HomeMy WebLinkAbout4F - Eagle Creek Ave
SUBJECT:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
. t<.evDk.ed2_!~/M)J-
~V~~
_ I'lb.lAk ;J /hvedJ.,
rYH;;l !1 ~ ~ iJ .
1> i$cu-!lri~ ·
4F . 'i/r v /
SUE MCDERMOTT, ASSIST ANT CITY ENGINEER
BUD OSMUNDSON, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY
ENGINEER
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF REFUND OF APPLICATION
FEE AND STATUS OF THE VACATION OF EXCESS
RIGHT-OF-WAY AT EAGLE CREEK AVENUE
ADJACENT TO LOTS 46 THROUGH 55, LAKESIDE
PARK.
~
DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
FEBRUARY 2~, 2000
DISCUSSION:
HISTORY
On December 6, 1999 a public hearing was held for the vacation of
a portion of public roadway located in front of Chris Anderson's
property at 16020 Eagle Creek Avenue (Lot 54, Lakeside Park). A
copy of the staff report and minutes from the public hearing are
attached to this report.
The Council denied the vacation request as recommended by staff,
and directed staff to explore the cost of vacating the excess right-
of-way for all of Lots 46 through 55, Lakeside Park at the same
time rather than piecemeal.
CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCES
It was staffs understanding that Scott County had turned back this
portion of Eagle Creek Road, which is a frontage road along
CSAH 21, when CSAH 21 was realigned in the early 1980's.
)0 Neither the City or County have any record of this turnback. Staff
prepared the .a:ffii(;he"d lellt::r rt:y.uesIing mformatIon from Scott
County and has been informed that the County is currently
investigating the excess right-of way for potential turnback to the
City. The City, therefore, has no authority to vacate the excess
right-of-way until the turnback takes place.
1626){)::E'~~reek Ave. S.E., Prior lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 I Ph. (612) 447-4230 I Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
V ACATION.DOC
ISSUES
Once Scott County turns the right of way back to the City, we
would have to complete additional surveying work. For
infonnation purposes, staff contacted Valley Surveying, the
company that completed Chris Anderson's survey, and received a
quote of $1,800..00 to complete the required infonnation for the
roadway vacation work. This compares with the Engineering
Department estimate of the time it would take to complete this
work in-house, which is approximately 44 hours or approximately
$900.00.
CONCLUSION
Staff requests that the Council refund Mr. Anderson's application
fee for the vacation request that was denied on December 6, 1999
since the City will be the petitioner if the Council considers the
entire right of way. If the turnback takes place, staff will bring the
vacation issue back to Council for consideration at that time.
The alternatives are as follows:
1. Authorize the City's Finance Department to issue refund to
Chris Anderson in the amount of $200.00.
2. Defer this item and provide staff with specific direction.
A motion and second as part of the consent agenda authorizing the
City's Finance Department to refund the $200.00 application fee to
Chris Anderson.
January 10,2000
Brad Larson
Scott 'County Highway Department
600 Country Trail East
Jordan, MN 55352-9339'
RE: CSAH 21 RIGHT OF WAY
PRIOR LAKE, MINm:SOT A
Dear Mr. Larson:
The City of Prior Lake has received a request to vacate a portion of right of way along
Eagle Creek Avenue adjacent to the Lakeside Park addition. This segment of Eagle
Creek Avenue was formerly CSA...T.{ 21. There continues to be a question as to whet.\er or
not this roadway was turned back to the City of Prior Lake. The property owner who
initiated the request, Chris Anderson, recently provided staff with a copy of the enclosed
letter and resolution that he received from your office in 1996. Although the letter states
that the "...old 66 foot wide public roadway was revoked by Scott County ... and is now
maintained by the City of Prior Lake," the City has no record of a formal tumback. The
October 23, 1984 resolution appears to revoke the County State Aid Highway
designation, but mentions nothing about turning the roadway back to the City.
It is City staffs opinion that the right-of-way in question remains County right-of-way.
Any information you may have on this issue would be greatly appreciated in the next 30
days so that Mr. Anderson can pursue his request with the appropriate agency. Please call
me at 447-9832 if you have questions.
Sincerely,
JwM~-t-l-
Sue McDermott
Assistant City Engineer
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
Enclosures
cc: Jenni Tov~;PlanI)er
16200~~~~'e~~;<PIior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORl1JNITY EMPLOYER
IT
.r
. SCOTT COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS AND LANDS DIVISION
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
600 COUNTRY TRAIL EAST
JORDAN, MN 55352-9339
. GARY L. CUNNINGHAM (612) 496-8346
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BRAD LARSON
ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR
Fax: (612) 496-8365
March 13, 1996
Chris Anderson
16020 Eagle Creek Ave.
Prior lake, MN 55372
Re: CSAH 21 Right-of-way
Dear Mr. Anderson:
In reply to your recent request, County Highway Department staff have reviewed the public record
as it relates to the right-ot-way adjacent to your lot in "lakeside Park" in the City ot Prior lake and
have determined the following:
.:. Scott Count', acquired the old 100 foot wide raikoad right-of-way and reconstructed
CSAH 21 on it.
.:. The old 66 foot wide public roadway was revoked by Scott County on October 23,
1984 and is now maintained by the City of Prior Lake.
I have enclosed copies of part of the lakeside Pa~k plat which shows the location of the 66 foot
roadway which was revoked, a copy of your survey which shows in red the approximate location
of the present right-ot-way of CSAH 21, and a copy ot the County Board resolution revoking old
CSAH 21.
Because the old ro~dway was revoked. thfLCounty would not have jur~ion over this property./...
and I would recommend that you aQain review this matter with the City ot Prior Lake.
. -
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you need additional information.
~h.1L
Donald M. Fehr
Right-of-Way Agent
DMF/jkf
enc.
An Equal Opportunity/Safety Aware Employer
.,
,
11
.co r, \:UUH j ,. .,"""~.>",..
O~t.
October 23, 1984
Resolution No
84088
Motion by Commiuloner: Mertz
Seconded by Commissioner RnpgpM""
that that portion of County state
as follows be revoked as a County
- -y
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,
Aid Highway No. 21 described
'~h.te A;~ -KiQilWi;?-
,
Beginning at a point on Hain Avenue approximately 106 feet
north of the lnt.r~ection of Main Avenue and Colorado
Street; thence southerly on'Hain Avenue to its intersection
with Pleasant Street; thence westerly on Pleasant Street to
its intersection with West ~venue; thence northerly
approximatelY 1060 feet and there terminating,
AND
Beginning at its Intersection with Lakeside Avenue, thence
northwesterlY a distance of approximately 510 feet and
there terminating.
,
YES
Koniatskl X
Worm X
Mertz. X
Stromwall Absent
Boegeman X
NO
Konlarskl
Wonn
Mertz
StromwaU
Boegeman
ltate of Mlnne~ta } SlI.
c:.-tr 1If~
i. _...,....... o..l'I-,"" ~ _ KtinQ ~ -....,.,.... c-.,... - SlateOC_a. do ....1bJ...,.".-
._ __ ... ''''~ ...., of a res" lilt inn ..........,~ .......1" oIl"'",oc-..gs 01_ _d 01 CooHoly c:om-..._...
$colt c-c,. _.. II...... _ held........ ..ZJ.o;ld.,., Ilctoheu. ..M_............, ..."'.._..... I.""" Ift...- "~a
---........., ~.
W_...,,,__uIl__"__,_.-
ICA'", .
24th _ .,......'... .
o "~~-J.A_-:-
-.-
T
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DECEMBER 6, 1999
7B
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER
DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 99-XX DENYING
THE VACATION OF A PORTION EAGLE CREEK AVENUE
(pUBLIC HEARING)
Historv: On October 11, 1999 the Planning Department received an
application from Chris Anderson requesting the vacation of the portion
of public roadway located in front of his property at 16020 Eagle
Creek Avenue. The purpose of the vacation is to give Mr. Anderson
more property in the front yard, resulting in a sufficient area for a
future garage. While variances to imoervious surface and nossihlv
- - ... .1.-'
setbacks would be needed for a future garage, the variance request
would be rrtinimized with greater lot area. Mr. Anderson is proposing
to vacate 26.50 feet of right of way with 13 feet being retained in a
utility easement for the City.
The existing frontage road is the old CR 21. The City obtained the
frontage road from the County after the improvements were made to
CR 21 within the old railroad right-of-way. The turn back occurred
prior to 1984 and the City has no record of the transaction. There are
legal issues regarding who the property would be conveyed to if the
vacation were approved. The frontage road was not dedicated as part
of a plat, so ownership of the vacate right-of-way would revert to the
original property owners or those having interest in said subdivided
property. The City is currently researching future owners if the
vacation is approved. .-
Current Circumstances: Notice of this proposal was sent to the DNR.
Attached is a letter stating there is no objection to the proposed
vacation. The DNR points out variances may be needed for a future
garage.
As required by State Statute 462.356 Subd.2, the Planning
Commission is required to make a recommendation to the City
Council regarding the disposal or acquisition of public lands as it
I:\99fi1es\99vac\99-083\99083cc2.doc Page I
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
relates to the compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. On November
8, 1999 the Planning Commission recommended the City Council
deny the proposed vacation as requested. The Planning Commission
also recommended the City Council pursue vacating the excess
roadway for all of Lots 46-55, Lakeside Park.
Upon proper notification, State Statute 412.851 allows the Council to
vacate easement o~ right-of-way by resolution. The statute also states
that "no such vacation shall be made unless it appears to be in the
public interest to do so". The Planning Commission is of the opinion
it is not in the public interest to vacate a portion ofthe excess right-of-
way for a single property owner. It makes more sense from a policy
point of view to consider vacating all or nothing, rather than
piecemeal.. .
The Issues: The City Council must make two determinations. Does
the vacation of the existing roadway comply with the Comprehensive
Plan and is there a public need or .anticipated future need for the
dedicated property?
An objective of the Comprehensive Plan is to maintain a choice of and
enCQurage development of quality residential development. The
requested vacation would allow the opportunity to improve the quality
of development on this lot in the future. . Another objective of the
Comprehensive Plan is to enact and maintain policies and ordinances
to ensure the public safety, health, and welfare. By granting the City
adequate utility and drainage easements, the public welfare will not be
degraded.
It is not in the public interest to vacate the right-of-way for a single
property as requested. There are utilities located within the right-of-
way affecting many properties. There are also several encroachments
on this frontage road and the City should consider vacating the
unnecessary roadway adjacent to Lots 46 through 55 with the granting
of easements as necessary. . It would be more in the public interest to
vacate a portion of the right-of-way for Lots 46 thrQugh 55, [ather than
to proceed with the vaca~ion for an individual property owner. (The
portion of the right-of-way in which the road is located would be
retained.)
Conclusion: While the intent of the Comprehensive Plan will be met,
there is a public interest in retaining the entire right-of-way as platted.
The Planning Commission and staff recommend denial of the request
as submitted. The Planning Commission recommends the City
Council direct staff to pursue vacating the entire excess right-of-way
for Lots 46 through 55 to reduce nonconfonmties of the lots with'e
1:\99fi1es\99vac\99-083\99083cc2.doc
Page 2
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
respect to lot area, impervious surface, and structure setbacks.
Because the City would have to pay for the cost of the vacation
(survey and legal documentation), staff would bring back a
recommendation to the City Council regarding initiating the vacation
with respect to cost and a review of the legal ownership when vacated.
The City Council has three alternatives:
1. Adopt Resolution 99- XX denying the vacation of a portion of the
road adjacent to 16020 Eagle Creek Avenue.
2. Deny Resolution 99-XX.
3. Direct staff to pursue vacating the excess right-of-way for all of
Lots 46 through 55, Lakeside Park.
4. Defer this item and provide staffwith specific direction.
Staff recommends Alternative #1 and Alternative #3. A motion and
second to approve Resolution 99-XX denying vacation of the road
adjacent to 16020 Eagle Creek Avenue and direct staff to pursue
vacating the excess right-of-way for all of Lots 46 through 55,
Lakeside Park.
Frank
Manager
1:\99files\99vac\99-083\99083cc2.doc
Page 3
RESOLUTION 99-XXX
RESOLUTION DENYING THE VACATION OF 26.50 FEET OF EAGLE CREEK
AVENUE LOCATED ADJACENT TO 16020 EAGLE CREEK AVENUE
BY: SECOND BY:
WHEREAS, a petition for the vacation of 26.50 feet of Eagle Creek Avenue has been duly
presented to the City of Prior Lake, signed by the owners of the property
abutting the following described easement situated in the City of Prior Lake,
Scott County, Minnesota to wit:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
That.portion of the 66.00 foot public roadway shown on the plat of
LAKESIDE PARK, Scott County, Minnesota, adjacent to Lots 53 and 54
of said plat described as follows:
Beginning at the northeast comer of Lot 54 of said plat; thence easterly
along the easterly'extension of the northerly line of said Lot 54, to its
intersection with a line drawn parallel with and distant 26.50 feet
easterly (as measured at right angles) of the easterly line of said Lots 54
and 53, of said plat; thence southeasterly along said parallel line to its
intersection with the easterly extension of the southerly line of the north
2.50 feet of said Lot 53; thence westerly along said easterly extension to
the easterly line of said Lot 53; thence northwesterly along said easterly
line and the easterly line of said Lot 54, to the point of beginning; and
WHEREAS,
notice of the hearing on said petition has been duly published and posted in
accordance with the applicable Minnesota Statutes, and
WHEREAS,
a Public Hearing was held on said petition on Monday, December 6, 1999, at
7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers atthe Prior Lake Fire Station #1; and .~
WHEREAS,
the City Council then proceeded to hear all persons interested in said petition .
and persons interested afforded the opportunity to present their views and
objections to the granting of said petition; and
WHEREAS,
The Planning Commission considered the vacation on November 8, 1999 and
recommended the City Council deny the request as it is not in the public
interest to vacate the excess right-of-way for au individual property owner on a
street and recommended the City Council ttr~ vacating the excess right-of-
way for all of Lots 46 through 55, Lakeside Park; and
f:\dept\planning\99files\99vac\99-083\rs99xxcc.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNI1Y EMPLOYER
WHEREAS, the City Council of Prior Lake has determined that the vacation of said road
right-of-way would not be in the public interest.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE,
that pursuant to Minnesota Statues 412.851, the 26.50 feet of right-of-way of Eagle
Creek Avenue (16020 Eagle Creek Avenue) described above in the City of Prior Lake,
Scott County, Minnesota to be vacated" is hereby denied.
Passed and adopted this 6th day of December, 1999. "
YES
NO
MADER . MADER
KEDROWSKI KEDROWSKI
PETERSEN PETERSEN
SCHENCK SCHENCK
WUELLNER WUELLNER
Frank Boyles,City Manager
CitY of Prior Lake
{Seal}
f:\dept\planning\99files\99vac\99-083\rs99xxcc.doc
Page 2
ca.
~~a\\(.~a'l ~ . '.:_.
,,'N"''''''"' . --- .----~
. . ---------- ~'-'-
...----- .
------- .
______-/ ~Op. 0 /<
~GE . ,~,"~'c~~/ .......
fROl'l . .... _.r.L "o~-<.
,~~ d' -..' ~
..---~ ..... . \ . ~ .
. . \
. _..~-;.,.i"\I""''''';;,,: _.' . ~; "'l~
"..::::.:t:;...qe . ';:.
_ . _------=::::"' E""""'"
--r!",~""n!\ ~;~-10
z . ~ ,'1(\ I~r OF\_ ~~~~41ll< I:
",OW E I' . -""'"
of; :I:w' / -_Ji_ I \ I' ~. --_~~41 1
I.L. ...... ~ 0 _ _ -' I \ . 0 -.
g ". '" ' , .. ..-.---
6 -l ~ :5 t: 8 {1\' T ....J--\i--- J"
-wo w _ ..----". E
~ z w'" 0 ~ f f~O~1,.o
'" :J ~ Q "'.:: ,~E' 0 "E \ ",0,,,0
'" '" > '" z I ~,o ,0 \
owoo..- I~
1.L.~Cl:I.L.O: ~l
" z~ ftOw .
w-3....... W
~w .>z .~
~ ~ ~ ;; !:: ~ :; E.'\'i \\I'
f-;;>uw
~1I.00_'"
l t.p.GL-t.
V'
RO~O
:J.>- ;..:.:~.)>
......
.~ ..;.' " .
, ,---
u. )
,. ,,",
.> ~ )
\ (.....
~)
r:-z~
! ~
r : ~ J
~. ~ ~
~{~
J i
rto.i
v-;
If)'
o J
-,
....
of
4J !
c:'
:.::1
.::: I
3/
01
CI)/
I
...
o
1
...lo-
'oJ
.r"'
~I
::
...
o
~
iZI -
=S!
........
o 0
QI-
e: iZI
'::;QI
.r:'"
::;0
olf)
CI)'
f\J
.'
/" '\ ~
~ g'
~ ~
C'
VI 0
... 's
'ul c:>
EXISTING PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Lot 54, and the north 2.50 feet of Lot 53, LAKESIDE PARK, Scott County, Minnesota. .'
RECOWvtENDED DESCRIPTION FOR V ACA TION:
A request to vacate fthat portion of the 66.00 foot public roadway shown on the plat of
LAKESIDE PARK, Scott County, Minnesota, adjacent to Lots 53 and 54 of said plat
described as follows:
Beginning at the northeast comer of Lot 54, of said plat; thence easterly along the
easterly extension of the northerly line of said Lot 54, to its intersection with a line drawn
parallel with and distant 26.50 feet easterly (as measured at right angles) of the easterly
line of said Lots 54 and 53, of said plat; thence southeasterly along said parallel line to its
intersection with ~e easterly extension of the southerly line of the north 2.50 feet of said
Lot 53~ thence westerly along said easterly extension to the easterl)' line of said Lot 53:
thence northwesterly along said easterly line and the easterly line of said Lot 54, to the
point of beginning. I
Reserving to the City of Prior Lake an easement for public watermain and utility
purposes over, under and across the easterly 13.00 feet and the northerly 9.00 feet of the
above described property.
Also granting to the .City of Prior Lake, an easement for public utility purposes that part
of Lot 54, LAKESIDE PARK, Scott County Minnesota, described as follows:
Beginning at the northeast comer of said Lot 54; thence westerly along the northerly li~e.
of.said Lot 54, a distance of 3.00 feet~ thence sou.therly at rightangle~ .~ distance of Q.i1t1
feet; thence easterly parallel with said northerly line to the easterly line of said Lot 54:
thence northerly along said easterly line to the point of beginning.
16020 Eagle Creek Avenue
I 4'1 1 '~. 5' . ~~~'\:\\'--' \
'\ · .1. ~ . . . . ,'r ~
. .J-' '" " l.J
. \V--
C:i. 6' '.
.
~~
~
(&;.\\, ~r. . . i}J
: IF"ijL
r-;- ... ~1"JJ....
l"-:- &;iij
-' 1-' '.--C:- \'~
".~ ~I
I
/
~"'-- ~
) \\\DJ.... W
\' . II en : ~
.. z ..
""' "
" ..
,--=-.. -
r-. 11 ~
~"."'..'~\ \ ~o . '~/PRIOR. ..' 1
a i .;; -L OADfJ t---- :..-... ; t
~ .."-\ ~ ~ :- gl.T:T:\~ .' -7 RLS.
I """,, . .1/t=.J~~ $
.. "' 1-.....1 -..p~CA"~ ' """'.
, . " '1 J I' 0 .
I.~ ~.....,.. I
,- .. . .., .
- ..~" . ~. . r
~ ~"" . '.\.'.2T . ~
f1 ~ :;"' ~ . .' ..~' .~.. ; :.. :
~~ ~S~, ...."" ~"\.'\.~ r-----. 3 i : ~
~ \\ \\1 I r-. "":.... . . ~
.~~ ~ Ffif3 P;: I --r---: ': I
..~, ..I.Hflo. r"
~.. ,." ~. · I~~" .. ~! ; I+. ...... IT.. ..U .: ~Rrr71
I .. . :" ~ ....I~ ".. u.. IT n ~ ' . . ~ ~ 10 .. .. a ~: ST" ~ tt . ~ " . ~ I~
: ~ :::\:j/~ .." .Il. I. ~r .... ..1.. ~ ' .. .. ~"';' ..... .. .. .... I
~ : :tI;;~'I;~,",'e~z ~~. AV, '.....t....,1 lL r r ""....'
. .. ~.Il c J I. I' . ~, ,I II
. , ~.. .. . ESJI,TES -
.-..- .. J 2llCJ A' ~ ......:: I 2J :tI ~ 7 S.
~ ~'-'- ~ ~'"~,-; ~- -
~ .... ",.",a1OO1'lo. 7;h......... ~ I--
J --:-. ,. P-U.L:B" y~n",r
... :::!I' '!!i1. ". - I--
.
~ '. '.
Lakefli nt Park
..
r;<Jl'
..
~~..
r;<Jl' ~o1 '
I Site Location ~
FRICR VI<E
'--
. MOtI8.'OfoIlCH
-
o
I
400
800
1200
1600 Feet
I
~
N
CR 21 Frontage Road Parcels
Site Location .
o
r
100. 200
300 Feet
I
~
N
12/01/99
r.:'::-~"':'> r~~' ~,-:~'-."--''''
:'.' .:; :,.2::~: ~:~~_~~_~_..-.. _._._ Oh
I" ::
Minnesota Department of N atural Resourg~~
DNR Waters. 12llO Warner Road. St. Paul. MN 5511U: i', \
Phone: 651-772-7910 Fax: 651-772-7977 \j
OGT27~
'.'Ui :1"
i~1
October 26, 1999
Ms. J enni Tovar
Planner
City of Prior Lake
16000 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN'55372
RE: APPLICATION BY CHRIS ANDERSON FOR STREET VACATION, EAGLE CREEK
AVENUE
Dear Ms. Tovar:
I have reviewed the above referenced proposal to vacate a frontage road for the purpose of
. .
creating space to build a garage. DNR has no objection to this request. Please by advised that
the construction of a garage on this lot may require a variance to the City of Prior Lake's
impervious surface ordinance.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 651-772-7910.
Sincerely,
\=lJ/~
Patrick J. L;~'
Area Hydrologist
DNR Information: 651-296-6157 · 1-888-646-6367 · TIY: 651-296-5484 · 1-800-657-3929
An Equal OpportUnity Employer
Who Values Diversity
4"\ Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a
'.... Minimum of 10"10 Post-Consumer Waste
0'
~
~
~~
''\
r"
l~
~
{
i
,
N,
.. ~ Co
~~l.,.>,'rlnl~ r
~ /try (~.If" M II;.- k~ It,.,' rf lei f~E:J.rPE 1lntt\
il ~ it',.,.d.''ff'~""f.",,,, rr./lI ~";". ~'),f 11113.-I'l('ef ,..1 ",,!\r',.ll!..t,y),'I/Id
,.,., "."uA, ,.'In.r'/ /lW"'I: ",.oJ /", nl""''''''';' ,..... ~ .....,N~' ",...,J h JI}I
~ n. ''''~'I . . '" ~ .
:Jv,.1"/-/fr(0i*L-_ .:t-/')')~
:J~N4' ..."J .1<1"11 /p M'i~ ,.". 1)1 rt1 eM)' K ';-br;~y I"/;l
/hf-fLt~!-~~.J1rn
i}~".\.....fL~
--
JW a.,.,,-!C.~rl~f....,,{ 1r7", ~"t" "'lV. """"'1 ,r..
~ ,{ tN~' [,0 ,,, C^' {it.f It' .f Il ~ :;e..i c.:.l~ir. t. itt",H!; IH Min..,;
~~ "I" pt.71 M (1)1 ~...7 '" "".,..lA. Il t. .'1(1 f.'rf ~''f ! ~w.
w,t)1f" iF IN /(,./- rf .1.<1'....' t,"~, a ..,.,/ "..,....;'1 (~ t:. '~l (I" ,
~ I( t'..t I'" r...f. tIH"" ,t tJ r,.", f'lf.,U If E'rI .f] ff.'tl ~,f/1
, If,.", ~ '. . :JU'C U'''M'. 1pf#/(ft'""'.C t1(M
. ". ",.". r. J,J. '. . r( J"J1'~ Ill. .' ' t( ~.,,. C 1-' .
, /{ 1/~" C 1jf '. . If Jf' l JIS' . 'l;" t: la'
, If ,.,... c ,. Jt ~(h~" ~w .IV h ,/ A'1f ROle ....t. f:..7f" ~ 1Iitft.
~ I1f n /." ~...iI /'t'm m:<I.#. ~ tp ffH r(CC-">1 ,.,{ 1,,1 ~ ,If;
h-Ce 111'''''<(>1 ...b~ "...of 'I' L,)II /1W'r/t. "'11 ft.! ,., ~ f(t:~,1""'''/W iii!/'
. ;w,,' ;(, ruf'" h: ~I:,... r{ fit...; iA'f.., ttif'7n 1: A .fliNt' "(,"1"...:3
,k ,~ tI- .cI.<a ,f f'r-"'" J'.~'" " ..J"iJ ,( h.n A hT .' . '.'1 ,.. " .
u../~I':"ohl ,{ .n,,,.,,... ft,., flrrr- U.,. '1"/.:>1"",.. f......:.. 'tY /1..~
l~I/1 h 1"''''' l' ,,",.7.. . C!, ~",,~., A'irrid.-:l rlt;("~. ..'~,.c.,;.;f M.
rt-".,.... "'" i''''''''''' ,Ill' "nJ.",.("f}'? ,1,M',.:.,o I^~ 1';'1,1.1.-..<1 Awl' ~
'Iv h ,\;,.-,,,,,. Ltu..l:.:JIlJC r'{i[(f\'
r/'t/ln"'lf"J..~; ~;~r'--
.. ' .
---
:;f"rt ef IIK"'(x';.}" .' .
Cr.",)' -- 3"..1(
0, ,'11., /0 ~ t!'1.t>/ fib .1/., t1fl'l<1/'1d toIfo.7 ~ o-..,oJ ""rpbt,
""tI "!'" .1-.rr~"'" ".J ..,f, n.,(f pdT cW.I' t'. ~lI""'ItJ'1td /1"'/ ~l
Ilte,t:'lt! III ,,{ot'o" cu'l.f.e'/c ~. c!'d,CII1"'/1 ". /1,.;,- (,." ,..J ,.,;1 c!~d
~~,~.....tJ;..~.
-.k"..,c~J.~
rfftt.-;R;/ti.6-.' 7f~1:.
171' ~""h<>1li;v~,fbY"":,
.. --.i4-1.Jo ..
-
':
I ht..,fo", r~ ". ~I .1"" !>:>,.t!" c,. ';. :"'I1"l ,...."'.'J cf _'tcdI c...
r1.",,,..,~ '"" (/'1 'r' 0.')' ..f. ',. .,~.; /'; (I....1y "F'P,p"ed drl "l"".. f'St.
it LtttCr)IDC Aitft(. I
'(~:~Y';.'; ;~.h;. "~y (;,:77ill'1
,
riiiii'h .'
I
1 . :.. ..~.
.~ ""'~'''.
: '.. .:. i.UZ~' '.
t. J .. ~ 1f_-"I.:
""_...... ~
PiCltJL .'
J.~J1JlE~
Planning Commission Minutes
November 8. 1999
Krier said he would like to address some ofthe Commissioner's concerns. The
Commissioners felt it was not appropriate to reconsider this issue because of staffs
concerns about review time and the fact that persons appearing for the public hearing
were not present.
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
~
-7
A. Case File 99-083 Chris Anderson is requesting a vacation of a portion of
frontage road located adjacent to 16020 Eagle Creek Avenue.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated November 3, 1999, on file in
the office ofthe City Planner.
The Planning Department received an application from Chris Anderson requesting the
vacation ofthe portion of public roadway located in front of his property. The purpose
of the vacation is to give Mr. Anderson more property in the front yard, resulting in a
private area for a future garage. While variances would be needed for a future garage, the
variance request would be minimized with greater lot area. Mr. Anderson is proposing to
vacate 26.50 feet of right-of-way with 13 feet being retained in a utility easement for the
City. The intent of the Comprehensive Plan will be met, however, there is a public
interest in retaining the entire right-of-way as platted. Planning staff recommended
denial ofthe request as submitted.
Comments from the public:
Chris Anderson, 16020 Eagle Creek Avenue, felt there was adequate distance to the road
for utilities. He would like to build a garage stating his neighbors would like to see him
complete it as soon as possible. Anderson would like to expedite the process. Neighbors
signed a petition in support.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
. Concurred with staff to vacate the entire portion of properties along the frontage t{)ad.
It would solve the problems and make the neighborhood more attractive.
· There is no public interest.
. Agreed with staffto deny this request and vacate the entire roadway. Do not vacate
the right-of-way in a piecemeal fashion.
Vonhof:
. Agreed. As an action of this now, it should be denied. There should be a companion
motion brought before the Commission for the entire area.
1:\99fi\es\99p1comm\pcmin\mn 11 0899.doc
9
Planning Commission Minutes.
NOl'ember 8. 1999
Cramer:
. Agreed with the Commissioners' views. Vacate the entire portion.
Tovar said this action will go before the City Council on December 6;1999. The process
of vacating the. entire roadway by the residents could take 3 to 6 months. It could be a
. .
costly project for the City.
Anderson said the entire street was surveyed in 1994 by Valley Survey. It would only
. have to be updated.
'Rye said the City needs a survey of what needs to be vacated.. It is a priy.?-t~ roadway.
. ...~~,...~ ..- '-~-'~
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO DENY THE VACATION
. .
REQUEST AS PRESENTED.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO RECOMMEND CITY
COUNCIL RESEARCH THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR VACATION.
'.
Vote taken sigIlified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Case File 99-069 Charlotte Roehr is requesting the vacat~on of a portion of.
Red Oaks Road adjacent to Lots 27-37, Red Oaks. . .
Planiring Director Don Rye presented the P"IanPiIlgReport dated November 8, 1999, on
file in the office of the Plan Director. . .
City Ordinance Section 1105.402 requires road access for uses permitted within .
designated flood areas to have road access at or above an elevation of not more than 2
feet below the regulatory flood protection elevation. Therefore, the minimum road ~ccess
for structures on Prior Lake is 907.9. Charlotte Roehr has received an OHW setbaclc and .'
driveway width variances. A condition of the variance was the road be elevated as
required by City Ordinance. Considering the road is public, there are options for a
private property owner to construct such improvements. Such options include entering
into a "Private Use of Public Property" Agreement, petitioning the City for a public
improvement project, or requesting the City vacate the road.
The intent of the Comprehensive Plan will be met as well as s~tisfying the public need for
the utility/dniinage easements. The Planning staff recommended approval of the vacation
of the roadway subject to the granting of a drainage and utility easement over the
roadway being vacated.
1:\99fi1es\99plcomm\pcmin\mn II 0899.doc
10
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes
December 6,1999
of the road; and (2) the vacation issue. The point is that whether this is a private improvement of a
public road, or an improvement of a vacated road, the plan is essentially the same. Asked the Council
to consider action which would alleviate a significant hardship for the applicant. Because of the unusual
circumstances of this case, there is little precedent set by the requested action that would put the City
at risk.
MADER: Empathized with the applicant's situation, but noted that it is unreasonable to ask the Council
to consider an application that has not been applied for through the proper channels. Agreed that this
is an administrative decision.
SCHENCK: Asked staff if the DNR objects to the vacation, could they also reject the privat~
improvement of the public road? Is there a separate DNR approval process if the parties agree to a
private use of public property agreement.
BYE: It is not unreasonable to assume that the DNR would object to the improvement because the
DNR permit process is not simply divisional waters sign-off. The permits must be approved by other
divisions. Potentially, the trails and waterways division could object to that particular permit as a result
of the any vacation to which they also objected. Then question then becomes how the DNR balances
that objection in granting or not granting that permit. There would be no additional approval process if
the parties could agree on a private use of public road agreement.
Mayor MADER clarified that upon no further motion, the administration of the building permit would be
left to the discretion of staff.
Consider Approval of Resolution 99-132 Denying the Vacation of a Portion of Eagle Creek
Avenue.
Mayor MADER declared the public hearing open.
TOVAR: Gave a brief overview of the request in connection with the staff report, and advised the
Council of Planning Commission recommendation. .
MADER: Clarified that this is a public right-of-way, and asked if there is some indication that there is a v
record of the turnback prior to 1984? Supported the resolution with the direction that staff explore 7\
vacating the additional right-of-way, rather than pursue which may be misleading.,
TOVAR: Noted that the City Engineer at that time indicates th'at the road was turned back to the City
together with several others in 1984. Staff has not located any City Council resolution accepting such a
turnback. Currently, she is following up with the County in order to locate the information.
SCHENCK: Is this a request for an attached or detached garage. Asked what the process to bring the
other affected properties into compliance.
TOVAR: There is no plan at this time from Mr. Anderson. The vacation would either eliminate or reduce
the encroachment for the remaining affected properties. The issue with Mr. Anderson's neighbors is
the costs associated with surveying. So, Mr. Anderson has applied separate from his neighbors. There
4
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes
December 6, 1999
have been no objections through the public hearing process by the neighbors. This process initiates \
the vacation through which notices will be required to all the affected property owners.
KEDROWSKI: The assumption is that if the Council initiates the action, the City will incur the costs of the !
survey.
RYE: That is correct, but it wasn't the staff's intent to go out and start surveying.
MADER: Stated that his understanding was that this action would direct staff to determine if the
vacation is possible, to what extent and at what cost.
~: Asked if there are utility easements affected, and if the encroachments on the other properties
are encroaching the utilities as well.
TOVAR: Explained that the utilities are located within the right-of-way, including the City water service,
and that Mr. Anderson and, if necessary, the additional property owners may need to convey additional
easement area for maintenance access.
.ctlRI.S ANDERSON (applicant): Noted that he has spent a lot of time and money in applying for the
applications, and hopes that his initiative would have some bearing on his being able to start his project
as soon as possible.
MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY SCHENCK TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. .,
VOTE: Ayes Mader. Kedrowski, Petersen. Wuellner and Schenck, the motion carried. \
PETERSEN: Asked if it is possible to turn over Mr. Anderson's parcel more quickly than completing the
string of eight properties.
fr
MADER: The Council could probably act upon Mr. Anderson's application more quickly than all of the
properties collectively, but there is a larger issue as to the process, the overall impact to the street, and
the costs to the City.
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 99-132 DENYING
THE VACATION OF 26.50 FEET OF EAGLE CREEK AVENUE LOCATED ADJACENT TO 16020
EAGLE CREEK AVENUE.
A friendly. amendment was offered by Mayor MADER to change the language in the fifth "whereas"
from pursue to explore. The friendly amendment was accepted by Councilmembers PETERSEN and
WUELLNER.
KEDROWSKI: Commented that he would not be supporting the motion. This applicant has met the
requirements of the process. There is no practical public purpose served by denying the application.
The property we are discussing .is not in any manner an essential piece of public right-of-way.
BOYLES: Advised that counsel has suggested that Mr. Anderson could enter into a public use of private
property agreement, which would allow him to build the garage, and in the meantime staff would
explore vacating the remaining properties.
5
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes
December 6,1999
WUELLNER: Noted that by using a private use of public property agreement, the applicant would not be
able to use the vacated portion as part of his impervious surface calculation, and there is a question of
to whom the property would revert.
TOVAR: Suggested that the Council could also continue consideration of the application until February
11, 2000, which would allow staff to acquire the remaining information, and not hold up Mr. Anderson's
request indefinitely.
MADER: Concerned with the implication that the City has to give up public property for a private
purpose simply because someone wants it. An effort to address the problem on the whole street is
appropriate.
WUELLNER: Asked if a joint application from the neighbors would speed up the process.
*
~: A majority of the property owners could submit an application and it certainly would speed up the
process, but the larger issue is the legal description. For the neighbors to develop a legal description,
would incur survey costs.
KEDROWSKI: Clarified that staff is not comfortable with its current information regarding the underlying
ownership of the property. Would support a motion to continue and allow staff to provide the legal
description information.
. Staff clarified that the Council could vacate the property, but it would be unclear what was being \'
vacated or where it would transfer. i
Mayor MADER called the question. J
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Petersen and Wuellner, Nay by Kedrowski and Schenck, the motion carried.
The Council took a brief recess.
Truth-In- Taxation Hearing for Proposed 2000 City Budgets.
Mayor MADER declare the public hearing open.
BOYLES: Gave an overview of the Budget process, including the public meetings, the notice of
proposed total budget and property tax levy, the City Council direction to provide a budget with no tax
increase, expenditure pressures of population and household growth, total budget and total levy
comparisons from 1999 to 2000, City personnel comparisons from 1999 to 2000, major contributors to
the budget increase, non-tax revenue increases, estimated property tax impact, and the City's on-going
efforts to cut the cost of government. Also noted that materials are included in the packets distributed
that show the revenue sources associated with the proposed 2000 budget. Further briefly described
the enterprise fund budgets, and concluded with a comparison of City services with other personal
expenses.
6