public Hearings: '* A. Case Files #01-039 and #01-040 (continued) Consider an application for a preliminary plat to be known as McCormick Acres and consider variances to the minimum lot area for three of the proposed lots for the pr()perty located on the south side of 170th Street, North of Highway 13 and east of Pheasant Meadows. Planning Director Don Rye presented the Planning Report. The Patrick L. McCormick Trust filed an application for a preliminary plat for the 1.85 acre site located on the south side ofCSAH 12 (170th Street), west of Highway 13 and east of Pheasant Meadows. The preliminary plat, to be known as McCormick Acres, consists of 1.85 acres to be subdivided into 5 lots for singe family residences. There are two existing single family dwellings on this site. The application also includes a request for variances to the minimum lot area for 3 of the proposed lots. The Planning Commission initially considered this request on July 9,2001. The Commission tabled action on the request until August 13,2001, in order to allow staff L:\OI files\OI plancomm\OI pcminutes\MN092401.doc 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 2001 and the developer to assemble additional information. On August 13,2001, the Planning Commission further continued the hearing until August 27,2001 at the request of the applicant. The applicant requested an additional continuance to September 24, 2001, due to scheduling conflicts. Staff recommended the following conditions: 1. The plat must be revised to eliminate Lot 5. The remaining lot lines must be reconfigured to provide the minimum lot area for each lot. 2. The existing easement for installation and maintenance of sanitary sewer and water to the property to the south must be identified on the final plat. 3. Prior to final plat approval, the Tree Inventory must be revised so all trees are labeled and it must be signed by a registered land surveyor. 4. The water and sewer service locations must be verified. 5. The applicant must obtain an access permit and any other required permits from Scott County prior to final plat approval. If the variance is approved, conditions #2-5 should be attached to the preliminary plat. Comments from the public: Applicants Tim Arvidson and Kris Busse, said the issues have been covered. Arvidson said one consideration discussed was to acquire additional property from the neighbor, Howard Monnens. Another option is that the first lot could be sold with the log house or created as an outlot. There were no other comments and the floor was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Lemke: . The Commissioners have an obligation not to create a substandard condition where an alternative exists. . Work with the applicant to create an outlot so they have flexibility in the future. · Do not want to create lots that are too small. Criego: . Questioned staff s feeling on the outlot approach. Rye responded the problem is if the outlot is created, there are still two lots that need variances. . Assuming that is fixed, what are the alternatives? Rye said the outlot is not buildable by ordinance. If the outlot is reduced in size to eliminate the need for variances, the most that can happen to it is to be divided between the adjacent lots. If the applicant is able to acquire additional land and solve the lot size problem, then the variance issue goes away. L: \0 I files\O I plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\MN09240 I.doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting September 24. 2001 . If it was an outlot and the other 4 lots became standard, is the width of the outlot wide enough in the future to become. .. Rye said they would have to make the minimum width. . Arvidson responded the lot widths' were substandard because of the County's required right-of-way. . The applicant is correct. Rye explained the original intent of variances to right-of- ways. . Arvidson stated the plat indicates the width at 86 feet. Looking at the property to the east, the County would probably not want the dedication. Arvidson also said in speaking with the County, they did not state they would force the right-of-way, it would be up to the City. . Why does the applicant have to give up the right-of-way to the County? Rye responded they requested it. The City did not come up with this, the County is anticipating the 100 foot right-of-way, the full length of the road improvement. . Agreed with staff s recommendation. The outlot would not serve the purpose. Stamson: . Agreed with staff and fellow Commissioners, there is no hardship. Nothing is being asked from this developer than asked from any other development. . It is important to get the right-of-way now, otherwise it would have to be purchased later. It is standard practice, not unusual. . The outlot is not workable. Once the other 4 lots are conforming, the outlot is not going to become a lot without variances. It doesn't serve any physical purpose for being an outlot. It makes more sense to create 4 lots. . Deny the variance. Atwood: . Agreed with the Commissioners, but cannot get a clear perspective on the property to the east. The City purchasing the right-of-way could cause a problem. They could be dedicating land that would not be used. . Interested in hearing from the County actually requesting the right-of-way. It is assumed they are going to request it. They may see it differently after seeing the entire platted area or allow for a different request. . Rye said it is standard practice to upgrade a road project. State standards will also apply. The County has not even begun to design the project. At this stage, the County may not have any more information. Arvidson suggested stating something in the Developers Agreement or Purchase Agreement stating the City can take the right-of-way. The lots wouldn't be substandard and it wouldn't cost the City anything. Rye responded that was creative and should be reviewed the City Attorney. Vonhof: . Did not believe the variance hardship standards have been met. . Support staffs recommendation with regard to the preliminary plat. L\OI files\OI plancomm\OI pcminutes\MN092401 .doc 3 Planning Commission Meeting September 24,2001 · How the lots develop is up to the applicant. It is not something the Commission can resolve. They can work out the outlot. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, APPROVING RESOLUTION 01- 013PC DENYING THE VARIANCE REQUEST FINDING A LACK OF DEMONSTRATED VARIANCE CRITERIA HARDSHIP. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT KNOWN AS MCCORMICK ACRES AS PRESENTED, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE PLANNING REPORT. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. B. Case File #01-061 Matt and Sandra Tofanelli are requesti g variances to permit a tructure to be setback less than the minimum requir 75 feet from the OHWM; a etback than the minimum required 25 feet front ard; a setback to the side yard lin less than the minimum required 10 feet; and variance to permit an accessory stru ture not compatible in design and materi s with the principal structure for th property located at 15731 West Aven e SE. The applicants wish to construct a detac ed accessory structure in the Shor and District. Zoning Administrator teve Horsman presented the lanning Report. The Planning Departmen eceived a variance a lication from Matt & Sandra Tofanelli for the replacement of a de ched accessory st cture on an existing platted lot of record located at 15731 West A ven . There is an isting single family dwelling located on the lot. The applicant has propose 0 rebuild existing garage and requests the following vanances: line, rather than 25.1- feet 1. 2. A 13-foot variance to rmit a struc e setback of 40-feet from the Ordinary High Water Elevatio (OHWM), rath than the minimum setback of 53-feet as required by setbac averaging. 3. A 2.3-foot vari ce to permit a structure setJ:j k of 8.5-feet from the side property line, rather t minimum setback of 10.8- feet required for the sum of side yards on a onconforming lot of at least 15- feet. 4. A varia e to permit an accessory structure that is not materials with the principal structure. L:\O I files\O I pJancomm\OI pcminutes\MN092401.doc 4