Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7A - Pindle Petition Road Imp.STAFF AGENDA REPORT AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: DATE: 7A LARRY ANDERSON, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS CONSIDER PETITION FROM CHARLES PRINDLE ET AL TO ORDER · FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT , JAN UARY 17, 1995 INTRODUCTION: BACKGROUND: The purpose of this Agenda item is to have City Council consider the request from Charles C. Prindle to initiate a Feasibility Study for the public acquisition of right-of-way and construction of public street improvements. The request for acquisition for public right-of-way and infrastructure improvements is from the lot owners of Lots 2 and 4, Meadowlawn First Addition. Attached is a copy of the request dated September 30, 1994. Aisc enclosed is "Exhibit A" showing the requested area for improvements. This drawing shows a concept layout of how the area may develop. A half section map, "Exhibit B", is included showing the overall area and location of Lots 2 and 4, Meadowlawn First Addition. The request of the petitioner is to have public infrastructure installed so that development of the property (subdivision) can occur. The petitioners have requested the adjacent benefitting property owners to participate in the improvement process either privately or publicly. The adjacent property owners have elected not to sign the petition which would provide right-of-way and the construction of infrastructure to allow Lots 2 and 4, Meadowlawn First Addition to develop. If a petitioner initiates a public improvement project by petition, the owners of not less than 35% in frontage of the real property abutting on the streets named in the petition must sign the petition initiating the project. The City requested a clarification of the extent to which the improvement is requested in order to determine if the petition was signed by 35% of the property owners as required by State Statute. The attached letter dated November 18, 1994, was received from Miles Lindberg of BRW Inc. The letter also included the area to be constructed. Please note that Mr. Lindberg's letter confirms that the 35% frontage requirement is not being met. Staff has reviewed the petition and finds that approximately 25% of the property owners abutting the public improvements are represented. The petition does not meet the thresholds set forth in Minnesota State Statute 429. The law does allow City Council to initiate public improvement projects without a petition from property owners. Previous practice has been that 16200 Eagle Creek Ave., Prior Lake, Minnesota 553. ~.2-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER DISCUSSION: ISSUES: ALTERNATIVES: if the Council does initiate the Feasibility Study then the Council would not approve the public hearing for the project unless a majority of the property owners support the project. This practice is intended to reduce the likelihood of assessment appeals. Staff does not believe that there is adequate support by benefitting property owners for the proposed improvements. In early December, Larry Anderson contacted Fanny Griffith who owns Lot 1, Meadowlawn First Addition and one half of the 80 acres to the north of the plat. Fanny indicated that she is opposed to the development of her property. The attached letter dated December 14, 1994, from City Manager Frank Boyles informs Mr. Prindle that the petition does not meet the Statute requirements, and that the City Council will consider this at the January 17, 1995, Council meeting. The petition received does not meet the requirements of Minnesota Statutes 429 for the Feasibility Study to be initiated by the petition process. The City Council can initiate the Feasibility Study without a petition. If the Council initiates the Feasibility Study, the public hearing for the requested improvements would probably not be approved based upon previous actions without support by the majority of the property owners. The only way to conclusively determine the degree of public support is to conduct the public hearing. If the project is unsuccessful the question of who will pay for the estimated $5,000 Feasibility Study cost arises? The petitioner in his September 30, 1994, letter acknowledges that they have been unable to develop solutions which are acceptable to all property owners. Approval of the requested improvements will probably result in assessment appeals and possibly financial participation in this project by the City. The petitioner is requesting improvements which are not supported by Minnesota State Statute 429. Initiation of the project by the City Council may result in a public hearing which is not supported by the majority of the property owners. The petition and development of the area appear to be premature. A section of the requested improvements requires Carriage Hills Road to be improved. Carriage Hills Road for this section is not in the five year CIP, nor is there funding allocated for this. The alternatives are as follows: . Deny the petition request to initiate a Feasibility Study for public improvements and right-of-way acquisition. . Initiate a Feasibility Study without a petition from the property owners on the condition that the Feasibility Study cost estimated to be $5,000 is paid by the petitioner, in the event the project is not approved. 3. Table. this item with specific direction to staff for further research. -2- RECOMMENDATION: FINANCIAL IMPACT: ACTION REQUIRED: AG195A.ENG Staff recommends alternative number 1 because the petition does not meet State Statutes and there is very little likelihood that a majority of the benefitting property owners will support the project. There is no financial impact if alternative number I is approved. If other alternatives are pursued and a public hearing is approved, the City Council may have assessment appeals which could have a financial impact on the City. Make a motion t~the request for a Feasibility Study and public · i oveme~.. RE~/IEW~ ! -3- September Mr. Frank Boyles, City Manager City of Prior Lake 4629 Dakota Street S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 Subject: Public Street Access to Lots 2 and 4 Meadowlawn First Addition '66ir t, 100 ttOitl,:l JO ,U.13 .,']31:t:10 'tt9 X.U3 Dear Mr. Boyles: Since we last spoke in March concerning how our family might accomplish public street access to our properties in the Meadowlawn Addition, we have followed the recommendations of your March 18, 1994 letter. We have reviewed alternative access scenarios with our Planning Consultant, BRW, Inc., and have settled on a configuration which we believe to be the best for us, and for the neighboring properties. We have attempted to involve the adjoining property owners (whose property would be needed for the access) in arriving at a solution which all can support. We have been unsuccessful in our attempts to develop solutions which are acceptable to us and them. This puts us in the position where we feel we have only two forms of recourse: · Request that the City Council initiate a Feasibility Study for the public acquisition of needed fight-of-way, and for the construction of a public street access to our property, as outlined in your letter. Or, · Pursue legal remedies through the Court system. Our attorney advises us that we have sufficient grounds to initiate a lawsuit arguing inverse condemnation on the basis of withheld public access to our property. We are not interested in pursuing the latter course of action except as a last resort. For this reason we are, by this letter, and by the attached Petition, requesting that the Prior Lake City Council take the necessary steps to provide the public street access needed to subdivide and develop our property. We provide the following reasons, which have been discussed previously with you and your Staff, for the consideration of the City Council. 1. Past actions of the City of Prior Lake have caused the installation of trunk sanitary sewer and watermain, for which we are paying dearly, and which principally benefits others. The assessments for these improvements have become a financial burden for our family, and by themselves provide no prospect for the recovery of our investment through the development and sale of our property. Mr. Frank Boyles September~ Page 2 e . The original Meadowlawn Plat, filed in the early part of this century, made no provisions for access to the individual lots along the shoreline of Prior Lake. Although an easement for access to the lakefront lots was filed, its location along the western edge of the plat, and its minimal dimension of only 20 feet of width makes it impractical for providing reasonable access. The easement crosses some of the steepest terrain between County Road 42 and the lakeshore, and crosses wetlands which cannot be filled or damaged under today's regulations. In fact, the easement has never been utilized for access to the lakeshore for just these reasons. Since the lots first had homes constructed on them, a more reasonably located, but unimproved dirt road has been used by the families for access. Since use of the existing dirt road is not ensured by any recorded easement or use agreement, we have no legal claim to its ongoing use, or expansion. Ownership of the Meadowlawn lots has become increasingly fractured over time as it has been passed on and distributed amongst the heirs of the original owners. Although we are all related, our objectives for the property have become more diverse along with the more diverse ownership. Our family has become spread out geographically and has no interest in personal use of the property; we wish to recapture our ongoing investment through the development and sale of lots on our two parcels. Other relatives maintain homes on their Meadowlawn lots and wish their privacy and isolation to be maintained. Some, like us, seek to subdivide their property for financial reasons, but at the same time won't allow us to benefit if the development of our property affects their privacy. As noted above, we have been unsuccessful in our attempts to find agreement with our adjoining family members on a mutually satisfactory public street configuration which allows us to meet our objectives. The Andrens have withdrawn their proposed Echos Subdivision rather than provide us with access as required by the Prior Lake Subdivision Code. Fanny Griffith and Genevieve Bolger, who together control the real estate between our lots and the nearest public streets, will not agree to street extensions across their property. We offer the attached preliminary plan prepared by Miles Lindberg of BRW, Inc. as the most viable, and least disruptive way to address the objectives of all parties concerned. The proposal allows us to meet our objective of development and sale of our properties, allows the subdivision of the Andren property as they originally proposed it, and provides access to Lot 3 (Bolger) and Lot 1 (Gfiffith) in much the same way as currently provided by the unimproved dirt road which crosses the north sides of Lots 14. The concept plan illustrates the extension of Carriage Hills Road across the Griffith/Bolger property from its existing westerly terminus to the planned location through the Knob Hill Plat to the west. A local street extending from Carriage Hills Road to the northern edge of Lots 1-4, and Lot 6 has been included along with a suggested lotting configuration for our properties, and for the Mr. Frank Boyles September Page 3 ,~f. Griffith/Bolger property between Carriage Hills Road and the east-west segment of the local street. This plan demonstrates that reasonable public access can be provided to Lots 2 and 4 without negative effects on our neighbors. Initially, access to Lots 2 and 4 could be provided with a westerly extension of Carriage Hills Road to the easterly local street north of the common lot line between Lots 1 and 2 (a distance of approximately 375 feet) and with a southerly and westerly extension of a local street to the cul-de-sac proposed on Lot 4 (a distance of approximately 1000 feet). Until such time as Carriage Hills Road were extended to the west connecting to the Knob Hill Plat, the initial street access described would effectively be the equivalent of a cul-de-sac street 1375 feet in length. Addition of the proposed street required to subdivide Lot 4 as shown would increase this length to approximately 1700 feet. As a point of comparison, the Chatonka Beach subdivision, and the proposed Echo subdivision to the west of our property are located on a cul-de-sac which extends over 2400 feet from the proposed location of Carriage Hills Road and which supports many more homes than proposed for our property. Actually, until there is east-west continuity created for the area by the connection of Carriage Hills Road across the Griffith/Bolger property, the entire Knob Hill subdivision, the Chatonka Beach subdivision, and the Echo subdivision, should it proceed, are all dependent on a single access point from County Road 42, and are functionally located on a cul-de-sac street of extreme length. We believe that a single access point to a neighborhood of this size should be of major concern to the City Council from a public safety standpoint, and is by itself a compelling public purpose for the immediate extension and connection of Carriage Hills Road. There are additional reasons for the extension of Carriage Hills Road that provide public purpose and support our request for the City Council to implement access improvements. The existing developed areas to the east of our property have only one option for east-west travel on the north side of the Lake; County Road 42. With the upcoming completion of the new river crossing and the improvement of County Road 16, traffic levels are certain to increase on County Road 42. Already dangerous local intersections along County Road 42 will become more hazardous as residents are required to make roms against opposing traffic to enter and leave their neighborhoods. As envisioned in the City's planning, the extension of Carriage Hills Road to County Road 21 can provide much needed relief for local traffic, and can ensure increased safety. We understand that State-Aid designation for Carriage Hills Road should make additional funding for the extension of this street available, yet none of the City's State-Aid funds have been budgeted for this purpose. The City's 5-year Capital Improvements Program also has no funds budgeted for Carriage Hills Road. For the reasons outlined above, we request that the City Council seriously consider earmarking funds for this vital link in Prior Lake's public street system as it conducts its annual review of the CIP. Mr. Frank Boyles ~g?5~ · September~l~)~ Page 4 goetq4c/' We strongly believe that our needs can be met with the appropriate City Council response to our request, and that the same improvements which we are seeking will provide a substantial public benefit to'others in the area. In closing, I want to express the willingness of family members and our representatives to meet with you and your staff, and to plead our case with the City Council in order to reach a satisfactory conclusion which benefits the majority, and causes harm to none. Sincerely,, ..~/ Charles C. Prindle for the Prindle Family CCi William Prindle Dorothy Johnson Mary Prindle Lynne Oliver Rikoh Rod Krass REQUEST FOR FEASIBILITY STUDY AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS Prior Lake, Minnesota September To the City Council of Prior Lake, Minnesota: We, the undersigned owners of Lots 2 and 4, Meadowlawn First Addition within Section 25, Township 115 North, Range 22 West, hereby petition the City of Prior Lake to initiate the preparation of a Feasibility Study for, and to Order Plans and Construct public street access to serve Lots 2 and 4 pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. Said public street access requires acquisition of fight-of-way, and construction of storm sewer, grading, aggregate base, concrete curb and gutter, bituminous surfacing, and appurtenant work. SIGNATURE OF ! DESCRIPTION OF PHONE NUMBER PROPER'I~Y Examined, checked, and found to be in proper form by: Frank Boyles, City Manager PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEME~ Prior Lake, Minnesota To the City Council of Prior Lake, Minnesota: We, the undersigned, owners of less than 35 percent of frontage of the real property abutting the proposed road to sexwe Lots 2 and 4, Meadowlawn First Addition within Section 25, Township 115 north, Range 22 west, hereby petition the City of Prior Lake to prepare a Feasibility Study for such street to be improved by the construction of storm sewer, grading, aggregate base, concrete curb and gutter, bituminous surfacing, and appurtenant work pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. SIGNATURE OF OWNER DESCRIPTION OF PHONE PROPERTY NUMBER ! Examined, checked, and found to be in proper form and to be signed by the required number of owners of property affected by the making of the improvement petitioned for. l~Trrl.m~G City Manager Frank Boyles REQUEST FOR FEASIBILITY STUDY AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS Prior Lake, Minnesota Septembe~g~J~- ~ ! To the City Council of Prior Lake, Minnesota: We, the undersigned owners of Lots 2 and 4, Meadowlawn First Addition within Section 25, Township 115 North, Range 22 West, hereby petition the City of Prior Lake to initiate the preparation of a Feasibility Study for, and to Order Plans and Construct public street access to serve Lots 2 and 4 pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. Said public street access requires acquisition of fight-of-way, and construction of storm sewer, grading, aggregate base, concrete curb and gutter, bituminous surfacing, and appurtenant work. SIGNATURE OF OWNER DESCRIPTION OF PHONE NUMBER Examined, checked, and found to be in proper form by: Frank Boyles, City Manager REQUEST FOR FEASIBILITY STUDY AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS Prior Lake, Minnesota September To the City Council of Prior Lake, Minnesota: We, the undersigned owners of Lots 2 and 4, Meadowlawn First Addition within Section 25, Township 115 North, Range 22 West, hereby petition the City of Prior Lake to initiate the preparation of a Feasibility Study for, and to Order Plans and Construct public street access to serve Lots 2 and 4 pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. Said public street access requires acquisition of right-of-way, and construction of storm sewer, grading, aggregate base, concrete curb and gutter, bituminous surfacing, and appurtenant work. SIGNATURE OF DESCRIPTION OF ER PHONE NUMBER Examined, checked, and found to be in proper form by: Frank Boyles, City Manager PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT Prior Lake, Minnesota To the City Council of Prior Lake, Minnesota: We, the undersigned, owners of less than 3~ percent of frontage of the real property abutting the proposed road to serve Lots 2 and 4, Meadowlawn First Addition within Section 25, Township 115 north, Range 22 west, hereby petition the City of Prior Lake to prepare a Feasibility Study for such street to be improved by the construction of storm sewer, grading, aggregate base, concrete curb and gutter, bituminous surfacing, and appurtenant work pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. SIGNATURE OF DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY PHONE Examined, checked, and found to be in proper form and to be signed by the required number of owners of property affected by the making of the improvement petitioned for. City Manager Frank Boyles REQUEST FOR FEASIBILITY STUDY AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS Prior Lake, Minnesota September~ To the City Council of Prior Lake, Minnesota: We, the undersigned owners of Lots 2 and 4, Meadowlawn First Addition within Section 25, Township 115 North, Range 22 West, hereby petition the City of Prior Lake to initiate the preparation of a Feasibility Study for, and to Order Plans and Construct public street access to serve Lots 2 and 4 pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. Said public street access requires acquisition of right-of-way, and construction of storm sewer, grading, aggregate base, concrete curb and gutter, bituminous surfacing, and appurtenant work. SIGNATURE OF OWNER DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY PHONE NUMBER Examined, checked, and found to be in proper form by: Frank Boyles, City Manager , i , i ! i - - , ,., , .,, ,,c. , u,I I,IJ ..o w ! 'IlV~.L 3~iVq 3~lld November 18, 1994 B RW INC. Planning Transportation Engineering Urban Design Thresher Square 700 Third Street So. Minneapolis, MN 55415 612/370-0700 Fax 612/370-1378 Denver Milwaukee Minneapolis Orlando Phoenix Portland San Diego Seattle Mr. Frank Boyles, City Manager City of Prior Lake 4629 Dakota Street S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 Subject: Public Street Access to Lots 2 and 4 Meadowlawn First Addition Dear Mr. Boyles: My client, Mr. Charles Prindle, has requested that I provide a response to a letter he received from Mr. Stephen Rathke, City Attorney. It is my understanding that the letter, written on your behalf, seeks clarification of the Prindle family's request, via petition, for public street access to their properties in the Meadowlawn subdivision. Upon receiving Mr. Prindle's request, I contacted Mr. Rathke in order to learn, first hand, what specifically needed clarification. I was told by Mr. Rathke that the basic issue was a lack of specifics concerning the extent of proposed roadway being requested by the Prindles. He described to me the process by which such petitions are evaluated, and the need to determine the percentage of ownership along proposed street frontage in order to determine the course of action to be followed by the City. Although I thought the request described in Mr. Prindle's letter was quite clear, I can understand that the accompanying plan illustrated a more complete potential local street system, without specifically identifying the minimum amount of roadway required for access, and being petitioned for. I also appreciate the City's need to carefully evaluate the request, and to proceed in accordance with the applicable State statutes. Mr. Frank Boyles November 18,1994 Page 2 The solution Mr. Rathke and I arrived at was for me to provide you with a copy of the proposed plan highlighting the public street access being requested. A similar copy, and a copy of this letter are also being forwarded to Mr. Rathke. I hope this will provide the information necessary for you to continue the processing of the Prindle's petition, I think it's fairly obvious that the petitioners account for less than 35% of the adjoining frontage. I know they are eager to have the City proceed within a timeframe that will allow including the necessary studies and the improvement in your 1995 budgets. Please contact me at 373-6341 if the attached plan does not meet your needs. If that is the case, perhaps we should arrange to meet in order to arrive at a satisfactory resolution. Sincerely, BRW, Inc. Miles Lindberg, ASLA Associate attachment CC: Mr. Stephen C. Rathke Mr. Charles Prindle Mr. William Prindle Mr. Rod Krass file: 2181.A00 December 22, 1994 Mr. Charles C. Prindle 1110 Angel Point Road Box 41 Lakeside, MT 59922 SUBJECT: PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT TO PROVIDE STREET SERVICE TO MEADOWLAWN ADDITION Dear Mr. Prindle: You have submitted a petition requesting that the city undertake a public improvement project to be financed by special assessment under Minnesota Statute 429 to provide public road access to property owned by you and others in the Prindle family. The staff has reviewed the petition and finds that approximately 25% of the the property owners abutting the public improvements, when calculated on a lineal foot basis, are represented. As you know Minnesota Statues 429 provides that the Council may consider public improvement projects regardless of the number of persons petitioning. The Prior Lake City Council practice in the past has been that it will not consider the completion of a feasibility report unless a minimum of 35 percent of the adjacent property owners petition for new improvements. The Council has also followed a practice that unless 50 percent or more of the benefiting property owners agree to the new improvement project at the public hearing stage, they do not undertake the project. The reasons are basically twofold. First the Council wishes to have majority support for new improvements and secondly they wish to minimize to the extent possible the chances for assessment appeals whereby the City would become responsible for payment of any court ordered assessment reductions. This practice dates back to previous City Councils. However, I have scheduled this item on the January 17th agenda to determine if the present Council wishes to consider your request. I thought you should know about the Council's historic practice. If this continues to be their perspective, your alternative to continue the process would be to contact adjacent property owners to increase the number of petitioners for this project. Or you can elect to drop the project altogether. The choice is yours. Council meetings take place at Prior Lake City Hall commencing at 7:30 p.m. Sincerely, Frank Boyles City Manager FB/aw FBL110.CM 16200 Eagle Creek Ave., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AH EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER JAM 17 ~9S 08:B7 BOLGER PUBLICATIOMS l! BOLGER i~5~L~C~T O~$;~;REATiVE PRIt, lTl~'l'~ P.1 January .~7, 1995 Mr. Larr~ Anderson City of l~nor Lake 4629 Dakota Street SE Prior l. ake, MN 55372 RE: Meadowlawn Dear Mx. Anderson: On December 27, 1994, Dik Bol§er, Jeff Evans of your office and t met in your offices to disaass the development proposal made to the City of Prior Lake by the Prindle family. A copy of Charles C. Princlle's letter dated September 30, 1994 is attache& The Bolger family owns Lot 3 and part of Lot 6 of Meadowlawn, as well as one-half interest in the 80 acres adjacent to the north of Meadowlawn extending northward to County Road 40_ ~rte Bolger family has no present intention to develop this land whatsoever. The Bolger family has no need of and does not desire that Carriage I-tilLs Road be extended on an east/west aligrmwnt through the 80 acre parcel. Finally, if and when the 80 acre parcel is developed, we world like Carriage HilLs Raad aligned northerly of the hill which visually separates the northerly portion of the 80 acre parcel from the southerly portion of the 80 acre parcel and Meadow)awn. Please thank Jeff Evans for visiting with us. Very txuly yours, Genevieve G. Bolger for the Jo.hn Bolger family encl. CC: Dorothy lohnson Charles C. Prindle William Prindle Charles Bolger Richard Bolger Jeff Evans Robert G. tvlitchell, Jr. 330I Cot, lo Av~..qE ML,~.~'~oaiS, MN 55414-2809 LORDS STREET ACCESS VACTION JAN 12/95 Dear Council members: I live at 4500 LORDS ST adjacent to the above mentioned access and would ask that in this hearing that all access be vacated,I.E. winter and summer. Contrary to other testimony previously given .my family has taken care of the area, picked up debris, mowed the area and generally looked after it. Additionally I feel that I probably have a right of ownership to one half of the property in question. Yours Sincerely, LAINE P DUFFS//